Saturday, January 9, 2016

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Consideration of MURIEL(by Alain Resnais & Jean Cayrol) and ATLANTIC CITY(by Louis Malle & John Guare) — and some notes on THE EXORCIST by William Friedkin and William Blatty. Part 1.

For Part 2 of this Blogpost, Click Here.

Topics Discussed: Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, French New Wave, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Jeanne Dielmann, Chantal Akerman, Sight & Sound 2012 Film Poll, Le Mepris, Jules and Jim, Dziga Vertov, Man with a Movie Camera, Sergei Eisenstein, Battleship Potemkin, Leni Riefenstahl, Olympia, Communism, Incompatibility of ethnicity and ideology, Homosexual elitism, Jewish supremacism, two forms of leftism, Right's problem with libertarianism and meritocratism, goats and sheep, "privil rights" than civil rights, 'glamorality', communism as prison system, communist paradox of correct 'freedom', Abraham and Isaac, Chechenism, Chrislam, Jewish communists and Christian Churches in Russia, Destroying body of Church vs Destroying Soul of Church, George Lucas as a 'political' film-maker, New Hollywood, politics of idealism, the politics of dogmatism/commitment, the politics of opportunism, and the politics of truth, Christian Right's slavishness to the super-rich, why super-rich Jews favor Democrats over Republicans, American Conservatives and Palestinians, nature of 'truth', liberal humanism and conservative humanism, Lina Wertmuller, art as empathy, propaganda charading as art, Jews and idolatry, moral and political problems of true art, Jewish misuse of empathy, Cult of Reason and imperialism, Victoria Nuland, objectivity and contextuality, Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Jews on Palestine and Vietnam, Munich, Steven Spielberg, Libertarianism and gambling, libertarianism and human nature, M*A*S*H, image vs ability, wasp vs Jew, problems of 'group defamation' and 'hate speech' legislation, 'white privilege', Federico Fellini, White Sheik, Eric Rohmer, Six Moral Tales, Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut, photography, cinemythia, Citizen Kane, passive - responsive - reactive - proactive , Odysseus, Japan, Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Bresson, spirituality, John Carpenter, Halloween, Carrie, Brian DePalma, William Friedkin, The Exorcist, Cruising, ‘shamepathy’, cuckservatives, Ingmar Bergman, Sinister, Ethan Hawke, President’s Analyst, France, Great Britain, Continental Europe, English language, American English as new 'lingua franca'.

Alain Resnais was one of the more enigmatic figures in cinema. Though well-known and widely admired in the film community, he failed to garner the long-term attention and following of other French film-makers such as Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, and others. Despite his respected standing in the film community, most of his later films didn’t attract the kind of attention that greeted new films by Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, and even Rivette. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of any film of Resnais since the 1980s that was treated as an ‘event’. This may seem odd since Resnais’s HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was one of the most praised and discussed films of the late 50s and early 60s. And his Holocaust short film NIGHT AND FOG remains one of the most powerful statements on the subject(even though some of the ‘facts’ in the film about the Nazi death camps have since been disproved, a matter hardly discussed in cultural circles since the Holocaust has become a matter of faith and worship than historical study and remembrance). Resnais, though older than most of the famous French New Wave directors, managed to outlive most of them.
Why was Resnais eclipsed by the likes of Godard and Truffaut? Because Godard and Truffaut started out with a bang with, respectively, BREATHLESS and 400 BLOWS? But HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was a sensation and a much-discussed ‘cultural event’ among film lovers and the chattering classes. (But then, Resnais had already been an established director of documentaries considerably before HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR.) Was it because his films were more intellectual and ‘difficult’ than the work of other French directors? Were Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol, among others, more referential to American cinema and culture, thus making them more engaging and exciting, at least for American critics and viewers? Was Resnais ‘too European’? Was there an age factor? Being, on average, 10-15 yrs older than most New Wave directors, did he lack their youthful spirit and spark? But Eric Rohmer was even older than Resnais, yet many of his films continued to be released across art house theaters in America in the 80s and 90s. In contrast, many of Resnais’s films in the 80s and 90s could only be seen at film festivals in America. MELO, one of his most celebrated films of the 1980s, didn’t get theatrical release in America. (But then, Gilles Mimouni’s L’APPARTEMENT, surely one of the greatest films ever made, didn’t get theatrical release either in America. Who-decides-these-things-and-why is a topic for those who know the ins-and-outs of film distribution.) Another factor may have been Resnais’s relatively benign personality and bland demeanor. Anyone who’d seen and heard Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol couldn’t help but be struck by their personalities(minted for cult appreciation), but even in a lengthy interview Resnais doesn’t come across as much of a personality. Also, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR notwithstanding, Resnais’s films have generally been elusive and slippery, more introspective than extroverted.
Robert Bresson may not have been the most popular director that ever lived, but there was an unshakeable force, a mulish stubbornness, that compelled attention. His cinema may not look straight at you, but it stands in front of you; it obstructs your path and refuses to budge.
Resnais’s cinema operates around the corner of your eyes. The viewer is made to feel like a kid trying to figure out why the refrigerator light goes out when he closes the door. In the 2012 SIGHT AND SOUND poll, the highest ranked French film is Jean Renoir’s THE RULES OF THE GAME at #4. Next is L’ATLANTE by Jean Vigo at #12. Right behind at #13 is BREATHLESS by Jean-Luc Godard. At #16 is AU HASARD BALTHAZAR. At #21 is LE MEPRIS by Godard. #29 is SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann. #36 is JEANNE DIELMAN by the hideous Chantal Akerman. It’s an honor that is utterly inexplicable but then all-too-explicable, i.e. JEANNE DIELMANN is probably the worst film ever made by the worst director that ever lived but given its pretensions and pedigree — made by a ‘radical’, ‘transgressive’, ‘subversive’ ‘anti-normative’ lesbian Jewish Marxist feminist, the type favored and promoted by the academia — , it’s hardly surprising that all the lemmings in the film community voted for the film. It was their way of signaling to one another that they belong to a special ‘radical’ tribe and feel superior to all those ‘mainstream’ people who just don’t get it and would never get it. Of course, voting for something like JEANNE DIELMAN is a double or even triple form of ‘radical’ snobbery. Saying that you dig it means (1) you go for ‘art films’ (2) you go for the ‘truly radical’ art film that even most cinephiles wouldn’t understand (3) you’re so far ahead of the intellectual curve that things like characterization, narrative, and whatever else mean nothing to you. (Boy, aren’t we impressed?!?)
But then, the sort of clowns who go for JEANNE DIELMAN wanna have the cake and eat it too. Right after hailing it as ‘one of the greatest films ever made’, they pontificate about some superhero movie or Tarantino junk to show that they aren’t just ‘intellectual’, ‘serious’, ‘purist’, and/or ‘elitist’ but also hip and cool. A bunch of phony-baloners.
At any rate, continuing with the SIGHT & SIGHT POLL, at #39 is 400 BLOWS by Truffaut. At #43 is PIERROT LE FOU by Godard. Tied at #43 is PLAYTIME by Jacques Tati. At #48 is HISTOIRE(s) DU CINEMA by Godard. At #50 is LA JETEE by Chris Marker. At #59 is THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE by Jean Eustache. At #63 is PICKPOCKET by Bresson. Tied at #69 are SANS SOLEIL by Marker and A MAN ESCAPED by Robert Bresson. Tied at #73 are THE CHILDREN OF PARADISE by Marcel Carne and THE GRAND ILLUSION by Jean Renoir. At #78 is BEAU TRAVAIL by Claire Denis. At #90 is PARTIE DE CHAMPAGNE by Renoir. At #93 is UN CHIEN ANDALOU by Luis Bunuel. Tied at #93 is EARRINGS OF MADAME DE by Max Ophuls. At #102 is TWO OR THREE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER by Godard. Finally, tied at #102 is a film by Alain Resnais: LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR shows up at #127. MURIEL shows up at #377.

Of course, such polls serve less as a gauge of artistic worth than as a barometer of trends in the film community made up mostly of academic geeks, privileged ‘radicals’, and obsessive film buffs who need to get a life. While SIGHT & SOUND’s top 20 are, generally solid, the list gets sillier as it goes on. Even in the top 20, THE SEARCHERS by John Ford, APOCALYPSE NOW by Francis Ford Coppola, and MIRROR by Andrei Tarkovsky are deeply suspect. Ford’s movie is undoubtedly one of the most important in cinema, but in the top 10? APOCALYPSE NOW features awesome film-making up to the helicopter attack scene but is mostly downhill from there(though not without interest), and it has a monumentally stupid final part. And anyone who knows anything about cinema knows Tarkovsky’s ANDREI RUBLEV and STALKER are his best works. MIRROR is, at best, an interesting failure.
After the top 20, the list grows ever more suspect. LE MEPRIS is ‘bad Antonioni’ by Godard, the sort of thing done much better by David Hockney the painter. (Incidentally, a ‘bad Antonioni’ by Antonioni himself, like ZABRISKIE POINT, is a lot more fun than LE MEPRIS, the arid modernism of which sucks the life out of the Aegean, but then I suppose that was precisely the point. Godard’s journalistic and poetic instincts, ranging from incisive to intimate, are ill-suited for the semi-epic scope of the production. The film looks threadbare by epic standards and over-dressed for New Wave spontaneity/experimentalism. It is also too detached for tragedy and overly somber for satire.) Its appeal as a slick art film with big stars, sterile tragedy, anti-Americanism is understandable, but #21? Really?
And then, there’s Wong Kar-Wai’s IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE at #24, by golly.
Like Godard’s film with Bardot, Wong’s experiment-in-style is another one of the art film as fashion statements. SHOAH surely made the list for its subject matter and pretentiousness. JEANNE DIELMAN at #36 means there are lots of Jewish and/or feminist degenerates and their castrated gentile mental-slaves in the film community who are so eager to show off their ‘transgressive’ credentials. No sane person can, with genuine honesty, claim to like it.
It is one of those films one has to force oneself to swallow as bitter but necessary pill because "it’s good for you."
LE MEPRIS by Jean-Luc Godard
PIERROT LE FOU is at #43. Like LE MEPRIS, its appeal is a case of having the cake and eating it too. Among cinephiles, Godard is like a god. But deep down inside, many of them don’t like nor enjoy most of his films. But with LE MEPRIS and PIERROT LE FOU, you get the Godardian ‘subversive’ medicine sugarcoated in the colorful menagerie of celebrity and handsome actors. But there’s clearly something wrong when a whole bunch of critics think more highly of PIERROT LE FOU(let alone the ghastly JEANNE DIELMAN) than JULES AND JIM.
But then, it’s possible that many critics didn’t vote for JULES AND JIM because they expected others to do so. Or maybe many new voters were eager to show off their ‘intellectual’ credentials by including films that are relatively more obscure than the iconic ‘art films’, such as JULES AND JIM, possibly the most popular among all the French New Wave films, so much so that its poster was featured in VANILLA SKY by the lackluster Cameron Crowe.
Maybe many voters were using the list to show solidarity with cinema-as-radical-statement-and-movement. Some critics probably voted for films that they thought no one else would while others voted strategically to help certain films rise up the ranks. Given all these considerations, the SIGHT AND SOUND POLL isn’t meant to be any kind of rational or objective ranking of great films.
Despite all that, given that every voter was given only 10 choices, it boggles the mind that so many people would include stuff like LE MEPRIS, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, MIRROR, and especially JEANNE DIELMAN. If you wanna tell the world that you’re ‘transgressive’ and ‘radical’ because you’re an Akerman fan, okay, but does anyone really think any of her films could possibly be among the10 greatest films? It’s a willful act of mental retardation posing as intellectual sophistication and radical chic. It’s all the more amusing when you consider that most admirers of Akerman are the fancy-pants crowd who hangs around the privileged class in affluent cities and the most elite colleges around the world. Since the elites are economically and socially far above us, they practice their ‘equality’ by pushing nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ and including JEANNE DIELMAN on their top ten list of greatest films of all time. "I’m richer than you, have a better job than you, I hang around privileged pals and associates, and I am favored by the global elites, BUT I’m more egalitarian than you because I dig a three-and-half film where a woman peels potatoes and shines shoes because it is a ‘profound’ statement about the bourgeois enslavement of women or some such."

From an academic point of view, it’s puzzling as to why Resnais isn’t as ENTHUSIASTICALLY admired as some of the other French film-makers. After all, plenty of academics and serious film critics have high regard for Resnais, not least because of his modernist experimentalism and ideological leftism. Some of the most influential critics in the past 30 yrs such as Dave Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and J. Hoberman haven’t been remiss in their duty to praise Resnais’s works, and I’m sure there have been plenty of University Press releases of studies of Resnais’s films. But then, why the relative lack of a cultist following among cinephiles? Why does Dziga Vertov’s MAN WITH MOVIE CAMERA rank so high but nothing by Resnais? Why are there several Godard films in the top 50 of the SIGHT AND SIGHT poll but a Resnais film shows up only at #102? Just how did Chantal Akerman manage to get one in at #36? Perhaps, answering some of these questions will get us closer to the strengths and weaknesses of Resnais’s films.

Perhaps, one reason is the relative lack of association with events-favored-by-the-left in the films of Resnais. Hiroshima may have been a major event, but the Holocaust is what matters in our times. While ‘progressives’ may feel that the bombing of Hiroshima was overkill, many of them still see it as an act of necessity or justice against a nation that was allied with evil Nazi Germany. Also, Jews don’t want any event to compete with the Holocaust, not Hiroshima, not the Great Leap Forward, not the Great Famine in Ukraine.
MURIEL touches on the Algerian War. Though the subject can still touch a nerve in France, it means little outside France. Besides, THE movie on the subject of the Algerian War is Gillo Pontecorvo’s THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS. As MURIEL only circles around the subject, it is nowhere nearly as compelling, at least in an obvious way. LA GUERRE IST FINIE touches on the Spanish Civil War but, like MURIEL, only elliptically in a roundabout manner. Perhaps, this side-glance approach lacks the kind of force and impact one expects from a truly ‘great film’. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA(that came in at top ten), one could argue, is also a somewhat elusive and slippery work. Unlike BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN or OCTOBER by Eisenstein, it’s less an ideological expression than an avant-garde experiment. It’s more about aesthetic revolution than political revolution. The invalidation of communism hasn’t detracted from the
Eisenstein’s expressive genius, but as his films are inseparable from political events depicted, they are about a revolution that happened and failed than about a revolution of endless potential that theoretically might have succeeded. Because MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA doesn’t touch on specific political events and is primarily concerned with possibilities of art and technology in relation to the revolution, it has the same appeal to armchair leftists that Ayn Rand’s futurist-fantasies have to libertarians. It’s more about what-can-be and what-will-be than what-has-been and what-is-done. Eisenstein’s films feature revolutionary-theory-forced-on-social-reality and declare it to be a tremendous success, but then history proved otherwise. In contrast, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA plays with the concept of how revolutionary theory may interact with endless facets of reality and leaves it open to all sorts of possibilities. Thus, it comes across less as a propaganda for what has been done than a proposition of all the things that might be done. Also, with the camera used as metaphor for self-conscious mind of the revolution, it is as much about psychological revolution as social revolution, and of course, psychology is more universal and timeless than politics.
BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN by Sergei Eisenstein
In a way, the elevation of Vertov’s film over Eisenstein’s — no less than the elevation of VERTIGO over CITIZEN KANE but even more surprising because Vertov’s film rose almost out of nowhere — signifies the change in the ideological attitude of the globalist left. Though POTEMKIN was admired mostly for its use of montage, there’s no doubt that many critics and scholars have repeatedly voted for it since the 1950s out of ideological commitment to the cause. Even non- and anti-communist critics and scholars sympathized with the element of rebellion and uprising, the dream of a new order, as depicted in the film. While its use of montage still remains powerful and fresh, the narrative now seems cartoonish and even distasteful, given the bloody history of communism and its ignominious downfall. Thus, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA may hold more appeal. Since its less blatant in its political expression, it can be admired for its intellectual and formal qualities.
On the other hand, since Vertov was a communist, his film can stand for the hope of true liberation and experimentation(that had supposedly been the hallmarks of the early years of the Revolution) that was betrayed by Stalin and his goons, i.e. the revolution initially brimmed with excitement and new ideas but was restrained and suppressed by colorless bureaucrat Stalin and his henchmen who turned the Soviet Union into an Orwellian nightmare.
It is, of course, a myth, as even though it’s true enough that the revolution in its early stages was more tolerant of dissident elements and artistic innovators, neither the revolution nor the revolutionary artists believed in freedom of expression for everyone. Before Stalin went after the avant-garde Marxist artists, the latter had supported the total destruction of anti- and non-leftists artists and intellectuals. Vertov was satisfied that ‘reactionary’ artists were being dragged off to the Gulag and being shot.
Anyway, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA has the same kind of appeal that OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl and INTOLERANCE by D.W. Griffith have. If TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and THE BIRTH OF A NATION were blatantly political — and became embarrassing later for that reason — , even anti-Nazis and anti-‘racists’ could admire the aspects of OLYMPIA and INTOLERANCE as bold aesthetic experiments. Of course, there are ideological ramifications all over OLYMPIA, but they are conveyed more as expression than statement, which makes the film more acceptable than Riefenstahl’s other great film.
OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl
Thus paradoxically, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is more acceptable to the wider base of film enthusiasts precisely for its avant garde experimentalism that is usually associated with difficult and exclusivity. Though BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN is narratively, emotionally, and formalistically more accessible, its blatant politics has somewhat undermined its appeal — though not by much as it’s still very close to the top 10 — whereas Vertov’s film, though more ‘difficult’, can be appreciated merely as a film experiment than as a ‘dated’ revolutionary statement. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is associated with but not slavish to the Revolution.
The rise of Vertov’s reputation may also owe to the fact that Jean-Luc Godard once ran a radical film organization called the Dziga Vertov Group(made up of members ranging from two to three men). The resulting films were so terrible that even hardcore leftists generally avoided them — or could hardly stay awake through them — , but the Godard mystique surely helped revive interest in Vertov by association. Since no one cares about the films of the Dziga Vertov Group, why not profusely praise the most famous film by Vertov himself?

Except for the inclusion of THE SEARCHERS, the top 20 list of SIGHT AND SOUND may also signify the feminization and homo-ization of the film community. Female-obsessed VERTIGO stole the top slot from the very masculine CITIZEN KANE. The two top Japanese films, TOKYO STORY and LATE SPRING, are by Yasujiro Ozu, a director who might have been a homo. Some of these films clearly have resonances beyond the aesthetic. A film may have been voted for being ‘representative of a nation with a rich history in cinema’. Some critics may have favored PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC as a kind of feminist statement. Some may have voted for THE SEARCHERS to honor the ‘auteur theory’ or as a key statement/critique about American ‘racism’. Obviously, many voted for BREATHLESS to honor the French New Wave as a seminal event. Though there are plenty of French films that are greater, BREATHLESS had a greater cultural impact than most, and its verve and spirit have inspired several generations of would-be film-makers, especially with the digital camera having made everyone a film-maker of sorts. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE may have garnered many votes as ‘representative of 1990s cinema’, especially to counter the tendency of these lists to be ‘conservatively’ pegged to favor older ‘canonical’ films. It also could have been a nod to the riveting cinema industry and culture that grew up around Hong Kong in the 80s and 90s. Thus, when voters cast ballots, they rarely think purely in artistic terms. They choose films that embody or signify larger themes, symbols, and concerns. They make cultural, moral, fashion, and/or political statements. Especially the politically or ideologically minded tend to be suspicious of the notion of pure aestheticism or art-for-art’s-sake. They see it as lacking in commitment, a kind of bourgeois compromise with privilege, which is rather amusing since Jews and homos, the two most privileged groups in the globalist capitalist order, tend to dominate ideological and political thinking in the West.
Since the arts have generally been the preserve of the rich and privileged, modern artists and critics have clung to political commitment as an expression of their purity. In other words, they are not making art merely to please themselves and a coterie of admirers but to ‘change the world’ or to subvert the system founded on inequality and privilege. (It is amusing, however, that so many people fail to notice that the overly privileged Jews and homos keep getting more and more privileged in the name of undermining ‘privilege’.) Of course, politics has always been problematic to the arts because purity in politics has rarely coincided with the needs of art. Possibly even more problematic is the fact that politics is, by its nature, impure. Though radical activists cling to a pure utopian view of the world, politics in the real world works through compromise and deal-making, not through purism. Politics is inherently ‘corrupt’ and ‘compromised’. Every politician has had to tell lies and make backroom deals. He’s had to dilute his principles and shake all sorts of hands. He’s had to pander to the rich and powerful. This is the curse of politics but also its blessing. Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot amassed sufficient power to push radical actions and programs in a purist manner and, in the process, brought forth WWII, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields. Throughout the 20th century, many intellectuals romanticized the radical revolutionary warrior with a pure heart. John Reed idealized Lenin and Trotsky. Edgar Snow idolized Mao Zedong. Jean-Paul Sartre and 60s radicals revered Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh as pure-hearted sage/poet warriors. In the end, men of compromise and even ‘corruption’ did better by their nations than the purist radicals did.
Indeed, one of the great appeals of fascism was it began as an ideology of compromise once Mussolini ditched the radical leftist view of internationalism and anti-capitalism. He forged his ideology on the basis of making different sectors and groups in society come to some kind of mutual and complementary understanding. And Hitler played along similar lines brilliantly until his radical ambition got the better of him. It wasn’t Hitler’s intention to round up every German communist and send him to a prison camp. He was more than happy to have German communists switch loyalties and work with National Socialist Germans. If German communists hoped to overthrow the entire system, burn down churches, and exterminate the bourgeoisie, Hitler’s design was to make different classes, sectors, groups, and interests work together, with the exception of Jews. Though Nazi policy on Jews was extreme and later downright crazy and murderous, given recent events in the West it’s not difficult to understand why ‘anti-Semites’ feared and hated the Jews. Jews have finally come out of the bag in the 21st century, and many of them have shown themselves to be hideous subverters and destroyers of the white race and Western civilization, as well as gluttonous pigs and insatiable parasites of power.

At any rate, though different groups can get at each other’s throats, they are also good at different things and possess unique talents. The problem of communism was it soon became overburdened with the task of running everything once it gained monopoly over everything. Since it destroyed the church, it had to provide the spiritual element in society. Since it destroyed the business class, it had to run all the enterprises and manage all the workers. Instead of trying to find the symbiotic links and relations among the various spheres in society, communists sought to own and control all. Communist triumph led to immense power but also obligated the state to run and manage everything for everyone from cradle to grave. Communism became not only repressive for the masses but burdensome for the elites.
Therefore, the so-called ‘fall of the Soviet Union’ was really a case of Russian elites letting go of the burden on their shoulders. They weren’t overthrown; they threw off their obligations to the people as state coffers were running dry. The elites and cunning wanna-be-elites(mostly Jews) figured, "Why not end communism, grab most of the national loot for ourselves, and become the new oligarchs?"
The point of fascism was to work with the enterprising and productive capitalist class. Let the businessman grow rich, but the state would exert pressure on the capitalist class to be patriotic and serve the nation. Without such fascist pressures from government and society-at-large, the rich classes might only care about themselves and link up with globalist elites(many of them Jews) while neglecting their less well-off brethren back home. (One of the major contradictions of American politics is due to the incompatibility of ethnicity and ideology. Currently, the two groups most closely associated with American ‘leftism’ are Jews and homos. Outwardly, this makes sense since Jews and homos have a long history of being discriminated against. So, naturally they have identified with the underprivileged throughout history and around the world. But, Jews and homos tend to be, respectively, ethnocentrically supremacist and egocentrically supremacist. Jewish credo was never egalitarian but supremacist in regarding the Jewish race to be the Chosen of God, the superior people. Also, as Jews became adept at business, law, and academics, they began to feel intellectually and economically superior to other races. So, even though Jews did face discrimination and intolerance from gentiles, they also aimed to beat out all the competition and reach the top. [Ironically, Jews often faced discrimination not because they were seen as inferior but superior in talent. Thus, there was an egalitarian leftist element in ‘antisemitism’ that feared the elite power of Jews. If indeed Jews remained equal to everyone else, why would gentiles have the rise of Jewish wealth and power?] The very character of Jewish culture is, therefore, not leftist or egalitarian. Or, it was an accidental kind of egalitarianism due to social conditions and history. Given freedom and equality under the law, Jews were equipped for meritocratic and tribal-networking reasons to beat out all the competition and become king-of-the-hill. Likewise, homos are naturally a narcissistic, preening, snobby, and bitchy bunch. Queers act like the Queen in SNOW WHITE: "Mirror mirror the Wall...". So, homosexuality’s association with leftism is also accidental. Because homosexuals faced discrimination and persecution in the past, they alliance with the left has essentially been for symbolic reasons. But the core of homo culture was to gain power, wealth, & privilege, and to dilly-dally with the fancy crowd. Also, the rich class was bound to appreciate homosexuals more than the poor masses were. As the rich were better-educated and more cultured, even their anti-homosexual attitudes tended to be less violent and crude than that of the unwashed mobs who were given to name-calling, vulgarity, and fisticuffs. Also, as rich folks appreciated arts, culture, and fancy stuff, they came to appreciate the homosexual knack for such things. So, homosexuals impressed the privileged and the sophisticated classes. Though the homo agenda goes under the rubric of ‘leftism’, its sneering tone, bitchy demeanor, and narcissistic demands are not unlike the airs once put on by the aristocratic class. It’s no wonder that Wall Street oligarchs, Hollywood moguls, Las Vegas tycoons, Silicon Valley neo-aristocrats, and Ivy League snobs appreciate the homos. Homos are a means for them to exercise their elitist snobbery behind the mask of ‘leftism’. Homos demand ‘equality’, but they are championing their own privilege to change the fundamental values of society for reasons of self-aggrandizement. Anyway, because Jews and homos once faced discrimination, they came to side with the left that challenged the conservative establishment and traditional values & prejudices. But once they won the freedom under the Rule of Law to do as they please and succeed to their full content and then some, they reached the top of the institutions & industries and threw their weight around like the masters of the universe. But since their rise to power was justified in the name of ‘leftist fight for equality’, they still cling to the old conceit even though they are the least equal and most privileged/powerful groups in America. Indeed, Jews and homos are very clever in making people bow down to Jewish-and-homo-power in the guise of Jewish-and-homo-powerlessness. If Jews-and-homos were to show off their power and demand that people kowtow before them, we would come to realize that Jews and homos are the kings and queens of America. But if Jews and homos force people to kowtow to Jewish-and-homo power via the symbolism of Jewish victim-hood or homo saintliness, then we will be fooled into thinking we are not bowing down to a great power but being kind-hearted in their support of a much victimized people. So, every goy politician is dragged to Israel and made to bow before the Wailing Wall — even though the real reason why the goy is kneeling before Jews has more to do with Wall Street than the Wailing Wall. And even though straight folks have to bend over to homo power out of fear — as anyone who badmouths homosexuality will be targeted and destroyed as a ‘homophobe’ by the government, media, and banks run by Jews and homos — , they are made to wave the ‘rainbow flag’ and swallow the bogus myth that angelic homos need their kind-hearted protection from bullies and meanies. Indeed, we have a strange kind of ‘leftism’ in America when it is essentially defined, shaped, and warped by two of the most powerful and privileged groups in America. Thus, we see less and less unity and amity between the ruling Liberal elites and the masses of underprivileged people made up of ‘white trash’, blacks, Hispanics, and others. Strangely enough, the main supporters of today’s ‘left’ are the affluent children of the yuppies in gentrified big cities and elite college towns. [Granted, one could argue that there were two kinds of leftism, just like there were two kinds of humanism. The humanism of the Renaissance was elitist and about the highest achievements of mankind, whereas the humanism of the 20th century was essentially about the moral worth of every man, however poor or humble he may be. BICYCLE THIEVES and IKIRU were about the latter kind of humanism. Likewise, one kind of leftism was about justice and equality for the workers, farmers, laborers, the poor, the oppressed, and etc. But another kind of leftism was elitist and ‘radical’ in the notion that only the most intelligent, creative, sophisticated, visionary, and/or imaginative could conceive of something prophetic and revolutionary that will profound alter the trajectory of the world. There was an element of both kinds of leftism in Marxism as Marx claimed to have arrived at a profound truth that could only have been discovered by a visionary genius, and yet, this truth was about creating a new order that would bring equal justice to all humans. But the two kinds of leftism never made for a good marriage since creative avant-garde elites and the masses never saw eye-to-eye on much of anything. If the creative types are enamored of the cachet of the new and original, the masses prefer the familiar and accessible, which often happen to be conservative-in-character. Since the masses could not be elevated or won over to genuine intellectual avant-garde-ism, the most effective way to undermine their conservatism was to hook them to consumerism, especially of popular culture. Pop culture isn’t demanding and is accessible to all, but it keeps changing with the fashions, and this constant mania for new trends and styles has had the effect of turning people away from conservatism. Traditionally, people relied on conservatism as a crutch against a fast-changing world that seemed alienating, threatening, and strange. But once change was associated with orgasmic fun, titillation, and pleasure via pop culture, the masses embraced Las Vegas as their new cultural home. Today, the humanist version of leftism is all but dead and what seems to be thriving is the homo-transhumanist elitist form of ‘leftism’. The ‘leftism’ of the elites isn’t all that different from the vision of Ayn Rand except that it’s much more dishonest. Rand shamelessly championed the ideal of the super-intelligent and super-creative as the superior individual who should amass great power, freedom, and influence to do as he pleases, whereas the super-intelligent who rule as the globalist-elites pretend have equality on their minds 24/7, even though their idea of ‘equality’ is generally fixated on something as ludicrous as ‘marriage quality’ that favors ‘gay marriage’ but not ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy.] Anyway, the American Right also suffers from a contradiction of ideology and ethnicity/demography. True rightism must be nationalist or tribalist. Among any group, there are smart people, average people, and dumb people. It’s like a family can have a smart kid, average kid, and dumb kid. But family sticks together and takes care of all its members because they are all part of the family. Likewise, true rightism must care for its people/tribe over others. Therefore, white rightism must think in terms of white power and white interests before all else. Jews understand this, which is why Zionist Israel favors all Jews over all Palestinians, just like Apartheid South Africa favored whites over blacks. When the dominant majority is powerful and secure enough, it can be generous toward minorities and allow some degree of individual meritocracy based on universal Rule of Law. But when the group itself is threatened or challenged in an existential way, all its members must close ranks and favor their own kind. So, even though rightism should prize excellence and talent, it must also emphasize identity and unity. And that means a rich white person should feel something for average white people and dumb white people. After all, they are all part of the racial/cultural family. To a patriotic Frenchman, an average Frenchman and dumb Frenchman are no less Frenchman than a smart Frenchman. Libertarianism has done great harm to White Rightism because it emphasized individualism over all else. Even if Libertarian individualism claims to be opposed to leftism and anti-white ideologies, it nevertheless undermines white identity and white unity. Thus atomizing whites into individuals who only care about ‘myself’, libertarianism has corroded conservatism and rightism from within. Indeed, if every grain of cement saw itself individually instead of as part of solid block, the cement would never hold and would crumble like sand. Libertarianism turned the cement of white unity into white sand. A castle made of cement/concrete lasts a hell of a lot longer than a castle made of sand. This is why FDR’s New Deal and Hitler’s National Socialism got something right in fusing nationalism with socialism. For there to be a feeling of unity and power, the system must be geared to offer something for everyone within the group. Of course, American Conservatives can argue that capitalism is great for everyone, and this may have been true when America practiced a kind of National Capitalism where what was good for General Motors was good for America. But global capitalism has no such sense of national loyalty. Corporations will play the entire world to rake maximum profits for themselves while leaving their own people in the dust. If there is to be a New Right, it must be developed in the form of the New Deal[without the quasii-Marxist overtones] or National Socialism[without the crazy racial theories]. Today, we have a strange kind of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ in America where the most powerful and privileged groups, the Jews and homos, claim to be for ‘equality’, whereas the bulk of white gentiles, who aren’t particularly talented or intelligent, are under the delusion that individualist meritocratic plutocratism is good for them, indeed as if every single one of them is going to be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. It’s about time that most white people admit that they are average and nothing special, therefore, their real power must derive from unity in numbers and purpose than from ultra-individualist self-interest. And they must come to realize that the richest, most powerful, and most privileged groups in America, namely the Jews-Homos-Liberal-Wasps-Asians, are NOT on their side. White conservatives and rightists must break out of the illusion that success/power/privilege = white conservatism. Unless this stumbling block is overcome, American politics will continue to be absurd, contradictory, and ludicrous.) Notice how rich whites prefer to dilly dally with powerful Jews, privileged homos, and fancy mulattos than serve the interests of their own white race. Of course, Jews are fascistic in maintaining their Jewish-centrism. Jews hate nationalism/fascism in non-Jews — as gentiles might get the idea to unite fascistically against the Jew — , but they practice it amongst their own kind. Of course, as Jews control the media and the terminology, they never refer to their own nationalism/fascism as such but shield with mantras of ‘remembering the Holocaust’, ‘fighting white privilege’, ‘protecting helpless Israel from neo-Nazi Muslims’ and etc. In this, Jews are of course lot smarter than gentiles. When blacks wanted more power, they shouted out for "Black Power". When Jews want more power for themselves, they don’t shout out "Jewish Power" but point to "White Power"(as the problem). Blacks, by screaming ‘Black Power’, come across as threatening and aggressive. They seem far more powerful than they really are. Clever Jews act like they themselves are powerless and scream about ‘White Power’ as the power that needs to be confronted. Thus, Jews justify more wealth, privilege, and power for themselves as necessary to resist and struggle against ‘white power’. Thus, Jewish power, even as it grows ever greater, still dons the mask of powerlessness that is nobly and courageously fighting ‘white power’. A ghetto black will act like he’s the most powerful mofo in the world whereas a billionaire Jew will act like he just staggered out of the Nazi death camps and need protection from ‘white power’ in America that, having once excluded Jews from country clubs, might as well be the equivalent of Nazism. You always gotta watch out for the Jews.

It is, of course, easier to talk politics than walk politics, which is why the academia and ‘fringe groups’ are ideologically purer than actual politicians. Also, to be favored by the MSM and make decent money from journalism, one has to be approved by the powers-that-be, which means one cannot overly rock the boat. Even so, the idea of purity in politics or ideology is a tricky proposition. It could mean being pure to the cause/dogma or pure to one’s own conscience. Generally, the former kind of purists far outnumber the latter kind as people are generally sheep than goats. Most people are lemmings and refuse to think as individuals. They fail to develop genuine personal consciences. Their entire sense of right-and-wrong comes from public education/indoctrination, religion, popular culture, academia, and etc. People are also naturally afraid of being ostracized, and so there’s an element of Stockholm Syndrome in most cases. If you’re the lone outsider among a crowd of like-minded thinkers, something within you anxiously craves approval, and eventually, you may cave to the collective consensus.
Perhaps, one advantage of most people being sheep or lemmings is that it has allowed the development of great religions, movements, and systems. If everyone is a stubborn goat, the world around them may not coalesce into a great power or system. For stars to form in the universe, cosmic dust must gather around a cluster. As the center grows bigger, it gains greater gravitational pull and other dust ‘sheepishly’ move toward it to produce a bigger and bigger mass. Without such dynamics, stars would never have materialized. Suppose every piece of cosmic dust acted like a stubborn goat and insisted on its own ‘agenda’. They would never come together to form stars. At any rate, most cosmic dust act like sheep and move toward the greater gravitational mass or pull. Same happens among humans. A religion is essentially something started by one goat but followed by a million sheep. If everyone had the will-power and individuality of a Jesus or a Muhammad, no one would follow anyone and everyone would expect everyone else to follow him. Jews know this. They are the goats of society, and they expect us to be sheep who revolve around them. (Some Jews even look like goats.) The danger of playing the goat is ending up as the scapegoat, as happened to many strong-willed individuals who ended up as martyrs. But if one plays it right, one can gain control of the world through one’s own myth(as Jesus did despite being ‘sacrificed’ and killed in flesh) or one’s own manliness-and-myth(as Muhammad did, becoming supremely powerful in his lifetime and gaining immortal glory thereafter). Hitler also understood the one-goat-and-million-sheep dynamics of social psychology. He played the role of angry and charismatic goat who won over the hearts and minds of millions of German sheep. Jews point to the dangers of such ‘irrationality’ but pull the same trick on all of us. Jewish control and use of media, culture, education, and propaganda are hardly different in purpose from the tactics used by Joseph Goebbels. In political and ideological terms, true rationalism is essentially dead and indeed never worked with most people because most people, as natural sheep, cannot or will not think with individual/personal conscience. Just how did US turn pro-‘gay’ so fast? It all had to do with mass manipulation by the Jews via control of the media. Since it would have been uncouth for Jews to do it in the name of their own privilege or ‘gay’ privilege’, they wrapped the issue around the notion of ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights’. It’s a dirty trick but effective if you control the media, academia, pop culture, and government.
For example, the US invasion of Iraq was Zionist-American aggression against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. But US media controlled by Jews framed the debate in terms of ‘national defense’ against WMD. So, even though US was the aggressor, the media justified US aggression as America defending itself, as if preemptive strike, against a nation that supposedly was stockpiling WMD to bring about a thousand 9/11's on American soil. Or consider how Nazis and Communist framed their own aggressions. Even as Hitler played the aggressor, he framed everything in terms of Germans defending their territory and rights against others, a lie perpetrated in Pat Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR. And even as the Soviet Union funded communist wars all over the world, their agents in the US pushed the Peace Movement. In Vietnam, North was the aggressor against the South. If the North had given up its agenda to invade the South, US would have stayed out of the war. US, in trying to defend South Vietnam from communism, got involved, but the ‘progressive’ community made US the aggressors against the ‘peaceful’ Vietnamese. According to ‘anti-war’ activists, Soviet aid to North Vietnam was not warmongering. North Vietnam’s aggression against South Vietnam was not an act of war. But American role to defend the South from the North was an act of aggression. (To be sure, however, US did create the conditions for war in Vietnam by artificially dividing the nation in half between north and south to ensure that the Ho Chi Minh, the popular ‘national hero’, would not turn all of Vietnam into a communist state.) Jews and homos pull the same shtick on all of us. Jews can get away with murder in America, but Jewish banksters on Wall Street were not prosecuted for all the dirty tricks they’d pulled. Homos are supremely arrogant and love to throw their weight around. In George Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough for you to obey Big Brother. You had to LOVE Big Brother. In Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, it wasn’t enough for you to accept the power of the communists; you had to pledge undying loyalty to it, even if you were condemned to rot in the gulag. In today’s America, it’s not enough for you to tolerate homos. You must publicly "WELCOME" and "CELEBRATE" homos and their lifestyles. If you’re a big city politician and doesn’t march in the ‘gay pride parade’, you can kiss your career good bye. Homos will take notes and send them to Jews in the media who will target you. If your company doesn’t offer ‘gay-friendly’ policies, you will be attacked by lawyers, government, and other businesses. Supremacist Jews and neo-aristocratic homos have pulled off a coup-d’etat and rule over us, but they act like they’re underdogs still fighting for ‘civil rights’ when they’re really about right-of-privilege or "privil rights". After all, why do only homos get to change the rules of marriage for their own self-aggrandizement but the same ‘right’ or privilege doesn’t apply to polygamists and incest-sexuals? But of course, most people don’t ask that question since they are sheep. Americans are attracted to two things: money/celebrity(material narcissism) and moral narcissism. If a person is merely rich and famous, he will be envied but not necessarily respected. People follow Donald Trump and Paris Hilton but don’t respect them. If you only into morality but lack riches and glamour, people will see you as just another ‘loser’.You will be seen as priggish and boring. But if you have both glamor and ‘morality’, or ‘glamorality’, people will adore and admire you, and this is what homos got for themselves. Homos have lots of money, lots of power, and lots of celebrity coverage. That makes them hip and cool. But they also pose as saintly and angelic victims of all those ‘homophobes’, which makes them objects of pity. And if you pity them, you are made to feel morally narcissistic and superior. Thus, many people are really attracted to Jews and homos for reasons of power, wealth, privilege, and talent — status-seeking reasons — , but their power-worship is given moral justification through the victimology that would have us Jews as ‘eternal Holocaust survivors’ and homos as ‘eternal homocaust survivors’.
Basically, you wanna be friends with or win the approval of a billionaire Jew and millionaire homo, but that sounds so crassly status-seeking. But since the Jew and homo are wrapped in victimological garb, you can pretend that your crass social-climbing is really a form of ‘compassion’ for ‘victim groups’. Conservatives aren’t much better. They suck up to Jews because Jews have immense power and wealth. Conservative politicians act before powerful Jews as dogs do before their masters. But admitting as much would be so crass and craven. It’s not very dignified to grovel like a dog before wealthy masters. So, Conservatives — under the amused snickering of Jews — pretend that they are coming to the defense of helpless Jews from Obama the socialist-stealth-Muslim and all-powerful Palestinians(armed with rocks and bottle rockets) and neo-Nazi Iran(that, by the way, still has no nuke against Israel that has 300 illegal nukes).
Purity(or at least purported purity)of commitment is what most political causes are about. It doesn’t require people to think or rock the boat. They can be personal cowards and sheep without individual conscience pretending to be courageous rebels, but they are really nothing but variations of the Red Guards. No matter how loud they bark, they never think for themselves. Indeed, the loudness of their bark is precisely to drown out the fact that they can’t think or are afraid to. Their rage is really a desperate attempt to repress their own suspicion that they’re nothing but dogs. Most academics in the ‘social sciences’ are mindless sheep like the girl in David Mamet’s OLEANNA. They desperately need to cling to some cause or ideology because they are incapable of thinking on their own and honestly debate with others. They need the power of dogmatic officialdom behind them to browbeat and silence their opponents since they cannot win on the basis on fact and reason. To disagree is to be ‘disagreeable’, and most people are afraid of being ‘disagreeable’ or dealing with ‘disagreeable’ people. (They, of course, may take pride in being ‘disagreeable’ in officially sanctioned ways such as in the mode of ‘angry feminist’ or ‘black rage’, but they don’t know how to be truly disagreeable as individuals with own ideas and consciences.) They want to belong and to be loved.
This need to belong isn’t negative in and of itself. People are, after all, social creatures. But in matters of truth, one doesn’t get nearer the truth by going along with the dogma or the consensus. One needs purity of personal conscience over purity of collective commitment. As the John Reed character(Warren Beatty) argues near the end in REDS, "if you kill dissent, you kill the Revolution." Of course, he’s a fool for thinking a revolution founded on radical ideas could ever tolerate dissent for long. Communism, after all, wasn’t for freedom for all but for its idea of justice, and freedom could only be a casualty in the long run. Communism was a prison system that sought to imprison and reform humanity for its historical crime of class oppression. Even the working class couldn’t be allowed freedom in the new order since they’d culturally been contaminated by reactionary social and cultural systems since the beginning of time. They too had to be reformed so that they wouldn’t use their liberation under communism to grow rich and become bourgeois themselves. Physical proles had to be made into ‘spiritual’ proles. A merely physical prole, if given a million bucks, might ‘betray’ his comrades and live the good life. But a ‘spiritual’ prole, even if offered a million bucks, would reject the temptation just like Jesus rejected offerings from Satan. Given the ideology of communism, it rationalized the new order as a prison system where people would be watched and controlled at all times. Humanity had to be sentenced, punished, and reformed for its entire history of oppression, exploitation, brutality, and ignorance. Even the oppressed classes had to be properly indoctrinated in the new faith and imbued with correct attitudes so that they would never use freedom for exploitation of others. A true communist with freedom should only act like a communist. That was the communist paradox. It could only allow freedom where people ‘freely’ acted like communists. For people to attain the right to be free, they had to be conditioned to act only like communists. Communism played the role of God. It’s like the God wanted man to be free but also for man to use that freedom only in ways approved by Him. But to be free means being able to disobey God as well as to obey God. God couldn’t tolerate disobedience but still wanted man to be free. After all, if man wasn’t free and obeyed God merely out of programming, then there could be no real love and devotion since man’s faith little more than a recording in a doll that mutters ‘mama, mama’. For man to truly love and obey God, he had to freely choose to devote his life to God. But when man freely chose to disobey God, God simply couldn’t tolerate it.
Maybe one way the story of Abraham and Isaac could be interpreted is God told Abraham not to kill Isaac because He was afraid that Abraham might actually not do it. The Bible says that Abraham was really about to kill Isaac but was halted by God. But how do we know Abraham would have done it unless he’d really gone through with it? Maybe Abraham might have pulled back the knife at the last moment. Or maybe the blade may have gone in an inch and then Abraham would have pulled it out and spared Isaac and disobeyed God. But since God ordered Abraham not to do it ‘at the last moment’, God could make Himself believe that Abraham is indeed loyal and obedient. (The relation between man and God/gods is one of the most puzzling in the history of man. How could man create something and then worship it as his own creator? How could a fiction made by man gain such total control over man[though, of course, one could argue that the original gods weren’t so much inventions of man as interpretations by man of the forces of nature]? But then, of course, God or gods never had complete control over man because man was always subconsciously controlling God or gods. Man subconsciously nudged God or gods to will upon humanity the sort of commands that served man’s interest. In a way, the relation between God/gods and man is like that of Jews and their gentile overlords. Clever Jews ever so gently nudged gentile overlords into thinking and acting in ways that subtly advantaged Jews, and so, it seemed as if the godly gentile rulers were in control and Jews were merely carrying out the wishes of the gentile rulers. But as Jews were toying with the minds of the goy rulers, Jews were the real wizard behind the Oz. Jews would have us believe that Wasps still rule America when, in fact, Wasp power is an empty shell of its former self. Thus, mankind messed with God or godly powers just as God or godly powers messed with mankind, that is IF the tribe in question possessed the wit and brilliance to mess with the minds of others, be they human or divine. It’s like how the ghosts at the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING make Jack Torrance believe that he isn’t merely the caretaker of a hotel but an emperor of an empire. Torrance is made to feel the power, but his mind is being nudged every which way to serve the agenda of the ghosts. Wasps in America today are like the characters in THE WIZARD OF OZ. Like the Scarecrow, they don’t have a brain, at least compared to Jews. Like the Tin Man, they are stiff and mechanical. Like the Cowardly Lion, Wasps still act like they have the power but it’s just a charade. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney talk big but they are little more than toy boy scaredy cats of the likes of Sheldon Adelson the Jewish casino tycoon. And most white conservatives are like Dorothy, so ‘innocent’ and naive in their faith in the Jewish wizard of Globoz. It’s amusing that the creature who sees right through the wizard in the movie is Dorothy’s dog. Like the horse in KAGEMUSHA and the military dog in the fourth segment of Akira Kurosawa’s DREAMS, it isn’t easily fooled. It goes to show that people can be dumber than animals in some ways. Animals can be fooled too, but because they lack an understanding of abstract concepts, they go by directness of senses. The dog hears where the sound is really coming from and pulls open the curtain. Culture, civilization, and ideals are what make us human, but they can blind us from the raw and naked truth. Concepts of myth and honor blind the Takeda Clan from the dangers in the final scene of KAGEMUSHA. All that stuff about the sacred Yamato spirit blinded Japan in its assessment of war with America. All that stuff about Brotherhood of Man blinded communists to the dogmatic naivete of Marxism-Leninism and its radical misunderstanding of human nature. All this Holocaustianity crap blinds white people to the true nature of the Jewish mind and the true breadth of Jewish history in which Jews weren’t merely hapless victims but often cunning exploiters or ruthless oppressors. The Magic Negro myth blinds white folks to the true dangers of the Negro who is physically stronger and more aggressive. All the stuff about white male pride and honor blinds white rightist males from admitting that the Negro is stronger and that their fears are motivated more by the Negro’s physical and sexual threat than by his lower IQ. If all Negroes were like Gary Coleman, who’d give a crap about lower black IQ? Whites flee from blacks out of physical fear, not due to fear of lower IQ. Indeed, all things being equal, you’re more likely to be intimidated by a smart pushy person than a dumb dim-witted person. Anyway, man’s worship of God or gods shows power dynamics can be the exact reverse of reality. Man can create God or gods and still believe that God or gods created him and has power over him. To be sure, one could argue that man didn’t create God or gods but rather that God or gods were merely man’s conceptual or intellectual manifestation of the essence of reality. If we look at physical matter, there’s tension between matter and energy, not least because at its deepest core, matter is energy. Since living creatures are also entities made of matter and energy, all life-forms feel the tension between their material presence and energetic projection. As brains in evolving organisms grew larger and finally developed into the human brain, the tension was manifested through the concept of spirituality in cooperation with and opposition to materiality. As early man didn’t understand physics and the science of matter and energy, he saw his own flesh as a thing and the energy within him as a soul or spirit, as energy. In this sense, man didn’t invent or create God or gods, but rather, God and gods were the natural conceptual outgrowth of the central tension in all life forms, the struggle between their material presences and energetic projections. Even so, as God or gods also constitute abstract principles, He or they can serve as a useful metaphor of all ‘great’ ideas that have come to shape and guide mankind. God is an idea that arose from man and gained power over man. Even among the godless, the same dynamics applies. Even in the modern secular age, people have come to worship ideas as if they have talisman-like power and as if they hold greater truth than reality itself. Radical leftists have worshiped the abstract ideal of Equality. The word has such power that you can attach it to anything to lend it magical power. Thus, ‘gay marriage’, once turned into ‘marriage equality’, became as American as Fruit Cocktail. Or take words like ‘racism’, which no longer has any rational meaning. It’s a demonic word that frightens adults like horror tales scare little boys and girls sitting around a campfire. And Jews want us to think and feel in such manner because emotional control is more powerful than rational control. If you control people through rational debate, there’s always a chance that one of the controlled may use reason and facts to challenge the official dogma. But if you gain emotional control over others, they will be afraid to raise any question, no matter how much it may be based on facts and reason, that might make them feel foul and dirty for deviating from the sacred line. So, it doesn’t matter than Jason Richwine has all the data to back him up on differences in racial IQ and the impact of immigration. ‘Racism’, as used the powers-that-be, is not a rational definition — race + ism = belief in races and racial differences — but an emotional definition. It means a person deemed a ‘racist’ is an ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ and bad, very bad, and super very bad person. He is spiritually and physically diseased, a moral and intellectual leper. He must be cast out of decent society, and others who agree with him must also be hunted down. Thus, not only was Richwine attacked but so were the mostly ‘progressive’ professors who’d reviewed his work. The emotional reaction against Richwine shows the power of emotional control, and this is why Jews have de-rationalized debates into emotion-laden invectives against ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘rabid anti-Semites’, and etc. If you disagree or oppose the Jewish agenda, you are not merely wrong and to be argued with. You are psychologically and clinically diseased. You must be silenced and ‘treated’ than debated with since your view of truth has no basis in reality, at according to the prevailing Political Correctness dominated by powerful Jews.
Pushy Jews and bitchy homos now control most of elite positions in American culture, and American conservatives don’t know how to fight back for several reasons. For one, American Conservatives agree with many of the premises of Liberalism, such as the godliness of MLK and the evil of ‘racism’. American Conservatism expends much time and energy demonstrating how it has Thomas Sowell on its side and how the Democrats are the ‘real racists’. Ann Coulter’s diatribe about ‘racist’ Democrats is mostly bullshit since most of those ‘racist’ Democrats became Republicans. American Conservatism is also just as or even more slavish to Jewish power than American Liberalism is, not least because American Liberalism, being so Jewish-controlled to begin with, doesn’t have to be blatantly pro-Jewish to show off its philo-Semitic credentials. Also, libertarian wing of American conservatism isn’t even conservative and yammers mostly about radical individualism. No movement gets anywhere just be yammering about individualism. Power comes from unity and collective/coordinated action, not by "I wanna gamble and smoke pot all I want." There is the respectable rich wing of American Conservatism, and it is too obsessed with matters of status and vanity to put up a fight, lest the fight sully their reputation as ‘reformed conservatives who no longer feel hostile toward Jews and Negroes’; just look at the spinelessness of the Bush clan. You can’t rely on the kind of ‘conservatives’in Whit Stillman’s movies. Then, there’s the Evangelicals whose idea of Conservatism is "Earth is 6,000 yrs old", a real laughing stock in the modern world. And then you have the gun nuts. While I support the 2nd Amendment, guns are only useful when matters violently come to a head. Most of modern society battles with words and ideas, not with guns. A person with the power of pen and camera has more power than some redneck with a huge gun collection. Wasps had long been the leaders of American conservatism, but the Wasp model has long been dead. It eventually lost the fire and became tepid and dry. And country music is kinda dumb. And Christianity of the Right generally ranges from ignorant to stupid. What American conservatives need do is to embrace a kind of Chechenism. American conservatives must be the new Chechens. This doesn’t mean conservatives must do everything the Chechens do, such as wife-stealing, throat-slitting, and blowing up Marathons. Instead, American conservatives should take the vibrant, aggressive, and colorful aspects of Chechenism for cues on how to revitalize themselves. Chechen music and dance makes you wanna fight for your people. Country music makes you wanna drool saliva. Chechen masculinity makes a guy wanna take a stand and push back. Wasp manhood means remaining wry and calm while the pushy Jew and bitchy homo spits in your face. Chechenism has no concept of collective guilt. Only tribal pride. That’s what white folks need. Also, conservatives need to come up with something that might called ‘Chrislam’. Christianity, sorry to say, has run its course. With the National Cathedral sounding the bell in celebration of ‘gay marriage’, American Christianity has lost its soul, meaning, and authority. It’s merely a plaything controlled by Jews and homos who’ve infiltrated and subverted the halls of Mainline Christianity. If communist Jews in the Soviet Union sought to physically destroy all the Churches, sly and dirty American Jews decided to destroy Christian power and authority by making homo-sanctity the central tenet of Christianity. At the very least, the communist Jews were honest in their virulent hatred against Christianity. In contrast, dirty American Jews hide their hatred and pretend to serve Christianity by turning Churches into playpens of decadent homosexuals[or Pussy Riot-ers or Pussy-Rotters in Russia]. Just like Jews turned the GOP from a white party into Zionist-worshiping party, they’ve turned Churches from defenders of the Faith and timeless spiritual-moral truths into collaborators with fashionable nouveau-pagan decadence and Mammon. The Mormon community, which has long been known to put profit before principle, has sold its soul to Wall Street and Hollywood Jews. This way, Jews can destroy the Christian Church while pretending to be its friend. Jewish role in communism gave them a bad rap as the ruthless destroyers of Christianity, and Jews are careful to avoid such accusations because Jewish violence against Christianity led many people in Italy, Germany, and Spain to side with anti-communists and ‘anti-Semites’. But then, Jews know that destroying the soul of something is more effective than destroying its body. After all, Jesus was destroyed in body but not in soul. But suppose Jesus had been spared in body but corrupted in soul. Then, there would have been no Christianity to begin with. It’s why the Jesus figure in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST chooses the destruction of his body via the crucifixion to save his soul for the good of mankind. When Jewish communists smashed 50,000 churches in the USSR, they destroyed the body of Christianity but not its soul. But in the US, by turning Churches into dens of homo-sanctity, Jews have destroyed the soul of Christianity, and therefore, Christianity is all but dead in the US. It has been Jew-ized, homo-ized, and shopping-mall-ized. Many churches have been infiltrated by homo operatives while others, like the Mormon church, have sold themselves for thirty pieces of silver. Evangelicals are a bunch of dodos who worship Israel and Jews more than they do God and Jesus. And they go boo hoo hoo over MLK the woman-abusing drunkard lout. That said, there’s no denying the great history of Christianity in Western Civilization, so the Christian tradition cannot simply be dispensed with. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. So, what is to be done? Conservatives need to take some cues from Islam. While Christianity is dying and shrinking, Islam is growing in power. Muslims are fervent in their faith. Why? Because their faith makes them feel proud and strong. Christianity had once filled white folks with feelings of pride, dignity, and honor. While Christianity imbued Western folks with humility and reverence, it also made them feel they were on the side of God. Today, Christianity makes most white people feel like worthless sinners who must atone forever all the ‘evils’ done by their ancestors, at least in regard to Jews, Negroes, and homos; after all, most white Christians don’t seem to care much about Hiroshima, the demise of the American Indians, the ‘cultural genocide’ against indigenous European pagans, or the Nakba. Christianity only reminds white folks of all the ‘sins’ committed by their ancestors against Jews, Negroes, and homos. It makes them feel morally inferior even to some half-naked savage in Africa chucking spears at hippos. There is much that is negative, crazy, and dangerous about Islam, so it makes no sense for white folks to convert to Islam. But there are good things as well. A Muslim takes no shit from Jews and homos for one thing. We can reject something but still learn and borrow from it. National Socialists hated communists but borrowed certain things from communists. Japanese patriots hated Western Imperialism but borrowed ideas and methods from the West to build a powerful modern Japan. Jews hate European fascism but learned from it to create their own system of mass mind control. Jews also hate Wagner the man but found much inspiration from his music. So, we don’t have to love Islam to learn and borrow things from it. This process of learning can lead to something like Chrislam, a revitalization of Christian West with something of the Islamic warrior spirit that refuses to cower before hideous Jews and haughty homocules. If most white American conservatives were Chechenized and Chrislamized, they wouldn’t be taking any shit from Jews and homocules, and we can have a proper civil war and kick some ass. Of course, there’s something to be learned from Jews and Homos as well. The Wasp ideal was to be intellectual and dry. The Jewish ideal has been to be intellectual and pushy. Wasps have been emotionally objective whereas Jews have always been very subjective in their emotions. Subjective emotions beat objective emotions. So, white folks need to learn from Jews to be counter-pushy and fight back against nasty vicious Jews.)

Anyway, we were saying something about the impure nature of politics(as practice and expression at least in contrast to theory and ideology). Then it follows that George Lucas can be construed as one of the most political film-makers. One need not make political films to be political within the film industry. Politics can mean ideology in the realm of principles, but in the realm of reality it more often means power. Everyone who vies for power is being political, and Hollywood has always been a competitive field for power politics. Even if all shakers and movers in Hollywood were without ideology, they would be ruthless and ravenous political animals since it is a dog-eat-dog industry. In the struggle for power, principles always take the backseat. George Lucas made one truly principled film on the basis of personal expression: THX 1138. It failed at the box office despite its release in the early 70s, a period often hailed as the golden age of the Film Generation. As it turned out, either most of the Film Generation didn’t care for films like THX 1138(and Robert Altman’s MCCABE AND MRS MILLER, another bomb), or the Film Generation, mostly centered in colleges and bohemian parts of big cities, wasn’t big enough to fill up the theaters. One can argue about the ideological trappings of STAR WARS, but even without them, it is one of the most political films because it was the product of Lucas’s coming to terms with the power of the industry and marketplace. To be sure, Lucas wasn’t purely in it for the money. He did have a grand vision and a fairytale excitement with the material. Even so, he watered it down to make it appeal to as many people of all ages all around the world. When we contemplate Lucas’s artistic decline from THX 1138 to STAR WARS movies, we tend to bemoan the price one has to pay in going with the politics of power over politics of principle. On the other hand, had Lucas decided to make more films like THX 1138, no studio would have backed him, and he might not have made another movie. And had he not made STAR WARS, he wouldn’t have gained the clout to lend help to Kurosawa in his comeback with KAGEMUSHA. And for all its problems and compromises, the STAR WARS saga some real strengths. Lucas also created lots of jobs for all sorts of people with all the money he made. Though film scholars like to blame Spielberg and Lucas for the blockbuster craze that pushed out the little movies, the indictment is only half-true. First, most of the highly regarded films of New Hollywood of the 1970s were failures. Dennis Hopper and Robert Altman had smash hits with EASY RIDER and M*A*S*H, but most of their subsequent films were money losers and even critical flops. So, it wasn’t as if New Hollywood was thriving with all these personal films but then got sideswiped by the Spielberg/Lucas circus wagon. New Hollywood was losing lots of money with the personal films of ‘auteurs’, and the industry was finally saved by the blockbusters. Also, little personal movies never went away. After all, there were hundreds of cheapie slasher flicks and horny teenager movies in the 80s, so there evidently was funding available for smaller productions. The problem was that most people had little interest in the personal art film as the boomers grew up & lost interest in edgy things and raised their kids to listen to rock music, watch TV, and play video games all day, the sort of behavior that doesn’t foster the kind of curiosity, empathy, and patience necessary for appreciation of ‘art cinema’.

In life, there’s the politics of idealism, the politics of dogmatism/commitment, the politics of opportunism, and the politics of truth. Politics of idealism and politics of dogmatism sometimes overlap, but the difference between the idealist and dogmatist is that the former is primarily interested in serving an idea whereas the latter is mainly devoted to serving the power of an idea. An idealist may be foolish or misguided, but he does think about the world in terms of ideas weighing the rights and wrongs. An dogmatist has no use for thought; he just goes along with the orthodoxy he was either raised with or indoctrinated with, whether it be Nazism, communism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or etc. Rousseau was an idealist, right or wrong. He may have thought wrong, but he did think on his own. Most politically correct people are dogmatists; they swallow whole hog all the propaganda fed to them by college professoriat, pop culture, and advertising. Politics of dogmatism differs from politics of opportunism because, however stupid and narrow-minded it may be, dogmatism is nevertheless is premised on genuine faith. Politically correct people may not think but they believe in the tripe they believe with genuine commitment. Politics of opportunism is less interested in ideas than power, and to gain the power, one must be malleable with ideas and principles. Bill Clinton is a classic politician of opportunism. He was against ‘gay marriage’ when it served his purposes; now he’s for ‘gay marriage’ because homo power, in alliance with Jewish power, rules the Democratic Party and has control over elite institutions. Clinton, Obama, and Romney have their ideological leanings, but they are the kind who that sell their souls for more money and power. Politics of opportunism may be dirty, but it generally favors smarter people than the politics of dogmatism. A dogmatist sticks to whatever dogma that is dished out to him or her. An opportunist has a dog’s nose and ear for detecting shifts in trends so as to adjust his or her own positions at opportune moments. Politics of pragmatism is related to the politics of opportunis, but whereas a pragmatist is often an idealist who realizes he must make compromises in the real world, an opportunist’s only real objective is power and success. As success and power in capitalist America are measured primarily by wealth/status/connections, those who want to be player must make a lot of money or associate themselves with those with lots of money and the right kind of ‘reputation’. If you have the money, you can have the power. But if you don’t have the money, you can hope to associate yourself with the rich and powerful by two means. One is to slavishly serve the rich and powerful, which is what Reagan, Thatcher, and conservatives did. Lower the taxes of the rich, promote ‘free trade’ to serve the globalist capitalists, loosen regulations, and etc.
Paradoxically however, being morally critical of the rich may be a more effective way to associate oneself with the rich. There’s a saying, "why pay for something you can get for free?" Since Conservatives fall all over themselves to serve the super-rich, why should the super-rich bend over for Conservatives? Conservatives are like running dogs playing fetch and rolling over for super-rich masters. In contrast, Liberals and Leftists have been critical of the super-rich. Thus, the super-rich must win and buy favors from the so-called ‘progressive’ community that happens to be influential in the arts, culture, academia, and media. Also, the Liberals and Leftists can offer the prize of moral narcissism for the super-rich if the price is right. By funding some Liberal and ‘leftist’ causes, the super-rich can earn praise not merely as superior entrepreneurs but as kind-hearted ‘saviors of the world’. It’s like the old pact between Jewish Rabbis and Jewish businessmen. The rabbis were often critical of Jewish businessmen, but that was precisely why Jewish businessmen sought to win favors and feted the Rabbis with donations and money. Jewish businessmen feared and respected the rabbis; they felt no respect for their loyal servants and servile dogs. Conservatives, having chosen to play fetch and roll over for the super-rich, get no respect from the super-rich. Leftists and liberals, playing the role of secular rabbis critical of the super-rich, have been lavishly bribed and funded by the super-rich. Super-rich folks want to win the ‘progressive’ prophets — proghets — to their side. There had once been a time when the Christian Church in America had been critical of wealth and materialism. But the Christian Right that prevails today, especially the Evangelicals and the Mormons, does little else but suck up to the super rich. With the Christian Right being so slavish to the super-rich, it gets no respect as the super-rich can rely on its ‘spiritual’ support for free.
Adolf Hitler understood this aspect of politics of morality and power. He understood the socio-political psychology of the rich. He knew that they held the power but that they also felt morally insecure and threatened. The rich would have to be dealt with carrots and sticks. They must be threatened with the stick of socialism. Also, no political movement cannot maintain loyalty of the masses for very long if it is primarily seen as serving the rich. While many Americans voted for the GOP in the 80s out of hatred of communism and disdain for liberals who were ‘soft on crime’, as America became increasingly de-industrialized and workers couldn’t help but notice that CEOs were raking in record profits — or being released with golden parachutes — while they themselves were either losing their jobs and wages, GOP was bound to lose to the Democrats. Of course, Democrats were hardly better, especially as Clinton signed onto ‘free trade’ and de-regulation of Wall Street, but Democrats at least put on a token ‘nationalist-socialist’ show of wink-wink admonishing super-rich over the problems of inequality. Paradoxically, the super-rich felt safer with the Democrats than with the Republicans because, with Democrats in power, there was at least the impression among the populace that something was being done for the sake of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’. In contrast, when GOP was in power, it seemed as if it was only allowing the super-rich to get super-richer. This is also why Jews prefer Democrats over Republicans. Jews are the richest, most successful, most powerful, most privileged, and most unequal people in America. So, why don’t they prefer the GOP that is so slavishly pro-rich and pro-Zionist? Because Jews don’t wanna be perceived as superduper-rich-powerful-and-rich. When they see the likes of Bush, Romney, McCain, and others kiss them on the ass, they fear that the goy world will awaken to the truth: Jews are the masters of America. The King of the Hill has always been a resented figure whom others set out to dethrone. So, Jews prefer someone like Obama who, though sucking up to Jews no less than Republicans do, is at least generally less brazen about it. Republicans are running dogs who loudly cheer on the Zionist oppression of Palestinians. Obama pretends to be more evenhanded though he’s done nothing for Palestinians whatsoever. Better to oppress Palestinians under the cover of silence than under the spotlight of delirious tasteless approval. (I do not misperceive Palestinians as saints or ‘innocent victims’. Many Palestinians are nasty buggers not unlike the rest of humanity. But it is disgusting that most American Conservatives are so hostile to a people who never did any harm to Europeans or Americans? Palestinians weren’t behind communism, pornography, interracism, open borders policy in the West, the ‘gay’ agenda, Wall Street robbery, and etc. Jews were behind those things. Yet, most American Conservatives have rabidly cheered on the destruction of the Palestinian people with sadistic and cruel abandon. And when Palestinians fought back with primitive weapons, Americans — who carpet bombed Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam and killed millions of innocent babies and pushed sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s — dare call Palestinians ‘terrorists’! If there is a poetic justice to the destruction of white America, it is as a comeuppance for its vile support of Zionism that destroyed a people who’d never harmed Americans. Palestinians never hurt white Americans, but white Americans have funded, supported, and served Zionism that destroyed Palestine. White Americans felt no remorse, not even an iota of sympathy for what happened to the Palestinians. Currently, Jews are doing to white Americans what they did to Palestinians, yet white Americans like Ann Coulter continue to cheer for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. At least on this score, white Conservatives are a disgusting bunch. In a way, they are getting what they deserve for having aided and abetted the destruction of a people who never did Americans any harm. When Jews were killing and terrorizing Palestinians, white Americans cheered and laughed with joy just like Nazis who laughed at the victimization of Jews. As white power is being undermined by the tide of non-whites in America under the Jewish policy of Open Borders, Palestinians can laugh at stupid white Americans who are being ‘Palestianized’. Most pathetic is how white American Conservatives crawl up to Jews and plead with doggy eyes, "We helped you destroy Palestinians, so please help us white folks keep the power." These groveling white dummies just don’t get it. The logic behind Jewish policy in the US is the same as it has been in Israel/Palestine. Tactics may differ but the agenda is the same: Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews destroyed Palestinians to own Palestine and turn it into Israel. Jews are destroying white America to turn it into a mutt-nation. Jews don’t want to face unite population of independent-minded white wolves. They want a whole bunch of docile mutts rolling over and playing fetch for Jews.) Then, there is the politics of truth, which tends to be rare since politics favors delusional utopianism, blind obedience, opportunism, or compromise. As such, there is almost no effective politics of truth in the actual world. Politics of truth may be found in the academia, but as the academia is form of organized education, one must win the approval of the powers-that-be who are closely aligned with other kinds of politics. Of course, in the field of science, truth is all that should matter, but certain subjects, despite grounding in facts and reason, are discouraged by the official power structure. For example, the science of race is disapproved of in most academic settings. And consider what happened to Lawrence Summers for even speculating that there may be more male geniuses than female ones. At any rate, when scientific research and discourse are allowed to progress in a pure and un-compromised manner, it is usually concerning matters that have little to do with human truth(even if they may profoundly impact our lives). The laws of physics and chemistry, for example, may save or destroy millions of lives, but they hold little Emotional Truth for us. We don’t spend our days thinking of stuff like ex dx = ex + C or arcsin x dx = x arcsin x + (1-x2) + C(which I copied and pasted from some calculus site as I don’t know what they mean). By ‘truth’, we usually mean social truth, moral truth, emotional truth, ‘spiritual’ truth, etc. And the endeavor of art, culture, and humanities has been the search and expression of truths that cannot be conveyed through means of pure logic and hard facts alone. It is art that allows us to delve into — or speculate as to — the nature of other, deeper, hidden, or complex realities. Art allows even political enemies to somewhat understand one another even as they continue to disagree on legal, ideological, or pragmatic matters. Even non-Germans and anti-Nazis can watch a film like DAS BOOT and DOWNFALL and get a sense of the ‘human side’ of the equation that motivated Hitler and his aides during World War II. Also, art makes us aware of how each person is more than what he ideologically and/or socially assumes or claims to be. Luchino Visconti claimed to be a Marxist, but he was also a homosexual aristocrat, and the latter aspect of his character is revealed in THE LEOPARD. There’s more to reality that meets the eye or departs the lips. People claim to be communist, Muslim, Christian, libertarian, feminist, Zionist, or etc., but such labels tend to be the outerwear than the inner-ware of what they really are.
Humanism, at its best, convincingly emphasized the essence of what makes us human. Humanism, at its naive worst, promoted the notion of ‘save the world’ brotherhood-of-man universalism, as if the problems of the world could be overcome if mankind embraced socialism or destroyed nationalism and capitalism.
But another kind of humanism was skeptical of utopian fantasies. It accepted the human condition as essentially and eternally problematic. If social problems didn’t get to you, personal or psychological ones would. This kind of humanism reminded us of our ineradicable imperfections, foibles, & hypocrisies — regardless of our ideological allegiances — and urged us to laugh once in awhile because what else could we do? If humans are, by nature, a bunch of clowns, a good laugh was in order when a mirror was placed in front of them. Lina Wertmuller’s humanist films feature, for instance, characters talking a lot about social issues and politics but with a sense that ideology is as often as not a means of justifying one’s greed, envy, resentment, vanity, and aggressiveness. If the naive kind of humanism posits that all people around the world will be as one(like in John Lennon’s knucklehead song "Imagine")if ‘bad ideas’ like capitalism and nationalism are done away with, the hardier kind of humanism posits that, behind the mask of every utopian ideology-religion-or-allegiance, there hides the core human spirit that is, at once, truer and more troublesome than any idea or conceit. Generally, liberal humanism said "get rid of ‘bad ideas’ and people will naturally be brothers", whereas conservative humanism said, "look behind the mask of ‘good ideas’, and you’ll see that self-professed do-gooders and progressives are little more than pigs like everyone else." How truly selfless and ‘spiritual’ were those hedonistic hippies and freaks at Woodstock? How truly peaceful were the Christians through the ages? Jews recite Holocaust hymns to make themselves out to be a people who are especially sensitive to the suffering of humanity, but the Jew behind the mask is really out to grab as much loot and power for himself. Liberal humanism has exposed the abuses of conservative authoritarianism, but it has also made people obedient to ‘progressive’ authority and Jewish power.
Though there has been much overlap among art, fantasy, and propaganda, art has been the domain through which human truths have been explored and shared. Even those without direct knowledge and experience of nations/cultures such as France, India, Germany, Japan, Italy, Iran, or Russia might have seen a film or read a novel about or from there. In some ways, films have done more than books to facilitate exchanges of cultural experiences because translations of literature across cultures necessarily result in loss of pungency and flavor. Films use subtitles but something of the other cultures nevertheless comes across through the sound/texture of the language/music, the styles of behavior, and visual details. One may not a know a word of French, but the musicality of the language comes across in film in ways it can’t through the pages of translation. The sound of Russia, German, Japanese, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, and Greek — even if one doesn’t know the language — conveys something of the cultural character of a people. Also, unless one is familiar with the physical details of another culture, it is difficult to grasp the look and feel of its world merely through literary descriptions. And no amount of description of physical characteristics can truly convey what a people and especially a person look like. (If you gave them a detailed oral description of what Charles Bronson looks like to a bunch of people who never saw him, each person will visualize a figure starkly different from those imagined by others. This is, of course, the advantage of novels for those who want to fill in the characters with their own preferred faces.) Someone who has never seen images of Asian Indian civilization and architecture won’t gain a clear mental picture from details in a book because every word is worth a thousand pictures. For this reason, most visualizations of other cultures based on textual accounts tended to be way off the mark. Western illustrators oftentimes projected Western norms of looks and details onto foreign worlds. Indeed, this is why Jesus came to be depicted as a very European-looking man. Europeans also illustrated figures like Genghis Khan and Moctezuma with distinctly Western features. And other cultures did the same thing, which is why the Chinese and Japanese made Buddha look East Asian even though he was an Asian-Indian. In film, you don’t just get the story, the dialogue, and descriptions but the very details of another culture. In the APU TRILOGY by Satyajit Ray, one can see the kinds of houses, dresses, foods, animals, plants, and other facts of life that populate the Indian landscape. One can hear the cadences of Bengali language, languish to the sounds of Indian music.

The arts can make us look beyond ideological and/or tribal commitments. Even while clinging to our biases, we can at least acknowledge the ‘truth’ of the other side. Because fiction can serve as an imagined ‘neutral’ zone between ‘us’ and ‘them’(whereas no such place could exist in reality as the nature of conflict is for both sides to focus on winning), we can let down our guard for the duration of the work and empathize/sympathize in ways that would be hazardous in reality where any lowering of the guard can be seen as weakness and vulnerability. (For this reason, art can be used as a sly weapon to weaken the defenses of the other side. Though art should ideally serve to increase empathy on all sides, something that mimics art can be formulated to persuade one side to lower its guard while urging no such obligation to the other side. Consider a movie like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD that seems like a mature, intelligent, and morally thoughtful work. Indeed, if it were blatant pro-black and anti-white propaganda, few people would have been fooled by it, and its very hostile nature would have, if anything, strengthened the defenses of whites who would have felt insulted by its overtly simple message. But the movie was made to seem serious and weighty, as if it could well be a honest depiction of how things really are. Thus, even some ‘racist’ whites were goaded to lower their knee-jerk defenses and ‘see things from the other side’. But in fact, it’s a very dishonest work because it’s premised on the false notion that black males are childlike innocents who never got no mind to mess with white women, therefore, a black guy accused of a heinous crime must have been railroaded by ‘racists’. Art is noble, whereas propaganda is lowly, but nothing is lower than propaganda passing itself slyly as ‘thoughtful art’.) Even if the ‘truths’ of our enemies are not our ‘truths’ and vice versa, we realize they too have a history, heritage, perspective, and narrative. This may have been one reason why Jews developed a hostility toward idols. On the one hand, idols were false gods that were an affront to the one and only true God. But the other danger of the idolatrous arts-and-culture was that they ‘seduced’ Jews towards an appreciation of other cultures and their sanctities and narratives. A Jew may look upon Greek or Persian arts & culture, and even if he maintained his own Jewish identity and tribal separateness, he might nevertheless be tempted toward acknowledging gentiles as the equal of Jews as human beings with their own cultural ‘truths’ that had equal validity to themselves as Jewish religion did to the Jews. Thus, anti-idolatry among Jews wasn’t just an attack on false gods of other peoples but an attack on the ‘truths’ of other cultures as well. As far as Jews were concerned, there was only one God and only one Truth, and Jews were the keepers of that truth. Only Jews could be a true people with a true culture since their culture was blessed by the one and only God, whereas all the other cultures developed in relation to false gods and false idols that could have only inspired their peoples to follow false narratives.
To be sure, Jewish history see-sawed back and forth between melding with and separating from other cultures. Generally, people tend to be most compromising when they are too badly off or too well off. When one has nothing, ideals and principles be damned. You might even have to make a deal with the Devil himself to feed your family. On the other hand, when one feels too powerful and privileged, one might grow lax & complacent and become overly tolerant, as was the case with the Roman overlords in ancient times and with Anglo-Americans in the 20th century. It is when a people have attained power but are still afflicted with intense anxiety that they are most cautious about the nature of foreign influences.
If Jewish destruction of idolatry was a means to destroy and deny the truths of other cultures, the case of the Nazism demonstrated that art can be a destructive force in its own right. For Hitler, art was not about truth or meaning. It was a narrow vision of beauty of a particular race. Thus, the best kind of art in his mind had to glorify and celebrate ‘Aryan’ beauty. As for the arts of other cultures that served as reminders that non-Aryans have their own ‘truths’, they had to be destroyed, at least if German ‘Aryans’ were to occupy those lands. Thus, Hitler didn’t plan only to invade and conquer Russia but to raze Moscow to the ground. He wanted to erase all reminders that the Slavic peoples also had a culture, a truth rooted in their history and heritage.

But there is another kind of art that is seriously and in principle committed to the truth, and it is this kind of art that expands and deepens our understanding of other peoples, cultures, systems, and traditions(as well as of our own hidden/repressed fears and desires) EVEN IF we may find them offensive or repulsive on the conscious level of morality and politics. Such art guides us to peer into the lives of others or stare at our hidden selves through the creative looking glass. We may detest real-life gangsters, but GOODFELLAS reveals what makes them tick. Jews may loathe the German war machine of the World War II period, but even Jews will find themselves acknowledging the humanity of German submarine crew. Even Zionists could learn something from a film made by Muslims, and vice versa.
Granted, empathy can lead to sympathy, especially in a medium as powerful as cinema. Consider all the people who found themselves rooting for the hoodlums in SOPRANOS, and this is why Hollywood generally keeps its distance from real art. When Hollywood yammers about the need for empathy, it’s always about favoring certain groups over others, never about seeking to understand all groups on the equal basis of curiosity and honesty. When it comes to white Southerners, Jewish Hollywood either portrays them as subhuman ‘racist’ scum(as in FRIED GREEN TOMATOES or MISSISSIPPI BURNING) or as good ole boys with some sentimental but hardly any social or moral value. Jews portray white southerners worse than D.W. Griffith portrayed Negroes in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. (And 12 YEARS A SLAVE seems to be an act of Jewish revenge against Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST by promoting ‘white guilt’ related to black slavery over ‘Jewish guilt’ over the killing of the Son of God.)
For every side, genuine art is both useful and dangerous. It’s useful in pressuring the other side — even the bitterest enemies — to see your own people, group, or side as real people with heartfelt emotions and sincere values(even if they differ from those of others). But, true art can never be mindless propaganda on behalf of your own kind because its commitment to truth necessarily dredges up the problems and failings of your own people. Furthermore, there’s the danger of making your side acknowledge the humanity and justifications of the other side(that may well be a bitter enemy), thereby weakening the resolve of your people to do battle victory or survival.
This is why most American Jews prefer to deny the humanity of Palestinians. This is why Jews who control the media fill our minds with images of ‘terrorist Muzzies’ and defacto forbid most images of Palestinians suffering under Jewish/Zionist domination. Jews also know that while violence is news, oppression isn’t necessarily. Violence even in a free society gets far more attention that peace under an oppressive order. Suppose there are Nation A and Nation B. Nation A is relatively free but has lots of social violence and protests. Nation B is very oppressive but has quiet streets. Which nation will be in the news more often and receive bad press? Nation A since the news industry feeds on overt violence and exciting events. Israel was less oppressive toward Palestinians in the 80s than it is today, but that led to the Intifada, and that made Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. Even in the US with a Jew-dominated press, there were nightly images of Palestinian kids with rocks battling Israeli soldiers with tanks and assault rifles. And things got hot in the 1990s when violence flared up again. So, Jews decided to go heavy-handed and erect walls and use outright apartheid policies to keep Palestinians under control. Thus, there’s more peace in the West Bank as Zionist oppression has been greatly expanded. As a result, West Bank as prison state is relatively quiet now, which means there’s less violence that attracts media attention. Though Jews yammer on and on about the need for empathy through arts and culture, they’ve politicized empathy so that certain peoples get more favorable attention than others while some are reviled as near subhumans. Just as ‘hate’ never applies to Jewish animus against gentiles, ‘empathy’ never means true empathy in the hands and hearts of Jews who run most of the art-and-culture industries. It means we should all empathize with Jews as saints, victims, heroes, geniuses, and lovable comics but never venture to look into the dirty side of Jewishness. True empathy means more than sympathy, especially for select groups; it means seeing the bigger picture and the whole equation of human reality. Scorsese worked in genuine empathetic mode with GOODFELLAS. He showed us the ins and outs of the world of Italian-American organized crime. Scorsese made us see Italian-American hoodlums as humans but also how humans could be anti-human with greed and sadism. But if a film were to portray the unseemly side of the Jewish community, it would be condemned as ‘antisemitic’ — which was one of the reasons why THE WOLF OF WALL STREET barely touched on the ethnic identity of Jordan Belfort who, by the way, was played by un-Jewish-looking Leonard DiCaprio. Jews hog ‘empathy’ as special sympathy for themselves. Jews can say things about other peoples that other peoples cannot say about Jews. Jews can do stuff in finance, media, law, academia, and government that other peoples cannot do. What Jews call ‘empathy’ is empty of any value to us.
GOODFELLAS - a truly 'made' work of art
Despite all the right-wing rants about the liberal domination of arts and entertainment, much of the respect for the left in the cultural sphere owes to individuals like Alain Resnais. While there has been plenty of brain-dead propagandizing on the Left and simplification of issues by liberals, many people with ‘progressive’ leanings have been able, at least in areas of creativity and criticism, to favor truth(or some degree of complexity, sophistication, and ambiguity) over one-sided propaganda, at least much more than mush-brained Conservatives. (If American Conservatives were, at the very least, mush-brained and simpleminded in favor of their own racial & cultural interests, it wouldn’t be so bad, but the morons are usually foaming-at-the-mouth over issues, usually pertaining to Israel, that have nothing to do with white/European well-being and, if anything, waste the precious time and energy on the Right that should be focused on issues of Jewish-directed racial animosity against whites IN America and the West. If you’re gonna be pigheaded, at the very least do it for the power and survival of your own kind, not for a people who are overwhelmingly and virulently anti-white.)
The liberal and leftist view of truth is often tainted by ideological bias(but this is true of all sides), but it has nevertheless cultivated some space for truth outside ideology. Thus, a leftist or liberal may wave the political banner at rallies and show solidarity with the cause but, as an artist or critic, may go beyond knee-jerk reactions and ponder the hidden complexities and depths of reality. (To be sure, there are conservatives of that sort too — especially found at The American Conservative magazine — , but they tend to be a neglected, even disdained, minority within the American Right[that relies mainly on Fox News], and furthermore, while they tend to be appreciative of arts & culture, they lack the spark to create arts and culture that make a difference. To be sure, there have also been a wide array of artists and entertainers who could not be pigeonholed conventionally as ‘right’ or ‘left’. Consider film-makers such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Linklater, David Mamet, David Lynch, Bob Dylan, and etc. And some famous leftists artists, such as Elia Kazan, had their biggest detractors on the left and the biggest defenders on the right. It appears that the rise of Political Correctness in all areas of life has narrowed the creative field for would-be artists. In the 40s and the 50s, the conflict between the right and the left was strictly about ideology, what with liberals & leftists[who often insisted on the party line] dominating the artistic institutions and with anti-communists trying to weed out the political radicals. But what was political then wasn’t necessarily personal and vice versa. But as the personal increasingly became politicized since the late 60s and especially the 70s with the rise of feminism, a person’s career could eventually be destroyed for his or her views on sexuality, social relations, moral values, and etc. that once had little to do with ideology. After all, most leftists of the 40s and 50s could today be denounced as ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘racists’, and etc. based on their personal lifestyles and views. To be sure, long before the 60s as far back as anyone could remember, careers could be destroyed over non-political matters. In earlier times, one’s reputation, standing, and/or population could be ruined over infidelity[as happened with Ingrid Bergman], rumors of homosexuality[as almost happened to Liberace], and etc. Still, those were seen as moral issues, not necessarily political or ideological issues. Today, even the personal is held to be political and ideological, which is why Donald Sterling was attacked as if he were the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan over what he said, privately by the way, about his sexual hangups. For a time, from the late 60s to the late 80s, Americans generally became more tolerant and separated the ideological from the personal, but beginning with the rise of political correctness, the more intrusively radical ideas that had sprouted in the 60s and 70s began to grow and spread their roots and stems throughout the institutions, indeed to the point where professors, students, and others could be persecuted and brought down over even matters of private speech or non-ideological musings or speculations. So, even someone like Stephanie Grace could be called out by the dean of college for her thoughts on race and IQ in a private email. And the Jew-run media, instead of standing up for the right of Grace to exchange her personal views, joined the university in attacking and maligning her. In a cultural climate where even one’s personal remark about homosexuality can endanger one’s reputation and career, the creative field has been narrowed to tolerate only the politically correct and the most cravenly opportunistic. Ironically, the very Liberals who attack Elia Kazan for having betrayed his principles to further his own career have created a system where anyone who doesn’t agree with PC must lie and betray his/her own principles and conscience in order to get a leg up in the industry. We now live in a society where anyone in Hollywood will be blacklisted if he or she is known to have said, even privately, that homo-‘sex’ is foul and gross. Bitchy and snotty homos demand that anyone who is critical of the homosexual lifestyle be sent to the gallows and beheaded. And of course, this is precisely the sort of setup preferred by Jews and homos since they can freely invoke PC to smoke out and destroy anyone with the slightest whiff of ‘antisemitism’ or ‘homophobia’. Jews and homosexuals had once led the charge in expanding creative spaces for all kinds of eccentric voices. In order to secure greater creative freedom for themselves, they championed freedoms all around for it would have been bad form to demand only freedom for themselves in a broad struggle against a social order that was deemed too Waspy, too conventional, and too ‘normal’. Therefore, there was an explosion of all kinds of views, ideas, and expressions in the late 60s and 70s. But Jews and homos soon discovered that eccentric, fresh, and daring voices were not necessarily pro-Jewish or pro-homo. And of course, feminists learned that new expressive freedoms were often ‘misogynistic’ in arts, music, and literature; Philip Roth, for one, wasn’t a beloved figure among feminist critics and intellectuals. So, Jews, homos, and feminists found PC useful in favoring only the kind of eccentric voices that were ideologically ‘acceptable’ to their own agendas. It would be difficult for a film like TAXI DRIVER to get the green light today. But then, what good is eccentricity if it has to conform to PC? In some cases, the ever-multiplying strictures of correctness are turning almost self-parodic, as with transsexuals, for instance, demanding that the feminist eccentricity of the VAGINA MONOLOGUES be scrapped because it offends transvestites without vaginas who consider themselves to be ‘women’. So, feminist eccentricity must be careful not to ‘offend’ or ‘exclude’ transsexuals. This kind of PC is dangerous because it follows a crazy logic and has the backing of the most powerful people in the world: the Jews. Most people are craven like Peter Keating character in Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Out of 100 people, 95 are craven and only 5 have the guts to stick up for one’s convictions. But being true to one’s convictions doesn’t necessarily make one sane or right. After all, a Stalinist or a Holocaust-denier could be true to his or her beliefs still be batshit crazy or ignorant. Therefore, fewer than 5 out of 100 are both principled and right. And even fewer, maybe just one 1 out of a 100[or one out of 1,000 or 1,000,000], has the principle, the rightness, and the talent. It’s a steep uphill climb for 1 to struggle for truth against the 99 or 999,999,999 that comprise the powers-that-be, their craven agents, and the masses of dummies.)
Granted, there is no clear cut-off line between truth-seekers and propagandists. Sometimes, the two modes intermingle(often subconsciously); an artist or critic may seek the truth one moment, wave the flag the next moment. Oliver Stone is an interesting case. In films such as BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, HEAVEN AND EARTH, NIXON, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and ALEXANDER, he’s shown an interest in personalities and histories beyond simple dichotomies of good vs evil, right and wrong, us vs them. At his worst, in films like JFK and NATURAL BORN KILLERS, Stone is either a paranoid conspiracy sensationalist or a cynical misanthrope, but at his best, he’s been a film-maker of considerable empathy and passion. It isn’t difficult to understand why Stone was drawn to ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. Other than his love of sports and cultism in manhood, the phenomenon of pro sports was for him what Nashville was for Robert Altman. Using football as a metaphor for American society and the game of power, the most interesting facet of ANY GIVEN SUNDAY is the contrast between what happens on and what happens off the field. On the field, it’s winner-takes-all, one team vs another team. One city cheers for one team, the other city for the other team. It’s an all out war between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Your team is ‘good’, other team is ‘evil’. You cheer for your team to crush the other team, and it doesn’t matter if you the fan think that players, coaches, and the owners are a**holes. It’s your team and you root for your side. And people of the other city feel likewise. That’s how politics works. It’s possible that most Conservatives don’t have much respect for Republican politicians, and most Liberals don’t much care for Democratic politicians. But politics-as-played is like sports, and you mindlessly cheer for your side to beat the other side. It’s about winning, and you don’t really care how your side wins — as long as it doesn’t get caught cheating. Stone, like everyone else, roots for his side. He may not like the leaders of his side, but everyone needs to belong to a team. Politics is about take-no-prisoners and give-no-breaks. Your side is right, other side is wrong, and come crunch time, the other side must be crushed.
In contrast to politics, there’s long been a tradition in journalism, scholarship/academia, and the arts(especially literature) that favors ‘objective’ truth over ‘subjective’ bias or tribal/ideological bias. Thus, even if you’re a liberal reporter, you have a journalistic obligation to report the dirt on the liberal side. Even if you’re a conservative biographer, you should reveal the darker side of conservative figures and the conservative movement. Even if you’re a conservative or liberal novelist, you need to empathize with all the characters, even those you despise, instead of filling up the novel with one-dimensional angels and devils.
Until relatively recently, the ideal of American journalism was to be objective. Of course, it never was. There was the history of yellow journalism, tabloid journalism, propagandistic news reels, and the like as evidence of how tainted journalism always was. Even so, it was the ideal of objectivity and truth — in media and academia as well as in justice — that fueled reform and progress in newspapers and universities. Initially, the standard of objectivity was a great boon to social reformers and liberals since much of the media was owned by conservative tycoons and much of the academia used to be relatively conservative(and wasp-dominated) at one point. There was a time when a liberal needed only to be objective in reporting the problems of the social order to be ‘subversive’ and ‘radical’. Simply by reporting on the living conditions of American blacks and American Indians, one could demonstrate that US failed to live up to its promises. One needed only to dryly report on the privilege and corruption among Wasp elites to show how some people were ‘more equal than others’. John Hersey needed only to report objectively about the bombing of Hiroshima to make Americans rethink the decision to drop the bomb. Even during the FDR and Truman(and Kennedy) yrs, America was, more or less, a morally and culturally conservative society where certain matters were not discussed. There was a time when the mere objective discussion of homosexuality would have been a challenge to the social status quo — even among liberals. In a society where even the relatively liberal medical/psychiatric institution portrayed homos as mentally sick perverts, the dryly objective observation that homos are born homo could be a challenge to conventional wisdom or official doctrine. But as liberals gained greater power over the media and academia, objectivity became an hindrance to their agendas that became ever more ambitious — indeed more so as Jews and homos, two most neurotically restless and aggressive groups, entered the media and academia in increasing numbers. If conservative had suppressed objective facts that undermined conservative biases, liberals with expanded powers were annoyed with objective standing in the way of their social vision. Just like free speech had once been an advantage to the Left when it came under attack during the peak of the Cold War but then turned sour when it came to protect ‘reactionary’ criticism of the ‘progressives’ elites, objectivity went from a hammer of the liberals to a ball-and-chain around their ankles. Once their powers had greatly expanded, liberals were no longer interested in using the truth to challenge the dominant biases of conservative society; instead, their primary interest became the Agenda and the Narrative to be enforced with messianic will. Objective truths about racial and sexual differences stood in the way of the Liberal mission(especially as it was dominated by devious Jews who were using Liberalism to topple white power for the sake of Jewish supremacism). Liberals and leftists attacked ‘objectivity’ on the grounds that it was a intellectual concept cooked up by Dead White Males in order to gain and maintain dominance around the world. Since West became synonymous with science and since science became synonymous with objective truth, the spread of Western dominance came to be equated with the spread of truth and the extinguishment of superstitions of non-whites people still stuck in the dark ages. Thus, science, rationalism, and objectivity became the new justification for white ‘racism’ and imperialism. If the West initially justified its aggressive expansion around the world on the basis if spreading Christianity and the Word of God to the benighted peoples across the seas, the new rationale in the Age of Reason became the West’s monopolization of ‘objective truth’ and the burden of ‘sharing’ it with the rest of the world. Since European Imperialists claimed ownership of universal truth based on objective methodology of science, they felt justified in their power over their colonial subjects. Since even ‘racism’ was advanced and discussed in terms of scientific theory, it too could be used to gain control over the other races. If racial theory was indeed scientific and could demonstrate that whites constituted the superior or most advanced race, then it only made ‘objective’ sense for whites to gain dominance over the world and rule over the rest of mankind who would presumably benefit from Western wisdom, leadership, and talent.

Especially with the rise of cultural studies and multi-culturalism, the ideal of objectivity(which was so closely associated with the West) came under attack. To be sure, the Left was somewhat schizophrenic on this matter. When politically competing with the Western Right, the Left continued to invoke Reason and Objectivity as their rationale for ‘progress’. It argued that the Left stood for science, secularism, reason and logic, and the discrediting of ‘false science’ of ‘racism’ and the ‘reactionary’ superstitions of religion. In contrast, the Western Right was associated with religious bigotry, customs and traditions irrelevant in the modern era, and tribal biases that resisted universal truth of the brotherhood-of-man as posited by the Enlightenment. But when the Left discussed the non-white world, it switched gears and warned people NOT to judge non-whites and the non-West with the same yardstick used for whites. Judging non-whites on the basis of the principles of Reason and Objectivity would be ‘Euro-centric’ and insensitive to the ‘diverse’ truths of their own cultures. And this weird kind of double-standard came to apply not only to different cultures and races but to different social groups.

Consider homosexuals, today the most favored group after the Jews. Liberals laugh at the Christian Right’s notion of Creationism and bogus pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design. And Liberals express outrage at unscientific and anti-biological claims by a Republican politician who said a woman who is raped cannot become pregnant. But when it comes to the ridiculous notion of ‘gay parents’, liberals throw science, biology, and objectivity out the window. So devoted are they to the ‘gay’ agenda that they make believe that homos can be parents. Of course, Liberals know that homo ‘sex’ cannot biologically produce a child. Even the most hardline Liberal knows that a man fecal-penetrating another man cannot produce a life-form via the process of inseminating a piece of turd lodged up a man’s anus. And no Liberal believes that two lesbians can produce a child by poon-grinding one another.
Of course, Liberals can argue that there is a CULTURAL meaning to being a parent. After all, some biological parents feel no love for their kids while adoptive parents may play an admirable role as caring guardians. Even so, there’s something disingenuous about Liberal claims because they don’t merely assume that two homos can play the role of parents. Liberal media would have us believe that two lesbians ‘are having a baby’. ‘Having’ a baby and raising a baby are two different things. While the non-biological adoptive parent can raise a child that is not his or hers, the term ‘having’ means that the individuals aforementioned produced the baby together. Liberals have used corrupt terminology to make us wanna believe that two lesbians really did produce a girl named Heather or two homo men really did produce a boy named Harry. Of course, Liberals and we know that such things never happened and never can happen, but still, terminology in media and academia pressures us to make believe that homos are indeed ‘having children’ together. It’s like HANDMAID’S TALE where a younger woman is made to produce a baby for an older woman who then pretends that she herself ‘had’ the child.

When it came to attacking the Religious Right, liberals and leftists insisted on the biological facts of life. But when it came to serving the homo elites, Liberals and ‘leftists’ smothered the truth of biology to make us believe that two lesbians or two homo men really ‘had’ a child together. In truth, all children are produced by man and a woman. So, if we are to make believe that two lesbians ‘had’ the child together, it means we must force ourselves to treat the actual father as a non-person. And if we are to make believe that two homo men ‘had’ a child together, we must force ourselves to believe that actual mother is invisible or non-existent. The existence of the real father and real mother who produced the child is objective proof that ‘gays having children’ is a lie, a fraud, a fantasy, a fairytale. (Even if the sperm or the egg was donated and provided through a third party, the child is still the product of a man and a woman. It’s like even if I buy tomatoes from a middleman grocer, they were still grown by a farmer.) The media are now playing Handmaid’s Tale for the neo-aristocratic homo lobby closely allied with and protected by the Jewish Lobby, the most powerful in America. But then, most of the media and academia are owned and controlled by elitist Jewish Supremacists.

The best argument one can make against ‘objectivity’ is it’s often been used as cover for an ideological agenda, and indeed, it’s easy to mistake the objective style for objectivity itself.
BBC, PBS, and NPR, for instance, generally convey an objective style — though not always, as evinced in their use of manipulative music, loaded words, and/or narration in documentaries — but they almost always push a Liberal agenda. Even the term ‘liberal’ is problematic as most ‘liberals’ are capital ‘L’ liberals who care more about the agenda than about open-mindedness and genuine liberality. Few Liberals agree with Voltaire’s words(by the way of Evelyn Beatrice Hall), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Most Liberals now push for laws such as those in Britain, Sweden, and France that will fine, blacklist, and/or lock up anyone who is critical of Jewish power or homosexuality.
Though pure or absolute objectivity in the workings of social reality is impossible, we need to make distinction between objectivity as ideal/goal and objectivity as cover/rationale. Some people try their personal best to be objective and admit to errors and prejudices on their side. But others only feign objectivity to hide what is a really an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Consider the many Jews who put on airs of dry academics while conspiring with their tribal brethren in the media and government to steer events around the world to serve Jewish interests.
Consider how neocon history professor Donald Kagan’s son, Robert Kagan, is married to Victoria Nuland the neocon hag witch who messed up Ukraine. This isn’t to say Donald Kagan got together with Nuland in a dim-lit room to hatch out a plan but only to suggest that most Jews wink-wink see eye to eye on issues of the world. Though Jewish-controlled US government messed things up in Ukraine, notice how the globalist media(also controlled by Jews) have been beating the war drums against Russia. It’s been a Jewish War on Russia all along, just like it had been Barzini who’d been behind the War against the Corleones all along in THE GODFATHER. Jews want to shut down free speech as ‘hate speech’ because they are afraid of people calling out on Jewish supremacist foulness.

There’s a lot of bogus ‘objectivity’ on the anti-left-sphere as well. Many(though far from all) Libertarians, for example, are really white interest advocates who prefer libertarianism because they see it as being advantageous to whites with higher IQ. If the Rule of Law and/or meritocracy judges everyone fairly and equally, then smarter whites will generally prevail over others. But if the average black and Hispanic IQ were 120 while the average white IQ were 90, many white Libertarians would no longer embrace their ideology; they’d probably call for ‘affirmative action’ for whites. (Indeed, many whites who oppose ‘affirmative action’ that favors blacks and Hispanics over white non-Hispanic whites tend to prefer ‘affirmative action’ for whites vis-a-vis Asian-Americans. Whites complain that whereas blacks and Hispanics don’t try too hard, Asians try too hard.)
Similarly, Jews recycle many objective facts not so much in the service of objectivity but to favor their Jewish Supremacist agenda. What Jews remind us about the violence and discrimination against blacks in the American South is objectively true. But if Jews are really into all-around objectivity, why do they suppress objective facts about black violence and crimes against whites? Why do they intimidate those who discuss objective facts of racial differences? Consider what happened to Jimmy the Greek for saying that blacks are biologically favored in football because they’re naturally stronger.
Therefore, every instance of objectivity gains different shades of meaning depending on the context. If we objectively focus ONLY on the carpet-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then those would seem as unconscionable acts where entire civilian populations, including women-old folks-babies, were indiscriminately destroyed.
However, if we see those factually detailed events in the context of the larger war, they become rationalized, if not fully justified, as military strategies or acts of vengeance. Thus, the relationship between objectivity and contextuality is not an easy one. The reason why the Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman incident became such a hot topic was that the Jew-run media reported a single objective fact(Zimmerman killed Martin) minus other objective facts and the larger context within which they happened. It’s true that George Zimmerman shot the unarmed Trayvon Martin to death, and if that’s all you know about the case, Zimmerman would seem to be a murderer. But the media downplayed the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten to death and shot Martin in self-defense. Media suppressed the fact that Zimmerman’s neighborhood had been robbed many times by black males, and therefor, Zimmerman had every reason to be suspicious of a black guy lurking about. The media used objectivity in the most selective and devious way. They reported on Zimmerman as ‘white’, but even though Zimmerman’s father is white, his mother is of mixed-race, and Zimmernan doesn’t look like a stereotypical white person. Objectively, Zimmerman is part white, but the media initially spun it simply as ‘white’, finally settling on ‘white Hispanic’, which is rather amusing since even blue-eyed and blonde-haired Hispanics in America are allowed to pose as ‘people of color’ and generally not referred to as ‘white’ by the Jew-run Media. Also, while it’s true that Martin was not armed with a weapon(he was said to have been ‘armed with only skittles’), he was using his bare fists as weapons on Zimmerman’s head that suffered a broken nose and bleeding skull. The media also deleted certain words Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman said the suspect was black when he was asked of the race, but the media edited the track to sound as if Zimmerman was on the hunt for a black guy. Zimmerman’s lawsuit was rejected by the court, which should tell you how the legal power structure is really run in this country. (Btw, if Zimmerman really had his heart set on killing a black guy — any black guy — that night, why did he call 911? Why not just sneak up on the Negro and shoot him?) Anyway, the thing is everything the media reported about the incident was, more or less, factually true but willfully and selectively constructed to be misleading. If Bob is half black and half white and if he uses a knife to defend himself against a fully black James who is punching and kicking him and has a bag of cookies in the back pocket(and if, in the struggle, James dies of knife wounds), it would be factually and objectively accurate to say that white Bob stabbed the unarmed black James ‘armed only with a bag of cookies’?
But it would leave out the fact that Bob is only half-white and was being pummeled nearly to death by James who was using his fists as weapons. Given the nature of contextuality, objective facts can take on all sorts of significance. Also, reality is such that there are countless objective facts surrounding any incident or social phenomenon. Which ones do you choose to play with? Even when both sides agree on the same objective facts, they may differ on conclusions due to different perspectives and contexts. Today, most Israelis have come around to admitting that massive ethnic cleansing(known as the Nakba) did take place in the creation of Israel, but they still justify the creation of Israel as having been necessary on the basis of the Holocaust, Jewish historical claim to the Holy Land, and Arab intransigence in reaching a settlement when Palestine was divided in two by the ‘international community’(dominated by US and USSR).
Jews often say Arabs attacked Jews first following the partition, but then, Arabs can say that the artificial division of Palestine by the UN was a violent act of imposition against Arabs. I mean how would Polish people like it if the international community divided Poland in two and have one half to the Turks or Chinese? We wouldn’t expect any people to accept or submit to such intrusion on their territory and rights as a people, but for some reason, the Jewish-dominated media in this country would have us believe that Palestinians should have accepted the deal that was force upon them by the UN in 1948. It’s all the more amusing if we recall that most American Jews believe America was the bad guy in Vietnam War. Jews say that Americans and Europeans had NO RIGHT in dividing Vietnam in half, making the south anti-communist and using it as a client state against communist North Vietnam. Therefore, according to Jewish liberals and leftists, the North Vietnamese, the true patriots in the conflict, had every right to carry out a ruthless war of terror and attrition against South Vietnam in order to drive out the imperialist Americans. But for some reason, the same Jews insist that it was wrong for Palestinians to rise up in 1948 and challenge the artificial division of their country by the great powers. At least in the case of Vietnam, even the southern part still remained Vietnam and was populated by the Vietnamese. What happened with Palestine was infinitely worse. It was divided in two and one-half was declared officially Jewish, which meant that Palestinians in Jewish areas would become second-class citizens in what had been their homeland for over a thousand years.
So, in consideration of all these factors, objectivity is a problem-riddled principle in the attainment of truth. Human truth is not so much in the facts as in the interpretation of facts, in the emotional attachments and in the grand narratives spun from them. Steven Spielberg’s MUNICH is a piece of fictionalization of real events, but even if everything in the film were factually true, its use of context justifies Jewish violence over Palestinian violence. (Indeed, just consider the title that focuses our attention on the attack on Jewish athletes in a city in Germany, the nation associated with the Holocaust.) Because the story of Mossad violence is framed in relation to acts of Palestinian terrorism, Zionist violence is defacto rationalized and justified. But suppose the film had begun with the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Then, Palestinian act of terrorism might seem justified, just like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima are thought to have been justified because Germany and Japan started the war.
Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner's bogus 'objective' movie about tit-for-tat violence between Jews and Arabs.
American Conservatives are fools because they fail to understand the power of contextuality. They see some Jewish ‘conservatives’ on their side and make believe that Jews are their friends. They stupidly and willfully ignore the larger context of Jewish power, i.e. most Jews hate white conservatives and tolerate only castrated white Liberals who roll over and play fetch and sign onto monstrosities like ‘gay marriage’. Jews only tolerate whites who are easy dupes of the globalist Zionist agenda. As conservatives aren’t as easy to sway as white Liberals are, one might think they’re smarter and more skeptical, but this isn’t true. (Incidentally, as Jews have realized that white conservative tribal instincts are ineradicable, those passions have been channeled toward waving the Israeli flag than the white power flag. Since white Conservatives have a lot of muffled pent-up rage due to its alleged ‘racist’ content, they are grateful to allowed total lack of restraint in their pro-Zionist hatred of Arabs and Muslims — and Russians and sometimes Chinese.) The main reason why most American Conservatives resist the Jewish-led social agenda is as stupid as to why white Liberals bend over to it. If white Liberals are PC-brainwashed drones who will bend over to whatever globalist Jews put before them — notice how they weren’t for ‘gay marriage’ but then quickly changed their mind soon after Jews unleashed an endless barrage of homo propaganda through media and academia — , many white Conservatives are brain-dead Christian Right types who stick with Old Truths mainly out of a fear of anything new or different. As for Libertarians, they live in a fantasy land where legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling can solve all problems. Libertarians believe that the main reason for the demise of Detroit and Gary(Indiana) was too much ‘socialism’ and lack of free markets! As most Jews are Liberal, they must be ‘socialist’ and anti-wealth. Then, why are Jews the richest people in America? Texas is pretty conservative and has few regulations. Then, how come it has so many poor blacks who are just as problematic as the ones in Detroit or Gary? Libertarians pretend to be courageous objective/rational thinkers in accordance with facts and logic, but they are mostly cowards hiding behind abstractions mistaken for facts — ‘abfactions’. They are afraid to touch on the truly important subject of racial differences, and so they opt for ‘principles’ of freedom and liberty. But given the reality of racial differences, white Libertarians — and almost all of them are white — must know deep down inside that total freedom under equal treatment of the law will generally favor whites over non-whites.
But Libertarians pretend that the only thing they care about is principles and that these principles will be universally good for individuals of all races(as ‘race is just a social construct’). Of course, Libertarians do have a point. Blacks and Hispanics do have something to gain by embracing greater sense of individual responsibility, freedom, and initiative. Instead of relying on the State to provide them with everything, people of all races have much to gain by focusing on individual input. And Libertarians do believe in the rule of law and, furthermore, argue that negative consequences of poor decisions will help deter individuals from doing dumb things in the future. (But then, the libertarian argument in favor of gambling — an industry prized by Jews since they get to rake in billions from suckers from around the world — undermines its own logic. If indeed individuals can be trusted to make smart/sensible decisions following negative consequences of stupid choices, why doesn’t the gambling industry go out of business? Surely, most people who gamble lose money, and in most cases, the more they gamble, the more money they lose. So, why do so many people keep gambling despite all the negative consequences of their decisions? So much for individuals making rational decisions based on negative consequences of their behavior. If libertarianism is indeed correct about human nature, then gambling industries would have gone out of business long ago as most people who lost money would have quit the habit. If anything, the addiction to gambling is about making perpetual losses seem like fresh chances for winning. Consider the gambling addictions in ATLANTIC CITY and MURIEL. They are not about rationality.) Libertarians ignore one key facet of human nature: a lot of people are morons, more emotional beings than rational beings. If Libertarianism allows maximum freedom for people to indulge in drugs, gamble, prostitution, and the like, then many people will become so addicted to wantonness that they’ll fail to cultivate the kind of character that strengthens their inner-core to make the right decision. If everyone had the resolve of Ron Paul, libertarianism might work. With rock solid core values, Ron Paul remained married to one woman and never used dangerous narcotics even as he called for greater freedom of choice. But too many people are not like Ron Paul, and unfettered access to all sorts of narcotics and vices are likely to coarsen their characters, infantilize their behavior, and ruin their lives. (Our culture of wantonness has turned Wall Street into a mega-casino where Jews exploit the global market to rake in trillions from everyone who get suckered by one bubble after another.)

For most people ranging from middle class to underclass, the best ideology is neo-fascism. Before people can be free and responsible as individuals, they must be conditioned, trained, educated, disciplined, and shaped into thinking civilized beings with core values and set of sacred truths. Without the cultural, historical, and moral bedrock, even smart people are likely to develop destructive and/or decadent habits.
A libertarian fantasy might be something like the film M*A*S*H where the surgeons mess around, talk shit all day, tease and taunt women, and break all the square rules BUT still manage to be sterling characters and get the job done. The film suggests that since the surgeons are so funny and smart, they don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It’s like the Counterculture version of the Nietzschean Superman. No matter what they do — harass womenfolk, talk a nurse into having sex with a suicidal guy who think he’s gay, ridicule Faith, dope a kid, use blackmail, inject the opposing team member with drugs, and etc. — , it’s cool and hip since they are politically liberal and behaviorally libertarian. And of course, their victims are made out to be strawman targets, just a bunch of lame squares, hypocrites, dupes, and dullards(who deserve what’s coming to them). M*A*S*H is a truly despicable film. It is sanctimonious but preaches against sanctimony. It is bullying and nasty but sermonizes against bullying and nastiness. It is full of verve and spontaneity but foul just the same.
What may appeal to Libertarians about the film is the notion that if you just allow people to be free, everything will fall into its place because, after all, even as the anarchic Hawkeye, Trapper, and their cronies turn the army hospital upside down with their endless antics, everything and everyone somehow turn out better for it.
M*A*S*H by Robert Altman. 'Anarchism' that is too good to be true.
Like THE LONGEST YARD and THE BAD NEWS BEARS that surely drew inspiration from it, M*A*S*H was a sign of the times as America was undergoing major shifts in its social values and cultural attitudes. (The TV sitcom ALL IN THE FAMILY also captured this national mood that was actually far more contradictory than thought at the time. The conventional view of the messy, disorderly, and ‘anarchic’ hippie/rebel versus the orderly, uptight, and square members of the older generation was only half-correct, especially pertaining to affluent wasp families. On the one hand, the younger generation of boomers was indeed frustrated with social controls and repressions that held back their yearning for freedom in sex, drugs, and rock n roll. But on the other hand, the boomers were really upset over the fact that their parents[especially if working class and/or ethic] were often boorish, rough, wild, and ‘barbaric’ when it came to cultural sensibility, social graces, and racial attitudes. Though Meathead may have long hair and beard, he is actually very meticulous about issues of right and wrong, much more so than Archie Bunker who has more of a mercenary and street-smart view of humanity. Though hippies and counterculture folks sometimes over-indulged in their liberties and made a mess of things, the true ideal of the movement was for people to be groovy, cool, harmonious, brotherly, and full of good vibes. It was ‘spiritualist’ than tribalist. In contrast, most of the ‘greatest generation’ never developed refined tastes, appreciation of arts & culture, sophistication, or some dream of a perfect society. Their moral values mostly consisted of conventions they grew up with. It wasn’t something they thought about or idealized. It was customary than conscientious. So, even as the one side of boomers rebelled against the uptight squareness of their parents, another side actually resented and were embarrassed about the fact that their parents were such rough, uncultured, and messy slobs and barbarians. When Archie and Meathead get into an argument, we aren’t always sure who is supposed to be the barbarian. Meathead may sometimes seem like the barbarian-at-the-gate, but Archie often seems the barbarian-in-the-castle; Meathead seems like an uptight moral crusader trying to bring order and light into the castle run by a barbarian king with potty mouth and lack of social graces, such as burping, sitting around like a slob, and mispronouncing words. It’s no wonder that as soon as the boomers grew up and found economic success and social status, they put on airs and turned into prissy social puritans — especially with Political Correctness — that concocted endless rules about seatbelts, smoking, drinking, forbidden words, using education as indoctrination, and etc.) But despite its spirit of spontaneity and free-wheeling madness, it is disingenuously formulated to push all the right buttons on us. It is more manipulative than liberating. If a movie like GREEN BERETS(with John Wayne) made Americans mindlessly wave the flag and respect authority, M*A*S*H made the audience mindlessly cheer for its anti-establishment heroes. Unlike a true work of satire, it drowned you in laughter than pricked you with clarity. If M*A*S*H was merely content to be mindless in its anarchy — like ANIMAL HOUSE or STRIPES — , it could be enjoyed as honest trash, but it pretends to say something about the System, Vietnam(with Korea as allegory), Freedom, and Truth. Ring Lardner and Robert Altman’s message in a nutshell may have been "Don’t judge a book by its cover", i.e. though Hawkeye(Donald Sutherland) and Elliott Gould(Trapper) act like clowns, they are dedicated surgeons and decent human beings and, when push comes to shove, they do the right thing... whereas the self-righteous pricks and prigs talk a good game but are really full of themselves.
But the problem is Hawkeye and Trapper aren’t merely ragged around the covers but smudged from page to page. Some of the stuff they do in the film cannot be justified on any grounds; they are simply mean and nasty, even downright cruel. If your child needed brain surgery, you wouldn’t be making an appointment with either. The rough guy with the heart of gold is as hoary a cliche as the hooker with one. Not that such people don’t exist, but it fails as a standard truism about life.
We can certainly understand the appeal of M*A*S*H, especially to the Jewish audience. Upper-crust Wasps had better manners and more refined demeanor whereas lots of Jews were wily and vulgar. Even so, many ‘vulgar’ Jews lacking in social graces made better lawyers, doctors, and scientists than their counterparts in the well-heeled Wasp world. Einstein always looked kinda casual and messy, but he was a greater scientist than most German scientists with clean uniforms and combed hair. Muhammad Ali acted the clown but was maybe the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. Bob Dylan and many Rockers in the 60s looked rough and crude but made more brilliant and exciting music than musicians who stuck with conventions and/or traditions. It’s like the Mozart-and-Salieri dichotomy in AMADEUS. (Or it’s like the Toshiro Mifune character in SANJURO, though something of a social outcast, is truer in ethics and talent than most of the respectable men of the establishment.) So, there developed the cult of authenticity and being real. Real substance was about your ability than your image. (Movies like BROADCAST NEWS and QUIZ SHOW perpetuated the Judeo-centric narrative that Wasps were favored for their image over the Jews who were actually superior in ability.) A doctor could look unprofessional on the outside but be a great doctor where it counts in the surgery room, whereas another doctor could look ideal in manner and demeanor but be a second-rater as a doctor. One could argue that first-raters shouldn’t care about the look-of-things since their worth can be proven with demonstration of talent; in contrast, second-raters must rely more on appearances and impressions as masks of ‘dignity’ and ‘sobriety’ to hide their relative lack of talent.
This may be true enough in certain cases, but the problem of M*A*S*H is it conflates roughness and vulgarity with worth and talent. While it’s true enough that Ali acted the clown but was a great boxer and Bob Dylan acted the jerk but was a great rock artist, it doesn’t follow that clownishness and jerk-like behavior are, in and of themselves, virtues associated with talent. In other words, a book can have a crappy cover and a great story, but it doesn’t follow that any book with a crappy cover tells a great story.
Indeed, more likely than not, a vulgar and rough person will generally be worse at what they do than a well-organized and neat person. One of the tragedies of the Sixties is that it went FROM rough-on-the-outside-can-be-good-on-the-inside TO rough-on-the-outside-IS-good-on-the-outside, and M*A*S*H was a prime specimen of such fallacious and slovenly thinking.
But was it really a case of slovenly thinking, or was Ring Lardner Jr.(its writer) just being willfully subversive out of contempt? As a member of the communist-sympathizing Hollywood Ten, he couldn’t have been for anarchy and libertarian freedom. His ‘rebellion’ against the American government was predicated on his ideological affinity with the International Left with its conformist dogmas. Lardner didn’t defy the government in the name of freedom but out of his greater loyalty to the Cause. He certainly expressed no sympathy for the millions of victims of communism, the most totalitarian ideology of the 20th century(and maybe in human history), so the libertarian-ish freewheeling on display in M*A*S*H is suspect.
To be sure, it’s possible that what passed for ‘leftism’ in Lardner’s case(he was born in 1915) was simply of a different order than what later came to be associated with ‘progressive’ attitudes. By today’s standards, most American leftists and communists of the first 2/3 of the 20th century would probably be thought of as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘male chauvinist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘male dominated’, and etc. Let us remember that Ernest Hemingway was thought to be a leftist in his day. And even a lifelong liberal like Harold Bloom got in hot water a few times for his comments about blacks, homos, and feminists. From Lardner’s point of view, the bad boy antics in his screenplay might have been the means by which to ruffle the feathers of conservative American society. Today, with Liberals holding sway over the cultural system and enforcing its politically correct ‘new norms’ — and with many Conservatives all-too-comfortable with vulgarity and even embracing it in stuff like FAMILY GUY, SOUTHPARK, and KING OF THE HILL as an affront to Liberal pieties and sensitivities — , roughhouse antics may now seem more offensive to the ‘Left’ than to the Right. After all, it’s Liberals who now throw conniptions about people saying, sharing, or tweeting the wrong thing. Paula Deen’s show was canceled when it was revealed that she had said ‘nigger’ in a private conversation long ago after being robbed by a Negro. And it’s Liberals who rake Pop Culture over the coals to burn all the ‘gay jokes’. Homos are the new puritanical prigs who cannot abide by any jokes made about them, and Jews are even more fervent in going after ‘anti-Semites’ than Joseph McCarthy was in going after communists. Of course, an ‘anti-Semite’ today could be anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power. Indeed, Jews are even planning to enact laws that would forbid criticism of Jewish power. Such laws already exist in Europe, and most Jews in America are fully supportive of them and want the likes of Obama to fill the Supreme Court with more Liberals so that the First Amendment of the Constitution will no longer protect speech that dares to spill the beans on Jewish power. Of course, even without such laws, anyone who dares to sound the alarm on Jewish Power has no chance of making it in politics, business, law, and academia since Jews have a lock on all the elite institutions. Given the hostility of most Jews toward conservatism, you’d think American conservatives would logically play the role in countering Jewish power, but most American conservatives are fools and idiots who harbor this fantasy that Jews like them. (Jewish pushers of ‘hate speech’ legislation complain about ‘group defamation’, but then, all general statements about any group could be construed as such. After all, if one says, "Germans invaded Poland", one is defaming Germans since not all Germans supported Hitler and even many who did support him didn’t necessarily support his war plans. All general statements about any race, any religious group, or any nation are bound to be ‘defame’ the group since no single statement about any group can apply to every one of its member. If one says "Americans firebombed Dresden" or "Americans invaded Iraq", what about all those Americans who had nothing to do with the bombing of Germany[or may even have opposed it] and what about all the Americans who opposed the Bush Doctrine and its application in the Middle East? And the statement "whites enslaves blacks" could also be said to be group-defaming since most whites didn’t own slaves, and many white immigrants arrived in America long after slavery was ended. And surely, the term ‘white privilege’ could be said to be a case of group-defamation since it doesn’t apply to most whites. Indeed, even if whites in general had been favored by the law and the powers-that-be through much of American history, it still doesn’t follow that most Americans were ‘privileged’. Most Americans, even if favored racially for jobs and positions, had to eke out a living working on farms, in factories, in coal mines, on railroads, and etc. Suppose white workers are favored over non-white workers for janitorial jobs. Does being a white janitor make the white person ‘privileged’? It’s like many illegal aliens have been favored by amnesty but that doesn’t mean that they are ‘privileged’ like Jewish children born to millionaire lawyers.)
There's no limit to sheepish conformist stupidity, especially among self-righteous and naive young white people brainwashed by PC controlled by Jews.
Despite Alain Resnais’ assured standing in the film community, most of his films(with the possible exception of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD) failed to generate long-term interest as subjects of discussion and veneration among cinephiles. One possible reason is that most of his films have eluded categorization as to what they’re about. One could argue Time and Memory have been recurring themes in Resnais’ films, but his films leave the impression of the illusory, fleeting, and deceptive nature of time and memory, which, by their very nature, are intangibles difficult to ascertain and locate. Furthermore, Resnais’s approach was like quicksilver than metallurgy. He didn’t pull fish out of the water and turn them into trophies; he captured their movements through wavy waters or split-second leaps into the air.

There is memory as a willed exercise of remembrance of past events, but there is also memory with an independent ‘logic’ of its own, one that comes and goes involuntarily. It just emerges, unleashing forgotten sensations and images most unexpectedly, only to vanish as you try to hold onto them. It’s like you never know when a fish will leap out of the water, and just as you take notice, it’s back in the water before you’ve fully captured the moment. A lifetime of memories are stored within us, but an internal psychological gravity holds most of them from surfacing onto consciousness; such restraint is necessary to keep us focused on the present. If the mechanism of internal gravity were to fail, all the memories within us would rupture forth and overwhelm the conscious mind all at once without end. Imagine what would happen to a lake if it were ‘liberated’ of gravity that holds the water to the ground; the water and fish would float upward with no means of settling back down. It’s been said that when a man undergoes a near-death experience, he sees his entire life flashing by. It could be that when the mind comes close to death, its inner gravity weakens; the mind-dam bursts and all the stored memories flow forth, just like bladder and intestinal control weakens and makes the dying person urinate and/or defecate all over.
One of Resnais’ films JE T’AIME JE T’AIME deals with the relation between death and memory. A man who survived a suicide is used in a time machine experiment whereby his memories converge with the present. And yet, the past is a foreign country to which one can never return. Memory is a curse and a blessing. Without complex and extensive memory, everything we call ‘human’ and especially ‘civilizational’ wouldn’t be possible. (Animals have no sense of history, hardly any sense of biography.) It’s not only because memory is a key component of what we call intelligence but because culture is kind of myth that makes us feel as a part of something much broader and deeper. Memory isn’t only individual but infectious. Everyone brought up in a certain culture remembers not only incidents of his or her personal life but long-ago events preserved through folklore, songs, books, cults, and rituals. Today’s Christians are separated by 2000 yrs from the time when Jesus walked the Earth and died on the Cross, but they feel as if they can ‘remember’ the events as if they’d been part of that world. All forms of storytelling create powerful and lively, almost realistic, images in the listener and reader. (With the advent of cinema, storytelling has become like a form of time machine since the audience feels transported to another place and time. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is like a journey to the distance past when things barely changed over eons and to the accelerated future where a mere decade can change everything.) A member of primitive savage tribe remembers not only his childhood but the ‘history’ of his people told in tales around the campfire. And when primitive folks look upon the constellations, they feel a stirring of ‘cosmic memory’ that takes them back to the very beginning of everything, at least as understood by their cultural phenomenology. The movie MIRACLE MILE illustrates the barriers and bridges between cosmic time and personal time. Like HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, it begins inside a museum, one filled with historic(or pre-historic to be precise) memory, and then gradually connects the dots of (pre)historical memory with personal time and memory. As crucial as memory is to our sense of history and culture, civilization is essentially unstable because memory itself is unstable. (In some ways, longer the history, less stable the memory. After all, people only live for several decades, and the human mind can remember only so much. If a civilization is thousands of years old, that’s a lot of history to learn and retain. On the other hand, a long history has a stabilizing effect because the members of the community can take for granted that they have a long and deep pedigree in terms of identity, history, and territory. Even if they don’t know all the details, they know they have extensive roots in a long grand tradition. In contrast, while a shorter history is easier for a people to grasp, remember, and understand — American History is certainly much shorter than Greek, Italian, British, Persian, or Chinese history — , the temporal shallowness has less of a legitimizing effect. Is it any wonder that America and Americanization — as a form of global psycho-cultural export — have a tendency to dismiss or reject identity and tradition in favor of new possibilities, fashions, and ideologies?) With new discoveries in archaeology and/or new developments in textual analysis, what had been revered as sacred memory or established theory is often exposed or discredited as falsehoods, to be replaced by new paradigms. Every generation is taught such-and-such is the true story of the Origin of Man, but new findings keep altering the official theory for new generations.
New findings have shown that Homo Sapiens mated with Neanderthals.
When I was in school, we were taught that mankind emerged from Africa and wiped out all the indigenous humans or humanoids who’d left Africa much earlier. But new discoveries show that there was some genetic mixing between the Out-of-North-Africa nomads and Neanderthals. It also means that Neanderthals were not another species but another race of man since the children of Out-of-North-African invaders and Neanderthals were fertile. This kind of ‘memory’ recovered through science & research is beyond the means & power of most of us, and we rely on experts in the fields of history, archaeology, paleontology, biology, and astronomy to tell us how cosmos originated, how Earth was created, how life formed on Earth, how the first humans emerged, and how civilization developed. As the paradigms shift according to latest academic research, our official ‘memories’ follow along.
Anyway, can they be called ‘memories’ if we don’t have personal recollections of them? We say that ‘we remember history’, but as our lives are short, most of history that we ‘remember’ are not our own memories, therefore not true memories. We don’t remember history. Instead, we are told of our history or the history is implanted into our minds in form of ‘collective memory’. (It’s like what we call ‘news’ is something shown to us through the media than something we’ve seen or gained through our own eyes or experiences.) Nevertheless, the psychology of memory is such that upon reading a book or attending a lecture on history, we almost feel as if we are remembering events as they really took place. (This is even truer as time goes on. When we first read a book or attend a lecture, our minds work in learning mode. But once the learning has been absorbed, we process the material essentially in remembrance mode in depreciation of the learning process that had planted the material in our minds in the first place. The reason why people are so sure and defensive of their Truth is because their minds tend to work more in remembrance mode than learning mode. They tend to forget that even what they regard as the Truth was planted in their minds by learning, i.e. they only remember it as the Truth because someone had taught them it is so. In remembrance mode, people tend to think they are just recalling something that is innate and intrinsic to the way of humanity and the universe; they tend to overlook the fact that what they remember had been planted in their minds by people who could have been right, wrong, or considered-right-at-the-time-but-disproved-by-new-discoveries. A similar mental process happens with movies. When we first see the movie, we know we are being shown something new and fresh to us. But once the movie has been seen and absorbed, we remember it as a part of our lives rather than as something that had been presented to us by its maker-manipulators.) If history could really be remembered, we would be independent of the power of historians and teachers. But as it happens, we are born without memory of all that had been and utterly at the mercy of those who tell our histories to us. (Of course, historians themselves don’t directly remember the past since they too were born without memories. They remember by repeating and reinterpreting what had been remembered by earlier historians. Traditionally, the essence of history in most cultures was to receive the narrative from older historians and pass it down to younger historians who, as they grew older, passed it down to younger historians. To the received narrative was added the official portrait of the present powers-that-be that, in time, became part of the received history. The main duty of historians wasn’t to challenge past history but merely to preserve it to be added with the official version of newer events. But with the rise of archaeology and the independent historian — and the idea of academia separate from the interests of powers-that-be — , history of the past was no longer merely a matter of receiving the handed-down narrative but a critical and speculative reevaluation by the way of perusing through areas and artifacts that had been ignored by traditional history. For example, there is much to learn about the past by rummaging through remnants of garbage of ancient folks, something that would been regarded as beneath the dignity of the traditional historian.) Simply by gaining control of history, the entire nature of civilizational memory can change. When Wasps ruled American History/Memory, white Americans were imbued with great pride, confidence, and glory about their nation, race, and history. But when Jews gained control of history, white Americans were burdened with ‘white guilt’ and came to revere the likes of Harriet Tubman more than all the ‘dead white males’ combined. ‘White guilt’ has become such a paralyzing component of white ‘remembrance’ of history — and the cult of ‘diversity’ has become such a mesmerizing globo-utopian vision for people around the world — that whites have been led to believe that the only way they can feel good about themselves is by doing things that absolve them of their ‘historical sins’. There was a time when white Americans ‘remembered’ American history as a source of pride and validation. Today, white Americans ‘remember’ their history as a means of redemption and absolution. Since the grand narrative focuses on black slavery, ‘Jim Crow’, and other such things, white Americans feel that they must prove to the world and to themselves that they are seeking moral cleansing by being expunged of ‘racism’, and such a mind-set exists as much on the American Right as on the ‘Left’. The history of the American South has been reduced to ‘racism’ and ‘rednecks’, and therefore, even the trivial revelation that Paula Deen said ‘nigger’ back in 1986(out of anger after being robbed by a black man) is reason enough for JewCarthyism to destroy her life and career. As Jews control history, they emphasized those things that make white folks feel ever so sorry and guilty.
We are all born with blank slate memories, and so, the slates must be filled. No one is born with historical memory(no matter how illustrious it may be) because memory doesn’t pass through the genes from parent to child. (If a Greek child is told nothing of Greek history, he won’t know anything about the meaning of what it means to be Greek; it will be as if the Greeks had never existed; he will just another Pop Culture junkie addicted to and manipulated by Jewish-controlled Hollywood globalist trash-culture.) As blank slates of memories are filled, a kind of dream logic occurs in the mental process. Even though every student knows that he or she is learning history from books and lectures, a hypnotic spell takes hold and makes the student feel as if he or she is remembering past events as they really happened. Thus, the feeling goes from "I’m learning of past events from books written by other people" to "I’m ‘remembering’ the stories of my people and of humanity." Jews, with their control of academia and media, say they are trying to make people more empathetic toward other people, but what they really mean is they want white people and gentiles to be more sympathetic toward Jews and certain groups(favored by and useful to Jewish power) whose narratives of past and/or present suffering will undermine white sense of pride and power. Jews oftentimes willfully confuse empathy with sympathy. A truly empathetic gentile would try to see-and-feel the world as Jews see-and-feel it. Empathy isn’t necessarily about feeling sorry for someone. It is about trying to understand what makes that person tick, what makes him believe as he does, what makes him angry and sad, what propels him to do and say as he does. Empathy can lead to sympathy, but it can also lead to revulsion. In order to truly empathize with the Jew means to know what the Jew may be really thinking and how Jews may really see gentiles, especially white ones. Hideously clever Jews have promoted selective empathy to boost their own power and privilege. Thus, Jews don’t want white Americans to sympathize with Ukrainians who were killed by the millions by Joseph Stalin and his Jewish henchmen. (Jews want Americans to sympathize with Ukrainians ONLY AGAINST Russia.) Jews don’t want white Americans to see-and-feel the world as Palestinians do, and indeed most Americans, white liberals and conservatives, feel not the slightest ounce of sympathy for Palestinians even though the fate of Palestinians may well be that of whites in US and EU if Jews can help it.

Jews would rather have Americans sympathize with the so-called Hollywood Ten than with 100,000+ Japanese-in-America who were ‘interned’ during WWII. Why? Because FDR and Jews worked together to violate Japanese-American rights whereas Hollywood Ten and other such communist-sympathizing ilk were substantially Jewish. So, when Jews talk about ‘empathy’, we need to stand up and remind the Jews of all the victims of Jewish power and dirty dealings.
Do Jews in the media and academia remind us of the millions of white victims of black violence? Do they remind us of the horrific killings of whites in South Africa? Of course not. And even if such things are reported, it’s done in a dry and ‘objective’ manner whereas news about ‘white historical sins’ are dramatized into a never-ending Passion Play. A Jew is someone who fumes more about what Paula Deen said decades ago(following a trauma of being robbed by a black man with a gun) than what black violence has done to whites in the past several decades.
To be sure, within the context of American history, it is understandable why blacks would receive surplus sympathy. They’d been worked as slaves and, even after Emancipation, led lives as second-class Americans. And the justice system, especially in the American South, was far from equal in guaranteeing justice to whites and blacks. So, from a historical viewpoint, we can understand why a word like ‘nigger’ would be more hurtful than a word like ‘honkey’. Black experience in America made them feel inferior, uglier, and less worthy of the freedoms and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. And they had much less power than whites. Thus, a word like ‘nigger’ was bound to sting a lot more than ‘honkey’. Even conservatives must admit that it just sounds meaner for Archie Bunker to say ‘nigger’ than it is for George Jefferson to say ‘honkey’ or ‘zebra’. (But if we change the context from history to biology, it becomes worse for blacks to say ‘white boy’ than it is for whites to say ‘nigger’. Since evolutionary biology made blacks stronger, tougher, and more aggressive than whites, it explains why most interracial crime in America is black-on-white. Thus, whites become the ‘helpless’ victims within the context of ‘biological injustice’[as nature/evolution made whites into easy victims of the tougher and more aggressive blacks], and therefore, the white fear of the Negro becomes utterly justified. According to the historical context as peddled by Jews and guilt-ridden white Liberals, the Negro is a saintly victim figure who loves a little white mouse and who done suffered for the sins of white folks — like in the movie THE GREEN MILE. But within the biological context, the Negro is a powerful guy who can over-power you, rip off your pants, and rape you in the ass, as often happens in prisons all across America. [Indeed, more men than women are raped in the US, but the story is ignored because it often involves black inmates overpowering and raping white inmates. In Jewish-controlled US, the notion of white victim-hood is anathema to the favored Narrative that says America is still all about ‘white privilege’. As for affluent whites, they better shut up about poor whites being victimized by blacks — who are often referred to as ‘teens’ and ‘youths’ — since any sign of white solidarity exhibited by white elites will lead to their vilification and destruction by Jews for their purported ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’. But then, sadly, many poor white Americans no longer even resist the Negro aggression. Many poor white girls are now into ‘jungle fever’ culture, hang around blacks, and wanna have black children. And many poor white males, lacking in any meaningful pride or culture, either imitate black rappers or think it’s so cool that black athletes and rappers are getting all the white girls. They just wish they could be ‘white niggaz’.] In this context, white people who’d been routinely victimized by blacks might feel justified in thinking of blacks as ‘fuc*ing nigger apes’. This is why Jews don’t want white folks to think of racial differences. Once whites realize that there are genuine racial differences that physically endangers whites who come in contact with blacks, whites may realize that their ‘racism’ toward blacks is morally justified, i.e. it is defensive and survivalist than chauvinist and aggressive.) If there’s a history of Bob beating up James and calling him ‘faggot’, Bob calling James ‘faggot’ is more hurtful than James calling Bob ‘faggot’. When it comes to Japan and China, we expect Japanese to be more sensitive because Japan invaded China and not vice versa — though, to be sure, with US seeing China as the main threat in Asia today, there is hardly any Japan-bashing anymore over what happened in WWII; Jews who control US foreign policy want stuff like the Nanking Massacre to be de-emphasized, even forgotten. When it comes to Germany and Poland, we expect Germans to be more sensitive since Germany invaded Poland. Even so, it doesn’t mean that Chinese are deserving of sympathy as ‘historical victims’ within every context. A specific history must not be universalized into a universal and eternal moral principle. What is valid in one context is not valid in another. When it comes to Chinese and Tibetan relations, Chinese should be more sensitive since they’ve caused much harm to Tibet. It’d be ridiculous to invoke the context of Japan-China history in WWII to discuss China’s relation with Tibet. If Tibetans attack and kill Chinese, they do as anti-imperialist nationalists, not as imperialist-aggressors as Japanese had done. It would be crazy to say Tibetans-who-kill-Chinese are like Japanese-who-killed-Chinese. It would be more accurate to say that Tibetans who kill Chinese are like Chinese resistant-fighters who killed the Japanese occupier-colonists. So, sensitivities and sympathies must change according to different contexts. Just because a people were victimized in one context doesn’t mean that they are ‘noble victims’ in every context. Just because China was mauled by Japan and mistreated by Western Imperialists doesn’t mean that the Chinese are victims of everyone else too. But that is precisely the sort of politics China has been playing. Every time the world criticizes China’s violation of human rights in Tibet(though, to be sure, we hear far less of this), China frames the criticism in the context of Western Imperialist meddling in Chinese affairs. (To be sure, Western criticism of China’s treatment of Tibetans is mostly opportunistic since the West has enthusiastically aided and abetted the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the name of the Zionist enterprise. Also, all the New World nations and Australia were created through conquest and imperialism, even some degree of ‘genocide’.) Similarly, while Jews were clearly tragic victims of the Holocaust, it doesn’t follow that every historical context involving Jews should be Holocausted to the point where Jews are always right and their enemies/rivals/victims are always wrong. In the case of the creation of Israel, it was the Zionist imperialists who grabbed the land from Palestinians who became the victims. And in the case of the Occupation of West Bank, it’s the Jews who’ve been acting like the French in Algeria and Afrikaner whites in South Africa. But Jews have cleverly Holocaust-ed every context involving themselves. So, if Jews in the future were to wipe out Palestinians as Nazis tried to do with the Jews, Jews will invoke, with devilish irony, the Holocaust to morally justify their bloodbath of Palestinians. They’ll say they had to racially exterminate the Palestinians in order to prevent the Holocaust of the Jews — even though the power imbalance between Zionists vs Palestinians like that between an elephant vs a mouse. But since Jews own the Western Media, they convey the impression of a poor helpless elephant being freaked out by the nasty mouse, and therefore, most Americans feel protective of darling little Jewish elephant from the big evil Palestinian mouse.
How Zionists act vis-a-vis Palestinians. Oh, the poor little elephant is so terrified by the big bad mouse.
Contexts matter as meanings change according to context. If Bob beat up James, James is the victim of Bob. However, the fact that James was beaten by Bob doesn’t make James the victim of everyone. It doesn’t give James the right to beat up Bill and then, when Bill fights back, defame Bill as being like Bob for using violence to fight back to defend himself from James the aggressor. But that is precisely what Jews have done with the Palestinians. Jews got beaten up by Germans. Jews were clearly the victims in the context of the events of World War II. But Jews universalized and eternalized the context to all of Jewish experience and history — past, present, and future — and so, everything Jews do, no matter how vile or wicked, is justified within the context of the Holocaust. If a Jew punches your face, his fist is the victim of your face that wrongfully stood in its way. We are told over and over that Palestinians had to be ethnically cleansed and forced to become second-class citizens in order to prevent another Holocaust. And since Palestinians have used violence to fight back against Jewish violence, we are supposed to see them as the New Nazis. And, all of Jewish-Christian history is seen as leading up to the Holocaust. Never mind Jewish collaboration with Muslim invaders of Europe. Never mind Jewish role in European slavery whereby millions of Europeans, especially Slavic women and boys, were sold as slaves to Arabia and North Africa. Instead, Jewish historians have reduced European history as one long narrative of noble Jewish suffering as if Jews never did anything wrong and were always under attack by ‘irrational’ goyim. This long-held ‘irrational’ hatred among European gentiles is said to have eventually led to the Holocaust. Thus, Jews tend to see everything around them — any criticism of Jews, no matter how valid — as laying the grounds for Another Holocaust. And Jews justify every means to expand their power, privilege, and wealth as necessary to ensure that they will be able to fend off another Holocaust in the future. According to the Jewish narrative, Jews are so good, perfect, wonderful, saintly, funny, endearing, smart, and everything nice under the sun. Therefore, all the bad things that befell the Jews must be the fault of irrational gentiles who’ve long been infected with ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, and ‘toxic’ ‘antisemitism’ and other mental sicknesses. According to this narrative, there is absolutely no way a healthy, intelligent, and good person could possibly have any reason to dislike Jews, suspect Jews, be critical of Jews, distrust Jews, and, heaven forbid, hate Jews.
But Jews are, of course, not stupid. Deep down inside, Jews know that they are a neurotic, contemptuous, cunning, devious, nasty, aggressive, pushy, sniveling, sneering, hideous, and difficult bunch. After all, Jews often drive one another crazy. Even fervent Jewish nationalists like David Mamet, David Cronenberg, Philip Roth, and Woody Allen have revealed, intentionally or not, aspects of Jewishness that are a big pain in the ass. Lots of people, including Jews, couldn’t stand Bob Dylan, Ayn Rand, Pauline Kael, Barbra Streisand, and Susan Sontag on the personal level. Regardless of ideology, there is something nasty about the Jewish personality. It is a combination of Semitic haggly-waggliness & teeth-gnarling AND European coldness & intellectualism. Who doesn’t wanna punch out Howard Stern, Larry David, Sarah Silverman, Sandra Bernhard, Tim Wise, Bill Maher, and the like? Susan Sontag was a brilliant essayist, but her Jewish personality drove people nuts. All ethnic groups have their share of ‘assholes’, but Jews are especially insufferable because of their combination of cutthroat Semitic pushiness and dry venom-wit. So, on some level, Jews do know that they haven’t been an innocent party in the history of their relations with gentiles. They know they often rubbed gentiles the wrong way, and they also know that, given their own transgressive nature, they cannot help but to do so. Jews cannot not be Jewish, any more than a Negro cannot not be a Jiver-ish. Being nastily Jewish comes naturally to Jews, and being wildly Jiverish comes naturally to Negroes. Of course, they can hide their true nature, but it would be mere deception. It’s like Eddie Murphy can pretend to be straight serious person but it would only be an act. When Jews see an opportunity to needle and fleece a non-Jew, it’s blood to a piranha or cheese to a mouse. It’s like the Marx Brothers have to pull their irreverent shtick in the company of some Big Dumb Goy.
If Jews were really serious about dealing with the problem of ‘antisemitism’, they’d seek some kind of mutual understanding whereby gentiles should try to be understanding of Jews and vice versa. But Jews want gentiles to be nice to Jews EVEN AS Jews continue to be nasty toward gentiles. We can see this in American politics. Jews incessantly mock and ridicule American Conservatives, but the latter are always expected to sing praises to Jews. It is so humiliating. Why can’t Jews settle on being nice? Partly, it is Jewish nature to be like the young Bob Dylan, the film critic Pauline Kael, and the Marx Brothers. Jews are comical sadists at heart and love poking fun at other people and degrading/humiliating them. It’s like a drug to them. The biggest ‘verbal bullies’ in school tend to be Jews, and they just can’t help themselves. Making fun of ‘dumb Polacks’ and the like is joyous to Jews, and Jewish humor makes them loved(as well as hated sometimes). Also, Jews want power, and they know that nice guys finish, if not last, in the middle, which is never good enough for highly ambitious, competitive, and pushy Jews. Much of Jewish neurosis is about being good-enough but not the best. Jews don’t wanna be stuck in the middle. They wanna win, and in finance, politics, culture, media, law, and academia, you don’t get very far by just being ‘nice’, ‘kind’, and ‘considerate’. You win by crushing competitors, throwing your weight around, making grandiose claims, ruthlessly and cunningly undermining your enemies, perceived or real(and Jews see just about all gentiles as enemies), and etc. Consider the Jewish character of SHATTERED GLASS. His is an extreme case, but there are so many Jews who are mentally addicted to not only winning but getting the better of others. They are addicted to the thrill of it. Jews just love the feeling of having outsmarted and duped others.

Jewish personality evolved and developed in a hussle-and-tussle world of the middle-men. Anglo elites evolved in a world of well-mannered aristocrats. Those without proper manners and good form were exiled from this community. The aristocratic class served as social model for the business classes. Also, as the aristocratic class enforced its strict codes of honor, the business class had to play by the rules or else face disgrace, shunning, and exile, like what happens to the main character of BARRY LYNDON as directed by Stanley Kubrick. Also, as the British military class provided security and law & order for the British business class, British manner of business didn’t have to be utterly devious and cunning. Same could be said of the Japanese. The samurai caste established and enforced a strict code of conduct, which had a cultural impact on non-samurai castes. Also, Japanese business had to operate within the rules established and enforced by the samurai elites. And Japanese business class could rely on the favoritism and protection of the samurai caste. In contrast, Jews were without an aristocratic class of their own. Their entire social life was defined by business. But without a Jewish aristocratic class to provide a social model of decorum and honor, Jewish business class got all haggly-waggly and hideous-giddy-ous. Also, as Jewish business class often operated without the guaranteed protection of an aristocratic military class in many places — as they sometimes roamed from one place to another — , Jews had to be more cunning and cutthroat to survive and gain an advantage. Jews had to try extra-harder to be noticed in business or any other enterprise. They had to be like Max in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. In order for Jews to be noticed more than the competition(often other Jews), they had to be more rude and pushy than others. But because rudeness is off-putting and alienating, Jews had to justify their rudeness with wit, humor — like Barbra’s Streisand’s character in FUNNY GIRL — , brilliance, or some special talent. That way, rudeness becomes legitimized as a declaration of something remarkable. If Pauline Kael and Susan Sontag had written ‘nice’ pieces in the 60s, they would not have been noticed. If Dylan had acted like a nice clean-cut lad, he wouldn’t have garnered the attention as the ‘spokesman of his generation’. If Ayn Rand had written a ‘nice’ book on the wonders of capitalism, she wouldn’t have been famous. To win, they had to knock with elbows to be noticed more than others. They had to be ‘rude’. It was also a way of strengthening one’s determination. It’s like the stare-down before the fight. You have to want to tear off the head of the other guy. Even if you don’t feel personal animus toward the opponent, you have to make yourself want to kill him in order to have the passion and ferocity to win. Jews have fire in their belly, venom in their saliva, extra semen in their balls. Wasps do not. Goldman Sachs didn’t become a premier financial institution by playing ‘nice’ and ‘fair’. George Soros didn’t make billions overnight by being a ‘nice’ and ‘trustworthy’ guy. Thus, Jews understand the need to be nasty and vile in order to gain more power and privilege. Therefore, Jews reorganized the social and economic system so as to make themselves ‘more equal than others’. In this newly made Jewish order of things, gentiles, especially white gentiles, better act ‘nice’ in order to be accepted and admitted in respectable society. But Jews don’t have to be ‘nice’ to be respected and heeded. Jews have been promoted as the eternal Holocaust people, therefore, any negative feelings about Jews means that you’re a crypto-Nazi who is secretly plotting to toss Jews into the oven. So, if a Jew spits in your face and if you feel hatred toward him, it means YOU are an ‘irrational’ hater of Jews while the Jew who spat on your is a poor helpless victim.

Though history is an academic discipline and we learn about history from books in schools, much of our remembrance of history is colored by fantasies and fiction, not least through movies and TV shows. Though historical movies are almost always grossly inaccurate, they often serve as historical references for the masses. Everyone knows that the real Moses — if such a figure really existed — didn’t look like Charlton Heston, but the first image likely to pop into many heads when they think of Moses is likely to be Heston in the Cecil B. DeMille epic. Though we know that Hollywood’s treatments of Middle East history are mostly bogus, images from such movies color our views of Middle East history and reality. Even though we know that movies about the American South made by Jew-run Hollywood are mostly misleading, when we think of the South, it is often the case that images of the KKK, lynchings, and other horrors pop into our heads before all other considerations. Sergio Leone grew up watching a lot of Westerns, and those movies came to shape and color his views of the American West. Even as he knew that the movies were fiction than fact, he drew inspiration from them in his imagining of the West. Hollywood Westerns had a special impression on Leone because he saw them as a child. (Children can be made to believe in just about anything if packaged in colorful wonderment, and it explains why so many children and childlike adults have been sold on the homo agenda festooned with sun-drenched ‘rainbows’ and showbiz glitz & pageantry. It’s like treating children to SESAME STREET or TELETUBBIES.) Steven Spielberg matured into a more serious director in the 1990s, but his world-view derived from childhood years(of watching Disney movies) never went away; and even his serious movies have a something-for-everyone quality to them. He came to embrace fantasy over reality as a child, and this fairytale view of reality can be glimpsed even in a film as harrowing as SCHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. There is the sense of hell being witnessed through the eyes of The Child caught up in horrors; it is no wonder that one of the first serious films was THE EMPIRE OF THE SUN, which features the Pacific War as experienced by a child. (On the other hand, as Spielberg was bright child who got a film-making kit — like Bob Dylan was indulged by his father with music records and instruments — , his sense of movie magic soon turned precocious and ‘cynical’ as well; he came to understand from a young age that being manipulated is only one-half of cinema; the other half is doing the manipulating, a skill he began to hone from an early age.)
EMPIRE OF THE SUN - Pacific War through eyes of a child
A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Robot Child as Remnant of Human Race and History
Even as Spielberg’s later sensibility hatched into the realm of reality, the one hand was still clutching a teddy bear. (Ironically, it is the doll or doll-like creatures like E.T. and Teddy in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE that turn out to be wisest and ‘oldest-seeming’ in Spielberg’s films.) As movies and works of fiction profoundly affect our view of history and humanity, the politics of memory and remembrance become ever more complicated. Adolf Hitler was greatly inspired by the American West novels of Karl May that he devoured as a child. And Richard Wagner’s visionary operas became like a national religion to him. Mao Zedong loved legendary Chinese novels like WATER MARGIN and THREE KINGDOMS and mistook them for real history. Mao’s world-view was informed more by myth and legend than by factual history, as some of his poems illustrated. Even as they grew up and learned more of real history, the sense of history as epic drama and grand adventure never left their hearts.

One could argue that personal memory is more secure from the manipulations of fictions and fantasies disseminated by schools, government, and entertainment industry. After all, our memories are our own, and no one knows about them(or much of them) except us. But even our personal memories are shaped and altered in relation to fantasies that appeal to us & excite us and in relation to taboos that make us feel negative about certain things in our lives, past or present. Many women in the 20th century grew up thinking of themselves as modern day Scarlett O’Hara’s. Many girls who are into TWILIGHT will emotionally process their own hangups through the filter of Bella Swan’s romantic adventure and discovery. They may project their hopes and dreams onto the story of Bella AND internalize Bella’s problems in their own hearts.
Also, what people adore, admire, and even worship in pop culture has a way of exaggerating or suppressing aspects of their real life. If your family or friends don’t live up to expectations of what is fashionably ‘cool’, you may try to hide or even reject them. Though the movie IMITATION OF LIFE is about psychology of race, the heroine’s dilemma is near-universal in our pop-culture-saturated world where most young people now prefer the fantasy over the reality. The 2 PCs — trashy glitzy pop culture and globo-homo political correctness — define what the great majority of ‘millennials’ have been manipulated(by the Jewish-controlled media and academia) to accept as the only truth that matters. (To be sure, some individuals, especially among minorities, try to have the cake and eat it too. Even though they fully embrace deracinated, hedonistic, egotistical, and trashy globalism, they make token gestures of being ‘authentic’ by writing about their own race, culture, and kin-folk.... but ultimately to excoriate them for being ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, or ‘homophobic’. A kind of schizo mentality prevails among the POCs or people of color. On the one hand, they wanna portray themselves as victims of white people and white privilege, ironically at the behest of privileged ‘progressive’ whites who wanna feel morally superior by nastily pointing fingers at the evil ‘racist’ whites and winning over POC’s over to their side. But even as they bitch about their own victim-hood under white power, they totally imbibe every piece of Western cultural decadence & ideological dogma and serve as agent-collaborators who try to spread poisonous stuff like multi-culturalism and homo agenda back in their own home countries. In a way, Western ‘progressivism’ is the more effective way of imperialism. Classic Western Imperialism told the POCs around the world, "We whites are advanced and great while you darkies are backward and stupid. So, you darkies should follow and imitate us." Naturally, many darkies around the world felt offended by such arrogance and put up knee-jerk resistance. Today, Western-dominated globalism plays a sly game. On the one hand, it makes POC minorities in the West feel like they are empowered by sticking it to the ‘white man’. But this doesn’t undermine the true elite power in the West since the main power-holders are no longer white gentiles but globalist-Zionist Jews and their homo allies. Anyway, the new Western Narrative doesn’t act arrogant and all-knowing vis-a-vis the POCs. Instead, it operates in faux-apologetic mode and calls for white atonement for past crimes. This PC dogma in the West gives the false impression that minorities are being empowered. Actually, minorities are being fooled since minority power becomes associated, via the Jewish control of media-academia-government, with stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘multi-culturalism’. Since minorities must now gain power only in association with the homo agenda and the ideal of multi-culturalism, they merely fall under the sway of Jewish-globalist imperialism, and worse, they try to spread this poison to their home countries. Arab-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Korean-Americans, Nigerian-Americans, and etc all seek and gain some measures of rewards in the West in the mode of victim-hood under whites. And they are told that they can only gain empowerment through association with homos and by adopting multi-culturalism that calls for the eventual demise of the white majority. This formula, when applied to their home countries, will lead to demise of native majority power there as well. And Jews love this because the biggest obstacle to Jewish penetration of all nations around the world is native majority unity and power. Ordinary people need to know that mass power comes from homogeneity and unity. Elites possess concentrated power since they have money and influence. Ordinary individuals who make up the mass have far less money and no control of institutions, therefore, in order for their power to grow and make a difference, they must be united. And mass power unites best under homogeneity. Imagine if Japan were 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Turkish, 1/4 Indian, and 1/4 Mexican. Would the masses of this Japan be able to unite against the globalist elites that control Japan? No. They will be divided and distrustful of one another. This is why globalist elites all over the world — Europe, Asia, , and etc — wanna promote multiculturalism. It means that the people of their nation, having been rendered diverse, won’t be able to unite together and make demands on the elites. Jews certainly wanted a nation of diverse gentiles as these gentiles won’t be able to unite against Jewish-globalists.) Woody Allen’s PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO played on this theme of reality-meets-fantasy, and it probably drew inspiration, at least partly, from Federico Fellini’s THE WHITE SHEIK. In Fellini’s film, a young woman who is about to be married to a dweebolini goes off to find her romantic hero in the figure of the ‘white sheik’, some cheeseballini who serves as a model for photo-story books. The guy turns out to be not just a fake but a fraud, and the woman returns to reality to marry the dweebolini(who is as freaked out as Tom Cruise’s character in EYES WIDE SHUT), but magically enough, she finds her true white sheik in her dorkolini husband-to-be. It’s funny how memory works. She comes to know that the man she’d swooned after was really just a clown. She was met with disillusionment. But through it all, she did feel an excitement she hadn’t felt before, and furthermore, in her discovery that her fiancee was worried to death about her and went through so much trouble to protect her honor, she finds the true hero in her dweebolini groom. She’s lost the illusion of the white sheik but his spirit has been transferred to the man whom she now truly wants to marry. He is her ‘white sheik’.
The Dweebolini Groom of THE WHITE SHEIK
Bo Derek as Ho Derek in Blade Edward's 10
The irony of memory is also touched upon in Blake Edward’s 10. Dudley Moore’s character goes on a mad chase to find the perfect woman played by Bo Derek. He finally gets to meet her, and she invites him into bed. The most difficult-to-get woman turns out to be the easiest-to-get woman, and his dream-memory of her vanishes into thin air. She goes from a temptress to a humpress, from a princess to porncess. He rejects her and returns to his woman played by Julie Andrews, and yet, his now-disillusioned memory of Bo Derek’s character is crucial to his rediscovery and renewed love for the Julie Andrews’ character. The latter may not be as beautiful but she is someone devoted to him, willing to go through life with him, and put up with him(and only with him). Thus, his memory of Bo Derek’s character fuels his renewed love and appreciation of his ‘soul-mate’. (Things you reject become part of what you accept. Things you lose become part of what you choose.) It’s not only that Bo Derek’s character turned out to be hollow but the prideful knowledge that he refrained from going all the way and returned to the true woman of his life, a theme perhaps most nimbly explored with dry obsession by Eric Rohmer in his SIX MORAL TALES. Such ironic scenario is, of course, quite common in art and especially in cinema, not least because art and cinema serve as outlets for our fantasies. The violent and lustful sides of us seek release through fiction and fantasy, but the moral side of us wants some kind of restoration or return. So, Cecil B. DeMille’s movies delighted the audience with all the pagan idolatry and harlotry, but all said and done, the Hebrews learned their lesson and returned to their moral ways. Of course, some people ‘sow their wild oats’ before settling down. That’s the unfortunate advice Mr. Robinson gives to Benjamin(Dustin Hoffman) in THE GRADUATE, especially as the fatherly advice boomerangs into his wife having an affair with Benjamin. In some stories, the hero or character goes all the way in his search for delights before tiring of them and returning to or settling down to something of more lasting meaning. Consider the male characters of UGETSU(by Kenji Mizoguchi) and "The Black Hair"(first episode of KWAIDAN by Masaki Kobayashi). Former is a potter with a wife, the latter a poor samurai with a wife. They both take leave of their wives to find pleasure or prestige with a noblewoman, but they return to their wives(but with some tragic consequences). Sometimes, the man finds it impossible to return, as in UKIGUSA(by Yasujiro Ozu) and SAWDUST AND TINSEL(aka CLOWN’S EVENING by Ingmar Bergman). They’ve been away too long, and the abandoned women have long dried their tears and established new lives. And then, there are stories where the man is tempted to violate the moral code or sacred bond but pulls back at the last minute — out of own volition, interference, or both — and maintains his sense of honor or returns to his woman. And yet, his overcoming of temptation fuels his love/appreciation for the more reliable and devoted woman. It’s especially tricky in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES because Richard Gere’s character is tempted by the memory of his late wife. He wants to remain true to a woman who is gone forever. It is both an undying loyalty and a betrayal of life(by being emotionally wedded to a dead spirit). The living must live with the living. If he has fallen in love with the female cop in Point Pleasant, he must go to her than cheat on life by hanging onto a dead woman. But to settle on a new love is to untie, perhaps betray, the sacred bond that had developed between him and his late wife.
Eric Rohmer's MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S, aka the good Catholic vs the Beavisean 'Boing'.
Eric Rohmer’s SIX MORAL TALES each tell a story of a man faced with a chance at sexual encounter outside of matrimony but resists the temptation(sometimes at the very last minute) and eventually settles down to a meaningful marriage. (Rob Reiner’s THE SURE THING has a similar idea though, to be sure, John Cusack’s character is not a virgin.) The outcomes are the exact opposite of what happens in JULES AND JIM where two guys are driven batty by dark and sultry Catherine played by Jeanne Moreau. Rohmer’s Catholicism tipped his characters to choose the tried-and-true(even if less exciting and eventful) than the dark-and-dangerous. And yet, Rohmer’s characters must be tested by temptations and overcome them, and that adds drama and eventfulness to doing the right thing. Besides, if a person has no choice but to choose the ‘moral’ life, it isn’t really a moral choice at all. But if he, as a free and modern person, made the personal choice to reject the temptation and choose the tried-and-true, then it is a reinvigorated kind of faith. There’s an element of this in Martin Scorsese’s films as well, especially in MEAN STREETS, where the main character feels a need to place himself in an existential situation where he must choose the good out of free will than merely by following Church dogma. If some Christian folks, especially Mormons and the like, urged others to simply close their eyes to temptation, modern Catholics like Scorsese and Rohmer urged others to come face to face with temptation and overcome it on the personal level. (This is also true in TAXI DRIVER where Travis Bickle resists temptation inside the belly of the beast churning with pimps, dope-pushers, porn theaters, and etc. In some ways, one can argue that a truly moral society developed only in the modern era, at least for most people. Through most of history, there was little in the way of individual freedom and choice for most people. One was born into a certain station in life; one didn’t even have the right to freely choose a mate. One had no choice but to do the ‘right thing’ as deemed by society, parents, overlords, the church, the state, and etc. One was condemned to be ‘good’. But in modern society, individuals have freedoms and choices unimaginable for most people through most of human history. So, one must CHOOSE to be good, just like Adam and Eve in GENESIS were presented with the option of choosing the good or choosing the bad by giving into temptation of the Serpent in defiance of God. Their descendants had less of such choice since the end of Eden led to tremendous hardships, and survival became the top priority of life, and in order improve the chance of survival in a dangerous world, there was need for strict order and obedience. And for most of human history, people were struggling too hard to survive and maintain social order to think about individual matters of conscience. Not only did most cultures lack the concept of free will and individual conscience but they didn’t even develop the social personality of emotional sovereignty and self-confidence. Contrast the British soldiers and Japanese soldiers in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE. The British not only have more enlightened ideas but cultural personalities — which could have genetic basis — that carry validity and worth on the individual level. In contrast, the Japanese personality always wilts before higher authority regardless of whether the superior is good or bad and whether his orders are just or unjust. Of course, the British were also into order, discipline, and all that, but they did leave some space in every individual soul for some degree of independent integrity and ethical autonomy. It’s like a commoner in Old Britain was expected to tip his hit and say "Aye guv’nor" to a social superior, but he didn’t have to grovel and act like a total dog like the Japanese do in the TV series SHOGUN where a villager gets his head chopped off for not bowing properly. The Modern West spearheaded the development of morality defined by individual conscience. People were finally free and had choice, and it was up to them to choose the good over the bad instead of being forced to choose the ‘good’. [Communism, in contrast, was a movement that tried to force people to choose only the ‘good’ according to Marxist ethics.] When the culture of Modern West was dominated by moral popular entertainment — Hollywood of yesteryear was mindful not to corrupt society — , appreciation of literature, and respect for serious artists whose works required a degree of intellectual engagement for true appreciation, free individuals were encouraged to gain knowledge, develop their critical acumen, and think about things in order to choose the good over the bad. With their freedom, they could give into temptations of narcissism, hedonism, egotism, wantonness, piggery, gluttony, ‘sluttony’, greed, materialism, and etc. but the prevailing moral, intellectual, and cultural climate encouraged a critical, ethical, and intellectual resistance to the capitalist-consumer peddlers of wanton pleasures. But then, with the rise of youth culture, trashy attitudes, the culture of shamelessness, rise of pornification of the mainstream, and etc., there was less emphasis on the need for intellectual & critical development and a far greater array of temptations of wantonness of pigging out, using drugs, binge-drinking, screwing around, dancing like wild apes, splattering tattoos all over to gain attention, and etc. Also, whatever culture of shame that had served to check wantonness was gone for good. And cultural conservatives were deemed too uncool and unhip to win anyone’s ear — in a trashy society, people pay heed to style, not substance. Also, even so-called ‘conservatives’, like William Bennett, indulged in gambling, whoring, or worse. They were often exposed and outed as hypocritical liars. Also, American Conservatism fell under the sway of Jews who control Hollywood, trashy pop music industry, MTV, pornography, gambling, and etc. With GOP politicians relying on donations from men like Sheldon Adelson and such ilk, they gave up on the Culture War. And as Jews chose homos as their main allies, the culture not only became debased but debasement was promoted as the ‘new normal’. And since Jews rake in so much money by peddling black-culture-gone-wild-and-ape, it became the cultural norm for white women to imitate madonna, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and other mindless sluts addicted to whore-ishness like junkies are addicted to dope and fatties are addicted to food. And then, there is PC, which works against individual conscience. PC has no respect for honest individual moral reasoning. It demands that everyone toe the line of MLK-worship, Mandela-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, Tranny-worship, slut-pride-worship, open-borders-worship, multi-culturalism-worship, interracist-worship. You must obey or you will be destroyed, blacklisted, and ruined for life. So, the window of opportunity for genuine individual freedom has passed and vanished from the West. In traditional society, one was condemned to be ‘good’. As the West made the transformation from traditional to modern society, one was offered all sorts of choices, some good and some bad. Some were opportunities to improve one’s body and soul. Some were temptations to indulge in narcissism, wantonism, egotism, piggery, nastiness, and sluttony. But because traditional restraints still existed to some degree during the initial transformation, because the culture of shame still lingered to shape social mores, because there was a passionate defense of individual conscience, and because of the emphasis on the intellectual life of the mind, the individual had a better chance of favoring the good over the bad out of his or her own free will. But that is no more. Today, there are too many trashy and porny temptations that lure not only adults but young children, indeed almost from the crib. Kids are raised in slut culture, ‘twerking’ culture, trash culture, ghetto ‘gangsta’ culture, and etc. With ‘smartphones’, young children trade porny images from a young age. Disney markets whore fashion style to young girls, and parents raise their kids immersed in trash pop culture. So, even among intelligent kids, the minds don’t develop correctly. The likes of Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz are not low I.Q. but they grew up immersed in the self-indulgent culture of excess and trashiness. We now live in a world where the concept of the Good is mocked and ridiculed as old-fashioned, outdated, or ‘discredited’. The only thing that is deemed ‘good’ in our culture is the mindless worship of the Jew & Israel, of MLK and the Negro, of homos and trannies, and globalist open borders that threaten to undermine and destroy every nation and culture. Consider how the Middle East has utterly been destroyed by globalist Jewish power, but no one says anything since they are too addicted to the 2 PCs: gluttonous & sluttonous Pop Culture and mindless & dogmatic Political Correctness that says we must worship Jews and never ever criticize Jewish power and influence.) Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is like his Rohmerian film of Jesus, though, to be sure, Jesus, being of Higher Being, must even reject the conventionally moral life of wife and family to suffer and die for all mankind. Catholicism says man must reject the temptress and find a wife, but Jesus had to reject even wife and home in order to give His life and love to all mankind.
Anyway, it is the temptation and choice that reinvigorate one’s moral decision. If a child is forced to stay home and do his homework, it’s just an order, a chore. But if he is given the choice to go out & play OR to do his homework first before going out to play and if he freely fights off temptation and chooses to hit the books before hitting the balls, he’s made a moral decision, and he can feel greater pride in his choosing of homework. Of course, if the child has been instilled with certain values and feelings, he’s more likely to feel natural sense of ‘guilt’ and ‘conscience’ that will make him choose homework before going out to play.
Stanley Kubrick’s EYES WIDE SHUT is a twist on the story of a man who is tempted by sexual affairs — largely because his wife told him of her own sexual temptation and overcoming of it — and overcomes the them(though largely through twist of fate). Some have criticized the film for being anachronistic because no man in the 1990s would be shocked by the revelation that women enjoy sex and have sexual fantasies, but this is a total misreading of the film. Tom Cruise’s character was not shocked by the possibility that his wife might have hots for other men — he knew that already like all men do — but by her confession that she was willing to give not only her body but her entire soul — and sacrifice even her husband and child — for one night with the man who turned her on some years ago. It was like she was visited by a god. Alice(Nicole Kidman) makes the confession in response to Bill’s(Tom Cruise) cocksure ideas about the differences between the sexes, but she really used that as a pretext or excuse to get something off her chest, something that’s been bothering her, an itch she has to scratch somehow. She needed a catalyst to justify her outburst, and she got it by needling Bill that night. Through this confession, she could express both her disappointment and her happiness with her husband. Disappointment that he isn’t the great love of her life, that he and the child stood in between her and her dream lover. But she also speaks of comfort and peace in her having overcome her temptation and chosen her fidelity and family over the mad love that nearly drove her batty. She didn’t go the way of MADAME BOVARY or EFFI BRIEST. Her confession is both a hate mail and love letter to her husband. Hate mail as resentment for him-as-obstacle-between-her-and-her-greatest-desire, but also love letter as appreciation for him-as-the-reason-for-her-‘right’-decision-to-choose-home-and-family over some dashing naval officer, a man even more handsome than cute Tom Cruise and certainly taller. It is for this reason that Tom Cruise’s character is so moved by the death of the prostitute. He comes to believe that she didn’t just surrender her body to the others at the orgy but gave her life — surrendered her soul — for him. His wife was willing to surrender her soul for another man, but a prostitute surrendered her soul for him. He is touched.

Memory and myth are at the center of Resnais’ films, and, of course, memory is a kind of myth. The past is gone forever but lingers as traces and shards in the mind. Memory may haunt us all our lives, but it’s never certain for no memory is exact or accurate. Before the advent of photography and recording devices, we could never be sure what the past really looked like. The past lived on through words(and a word is worth a thousand images, each one a mental variation from the original object), paintings, and sculpture. Paintings could capture actual details, but as they involved painstaking process, the subject had to sit in unnatural poses for long durations. Therefore, most subjects in traditional paintings look like they’re posing and being artificial than living and being real. Even when paintings depicted actions and incidents of real life, every position, movement, and detail tend to carefully choreographed and inter-coordinated. Every detail looks intended and significant than natural and spontaneous. Thus, even a painting of a rowdy bunch of Cossacks is hardly more realistic than The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Everyone seems to be ‘doing’ something or working hard at being ‘busy’.
Initially, as photography was expensive and cumbersome, it too had the look of paintings, with carefully composed portraits and carefully selected big events. But as film become cheaper and cameras smaller and more portable, cameras captured snapshots of everyday life in the blink of an eye. It wasn’t just a technological breakthrough but changed the relationship between art and reality. It had a huge impact on literature as well. Novels went from carefully described portraitures to looser and more easygoing relating of mood and action. As photography became commonplace and people could see how the actual things looked like, there was less need for novelists to describe in detail the look of things. If you’ve never seen Paris, you might appreciate a novelist’s careful detailing of all the sights and sounds of Paris. But if you’ve seen thousands of photos and films/videos of Paris, such details in a novel might be extraneous and bore the daylights out of you. You want more action, more psychology, less ‘descripture’.
Cinema has been the primary dream-and-myth-making machine of the 20th century, yet there is something anti-mythic about cinema, especially in the age of videos and DVD. Myth thrives on vagueness and darkness. If you had a prized doll as a child and subsequently lost it, your memory will shroud it in nostalgia. Mythology of the doll trumps actuality. But if the actual doll were to materialize, it’d be just a raggedy object. Prior to vidoes and DVD, movies had a mythic aura because much of our appreciation depended on memory. After the initial theatrical run, the movies might show up on network TV, but the pan-and-scan TV presentations, cluttered with commercials and snipped by censorship, could never be the real thing, especially if you had a 19 inch black-and-white TV, which is what our family had until 1980. Some films might return to revival houses or be shown on 16 mm at the local library, but you could never be sure that you could watch the movie again as it was meant to be seen. And even videos, though providing ready access to lots of movies, tended to be of poor quality, and until relatively recently, most people still had to do with old TV sets with screen ratios of 4:3. Only with wide screen TV and DVD — and digital streaming — can we say that the people have something like genuine access to just about ‘every movie ever made’. Thus, if you’re uncertain about a certain detail of a movie, you can go and check to verify. But there was a time when your only access to a certain film after the viewing was your memory. You might forget entire scenes and mis-remember a whole bunch of details, but the movie took on a mythic quality as a dreamy series of impressions. This was especially true of Foreign Films, especially the more obscure ones, and in some cases, they were almost impossible to see again in the pre-home-video era. Cinephilia may not be dead, but cinemythia has been undermined by the rise of easy access and digital restoration of films. In the early age of the VHS, even if you owned a video of a film, especially a foreign film, it was often of such poor quality that it was more like an archaeological artifact than the actual movie. I had an early pan-scan VHS copy of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST but appreciated the full measure of the film only on the big screen. And there are films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and PLAYTIME that only work on the big screen, especially in 70 mm. Of course, we are appreciative of the easy and universal access made possible by dvds and the internet, and it’s wonderful that even someone in a small town can watch films he or she didn’t even know existed. But one crucial element of cinematic culture has been lost: the element that had to do with memory. Perhaps, this is why some films have such hold on us even as we come to know every detail about them. You can watch VERTIGO one hundred times and pore over every detail, and yet, it still has mythic power because it is about memory, about the impossibility of gaining what was lost. Same goes for L’APPARTEMENT and its remake WICKER PARK. The devil isn’t so much in the actuality of details as in what they portend and evoke. Instead of what-you-see-is-what-you-get, everything in WICKER PARK yearns for what is missing or hidden. Appetite for movies is as strong as ever, but hunger for movies is weaker, and it was the hunger that fueled the myth of cinema.
We all want to see certain movies again, and today we can do so easily by obtaining a DVD or downloading a movie. But without easy access, the yearning to see it again lends an added dimension. And even if you do get the chance, the knowledge that the chance might not come around again makes the occasion all the more special and makes you pay special attention.
In a way, access to all or most the films of world masters undermined some of my myth-driven reverence for them. Prior to watching Fellini’s films, he was the grand maestro simply based on his legendary reputation. I had the impression that everything he touched must be magic. I knew him through newspaper articles and books, from the knowledge that some of his films were considered to be among the greatest ever. And some of his films lived up to everything I imagined of him. But most of his films following 8½ were disillusioning, to put it mildly. Before I watched any film by Jean-Luc Godard, I thought of him as the ‘radical’ genius of the highest order purely based on the literature on him and on stills of his films in books and magazines. And some of his films did live up to the hype. But the more film I saw, the more I realized that there was a side to Godard that was lazy, shabby, indulgent, and insane. I first got to know the films of Sam Peckinpah through the butchered versions on TV — the censorship was as violent as the films. Yet, the missing violence only fueled my fascination and whetted my appetite for the complete versions. I admired THE WILD BUNCH, THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, and STRAW DOGS so much that I thought he could do no wrong. Even before I saw BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, I was convinced it was one of those neglected masterpieces like Roger Ebert said. But watching the film was quite disillusioning as it turned out to be a total mess, a real piss pot of a film, albeit one I’ve grown to appreciate somewhat over the years, not least because it has the stuff of greatness that wasn’t developed and shaped properly.
Be that as it may, directors of the past were more mindful of the value of images, not least because of the sheer cost of film. Film stock alone amounted to considerable expense, therefore, like the early photographers, film makers were more conscientious of the footage they shot. Sometimes, this led to staid conventionality as film-makers feared wasting precious film on useless experimentation. But for some film-makers, the forbidding expense of film made them extra-mindful of how they composed, framed, and shot scenes. The great advantage of digital movie-making is the much reduced cost allows film-makers to experiment more freely with visual possibilities, but the downside is increased laxity and indulgence, like the mindless cut-and-paste antics of Lars Von Trier with DANCER IN THE DARK and Terrence Malick with TREE OF LIFE. This might as well be cine-phallia, a case of dicking around.

The paradox of nostalgia is we want to regain what has been lost because we can’t regain it. If we could regain it, its value would be lost. We yearn to retrieve because it can never be retrieved. Indeed, even its retrieval wouldn’t be a retrieval because nostalgia or mourning makes us value not just the object but the tragic beauty surrounding it. The loss has shrouded the object in holiness. Therefore, retrieval of the object, if such were possible, negates the sacred tragedy of the object.
Tragic and magic exist side by side. Time is a constant passing of moments that are, once gone, gone forever. Yesterday, an hour ago, a minute ago, or a second ago are gone forever and irretrievable, at least according to the strictures of the laws of nature that we are aware of. Even the science fiction idea of the Time Machine takes you in the present to the somewhere in the past. It doesn’t restore you in your past state. And yet, in another way, the past is forever with us. If you stood by a clock a minute ago, the fact that you stood by the clock a minute ago is gone forever. And yet, the clock and you that existed then still exist now. So, what is the present? Is it the continuation of the past? If past is truly gone forever, shouldn’t everything and everyone should vanish along with the past? And yet, everything that existed in the past — people, rocks, water, books, animals, cars, homos, Muslims, cakes, utensils, Negroes(unfortunately), etc. — continue their existence in the present. So, the past both totally vanishes and totally survives, and it is the psycho-dimensional gap between its total annihilation and total continuation that leads to the neurosis of memory, and indeed, one could argue that memory is itself a kind of neurosis for it retains much of the past as traces, as phantoms, shadows, and apparitions. Memory is a perpetual ghost machine, not just of peoples but of things. (Consider the ghosts of cars in MONTY PYTHON’S MEANING OF LIFE.) In MURIEL, the time of the war and German Occupation belong to the past, but people and places during the war are still alive. The past is gone but protrudes into the present, not only as memory but in the concrete forms of buildings and towns. (The theme of past interacting with the present is, of course, nothing new. Where MURIEL differs from most narratives about memory is in its psycho-spatial dissolution of the neat borderline between past and present. This is all the more striking because MURIEL dispenses with the convention of flashbacks that clearly demarcate the past as a separate realm from the present. All of MURIEL takes place in the past, but, through the artful use of the perhaps the most subtle editing in film history, we are acutely made aware of how the past informs the moods and choices in the present, most often subconsciously or unknowingly. As moods are unstable and as memory traipses around high points and low points, the past affects the alienated but reunited ex-lovers like elixir or poison, depending on the moment or time of day. There is the neurosis of shared memory where two people may remember or interpret their times together similarly or differently, and this is the case with the mature couple who reunite. There’s also the neurosis of private memory that informs so much of a person’s outward behavior that affects other people who may be perplexed because they aren’t privy to the interior demons that fuel the problematic words and actions.) And even as people grow older and die and as old buildings are razed to make way for the new, the new is always a continuation than a replacement of the past. Especially in the late modern era when we tend to think of in terms of revolutions — in politics, fashion, science, technology, attitude, trends, values, and etc. — , we have a habit of thinking in terms of the total defeat of the ‘reactionary’ past and its radical replacement with the ‘new’ and ‘progressive’. But, there’s always more to reality than grand narratives that lend either comfort or agony, depending on where one stands on values and visions. There’s always more to the past than values, dogma, and fashions. The past may be dead and gone in the surface reality of favored themes — the mask of history — , but the bulk of reality continues just the same. (If we fixate on the mask as the face of reality, the changing of the mask suggests a change of everything. This is how politics fools us. A new president makes it seem as though the world is starting anew when, in fact, the powers behind the scene may be the same. Though Obama did much to change American values and politics, his agenda had long been in the making even through the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II years because Jews had immense power and were using their control of institutions to change America from the inside. Obama’s transformation was the final outward thrust of seismic activities that had long been active in the core of American power politics, economics, ‘cultics’, and ‘intellectics’. If we overly focus on the mask, we fail to notice the face behind the mask and the blood that runs through the veins of body politics. US finally put on the Obama mask because Jews had gradually taken over the American mind and body in the 20th century. On the other hand, if we focus too much on the body, especially its apolitical, generic, or cosmic forms, we fail to take full measure of the changes on the moral, cultural, and human scale. The mask is more than a mask. It does represent real power because it is the power within the mind and body that decided to don a new mask. Obama himself is a puppet, a mulatto mask of Jewish globalists, but American politics chose to wear his mask only because Jews took control of the heart, body, and soul of America. So, the Obama mask does represent something real. It’s like money isn’t simply paper. It is much more because its value is dictated by powerful institutions. If we dismiss Obama as a mere mask and comfort ourselves that most of reality continues as it was under Obama as his predecessors — after all, the sky is still blue, the Pacific and Atlantic oceans still exist, stars still show in the night, rains fall, and etc. — , then we fail to see how America has been fundamentally altered by the mulatto monkey-like agent of the Jews and homos. After all, a nation isn’t only about parks, rivers, valleys, mountains, factories, restaurants, food marts, and roads. It is about values, moral meaning, and the vision of the sacred. US has the same roads during Obama as under previous presidents, but all roads now lead to Homo than to Home, the sacred vision of the first generations of European-Americans who dreamed and found this nation. What goes by the name of the new ‘dream’ is illegal aliens from Third World crashing in to cash in on the achievements of white folks.) Because of our anthropomorphic nature, we tend to measure time based on human reality & concepts while overlooking the ‘cosmundane’ truth that the past is everything that ever existed. (But then, all of the past is so vast and grand that it is beyond our comprehension, and any attempt to do so usually ends up like the ludicrous TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick where he made himself the ‘starchild’. Furthermore, pondering cosmic truths renders everything lonely and meaningless, as the Bible says that all is vain in the grand scale of things. Even morality, as we understand it in our daily lives, becomes irrelevant in the scale of God, as Job found out. As for the pleasures of this world, they are just fleeting moments, like Merlin tells Morgana in EXCALIBUR.) We can alter the surface of the Earth and tell ourselves that the old-and-past has been replaced by the new-and-present, yet magma under the crust and sky above the earth continue with their trajectories. A city never stopped an earthquake that had been building up for over thousands of years. Ideologies try to change human nature and seem to do so on the surface, but the core essence of man continues as before. Liberals can elect Obama and make believe that a new dawn of racial understanding is with us, but the reality of Negro problems carries on from the past to the present and to the future. Philo-Semites and Homomaniacs may flatter themselves that great progress has been made in ridding society of the evils of ‘antisemitic canards’ and ‘homophobia’, but beneath the surface of acceptable discourse, the problem of Jewish power continues to be ever present, and repressed anxieties emerge in deformed or stillborn forms. (Indeed, much of the anger directed at Muslims, Chinese, and Russians may well be sublimated rage about Jews. Many Americans may sense that Jews are up to no good, but they’ve been conditioned to love & worship Jews and to regard any criticism of Jews as evil. On the one hand, they can’t help suspecting that the Jews are into all sorts of nefarious activities, but on the other hand, they’ve been conditioned to love Jews and seek the approval of Jews. They also sense that Jews can make or break anyone. After all, it is Jewish power that forces us not to notice Jewish power because those who notice are destroyed by that power. By seeking the approval of Jews, gentiles hope to ensure that Jews won’t do them harm. And what better way to win the love of Jews than by making a big spectacle of hating the perceived enemies of Jews? It’s like a dog seeking the master’s affection by barking like mad at those perceived to be the master’s enemies. But such slavishness betrays a repressed anxiety about Jews that may one day turn into rebellion and hostility. After all, a much abused dog may one day stop seeking approval and just attack the master himself. People who applauded Stalin did so more out of fear than love.) And can any society thrive in the long term with the notion that fecal penetration between homo men = pride = justice = morality? This form of globo-neo-aristocratism that hypes homos as a front for ‘equality’ may fool the masses for a time but indefinitely? And can current form of Liberalism survive for long when it’s undermining its own premises? If Liberalism can maintain power only through illiberal means of censorship and police state tactics, it is no longer liberal. Also, if modern Liberalism defines itself not as defense of freedom within the rule of law but gnaws away at the very foundations of Rule of Law by privileging Jews and homos over others — Wall Street Jews rob us but don’t face justice, Zionists oppress Palestinians but receive our full blessing, homos get to change rules of marriage but other sexually deviant groups do not, etc. — and by undermining national borders so that hordes of illiberal Third World hordes invade the West, how long can Liberalism survive? And won’t the masses of people come to realize that the new Liberalism or Progressivism is just a tool of the Jew and Homo(and token Mulatto) elite? How long before the people realize that the revamped conceit of ‘equality’ means that billionaire Jews and millionaire Liberals in ‘creative’ urban centers(who are getting richer and richer while rest of America grows stagnant or even poorer) can claim to be the paragons of ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ because they wrap themselves with the ‘gay flag’. So, Wall Street constitutes much of the 1% and hogs most of the fruits of society but, by hoisting the ‘gay flag’, pretends to be a leader in the ‘struggle for equality’. Homo neo-aristocrats who cater to rich Jews can indulge in power and privilege but put on airs of being an ‘oppressed’ group struggling for dignity and pride(when their idea of dignity and pride is the joy of sticking male sexual organs into the fecal holes of other men. Homos coming out of the closet is one thing, but why can’t they stay in the bedroom with their homo stuff?) Jewish elites and homos control the images and sounds of modern media, and their propagandizing has dazzled and duped a lot of people. But can Jewish Supremacism and Homo privilege serve as a genuine moral foundation for a society that is 98% gentile and 98% normal-sexual? How long can Jews maintain the fiction that they’ve always been the innocent lambs of history? How long can they keep bullying and silencing people? How long can the euphoria of ‘gay’ worship last among dimwit homo-maniacs, straight people whose core moral sense revolves around fairy-tales? For how long can people feel morally justified by pretending that the likes of Liberace porking each other in the ass = pride = morality = justice = equality? Of course, much of this Jew and homo worship has to do with status-ambition. Though the narrative about the Jews and homos has been conveyed in the rhetoric of victim-hood and justice, most people are really drawn to them for their successes, riches, and power. Suppose Jews suffered the Holocaust but most Jews had the IQ of 90 and didn’t amount to a plate of beans. Jews wouldn’t control the academia, the media, Wall Street, and etc. There would be cursory sympathy for Jewish victims, but would there be the full-blown cult of Holocaustianity, much of which has been tailored and promoted by rich Jews in the media? If not for the all the successful Jewish comedians, movie-makers, writers, and the like, would most of us give Jews the time of day? It’s been said that out of 60 million indigenous natives in what is now Latin America, something like 55 million were killed by diseases brought by Europeans. A horrible tragedy, but there’s little discussion of the suffering of indigenous peoples, and why? Because their survivors today are without talent, success, and wealth. People, including liberals, really care about victims-as-victors than victims-as-victims(who are just regarded as losers deserving of cursory sympathy). Of course, another reason for the relative silence regarding the tragic fate of indigenous peoples of Latin America has to do with the fact that Jews value Conquistador Hispanics as allies against gringos and yanquis. As leaders of the Hispanic community, white Hispanics prefer to play the role of ‘people of color’ resisting white ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’, and therefore, it’s an inconvenient truth to point out that white Hispanics have been the mass destroyers of indigenous populations of Central and South America. (And white race-ism among American conservatives prevents them from siding with non-whites and mestizos against white Hispanics, even though white Hispanics happily ally with Jews, homos, Negroes, and non-white Hispanics against the ‘gringos’ and ‘yanquis’. Similarly, white American conservatives support ‘white’ Jews and cheer their violence against ‘swarthy’ Muzzies in the Israel/Palestine, but Jews in America — with full blessing of Jews in Israel — use non-whites to form a coalition against whites. White conservatives are the dumbest people on Earth. Though worldwide white solidarity is a good idea as theory, when white Hispanics and ‘white’ Jews are so hostile to American whites, isn’t it about time to fight fire with fire and encourage non-whites in Latin America to overthrow all the Conquistador Hispanic a**holes and massacre them? And isn’t it about time for white Americans side with Arabs and Palestinians against Jews since Jews are doing to white Americans exactly what they did to Palestinians? Ideally, whites should side with whites, but when Hispanic whites and Jewish ‘whites’ are so hellbent on destroying White America, it makes no sense for white Americans to favor them in world affairs.)
Anyway, even though Judeophiles or philosemites say they sympathize with the historical suffering of Jews, they’re really impressed with all the wealth, power, success, and talent that Jews have. Pro-Jewishness is not about championing of equality but striving for approval of their socio-economic superiors. Same goes with homos. If most homos were toothless trash living in trailers, would any ‘progressive’, Liberal, or ‘moderate conservative’ care about their ‘plight’ in ‘homophobic’ America? Of course not. Homos would get about as much attention as incesto-sexual hillbillies who do their sisters. What social-climbing Americans find attractive about homos is that many homos are fancier, better connected, and move around elite circles(where homos are especially favored by the Jews). People are social strivers, and it just so happens that Jews and homos are the most privileged groups in America, therefore more and more Americans gravitate to Jews and homos. But since blatant sucking-up-to-the-rich sounds crass and servile, the mantle of ‘victim-hood’ worn by Jews and Homos creates the impression that striving to win their favors is a form of compassion. If king and queen pose as eternal victims, serving them can be construed as sympathy for the powerless. In other words, you can attend a ‘gay pride’ parade out of slavish worship of rich and fancy homos — like how peasants and commoners used to line up to watch the procession of Kings and Queens — but pretend you’re a wonderful person filled with sympathy for an ‘oppressed’ and ‘marginalized’ group. It’s the same crap at AIPAC meetings. AIPAC’s real appeal is it allows goyim to rub shoulders with rich and powerful Jews. It’s natural for humans to strive to be accepted by those with most of money and power. If you’re invited to a party of someone who makes $20,000 a year & has mostly ‘loser’ friends and to a party of someone who makes $20,000,000 a year & has powerful friends, which party would yo go to? Even if you’re the biggest egalitarian who professes to care about The People, you’re gonna want to the rich guy’s party and rub shoulders with people-who-matter. And that is what AIPAC is really about. And AIPAC’s policy is about supporting Israel’s Zionist-imperialist policy of destroying and repressing Palestinian communities. Americans, conservatives and Liberals alike, are impressed with Jewish power in crushing the swarthy subhuman ‘muzzies’ and want to be pals with rich and powerful Jews. BUT, that sounds crass and shameless, a kind of lapdog desire to be approved of by the rich and powerful. Therefore, Jews and Americans continue with the myth of Jewish victim-hood in the Middle East, and pretend that AIPAC conferences are about defending Israel from the all-powerful Palestinian crypto-Nazi terrorists and Iran(that is supposedly working to get a Bomb to ‘wipe Israel off the map’).
In order to understand Jewish power, one must be aware of the different kinds of mind-sets that exist among the populace. Among the main social attitudes are (1) passivity (2) responsiveness (3) reactiveness (4) proactive-ness.
Passive people tend not to care or get involved in much. They don’t care if the social order is black or white, left or right, or night or day. They just wanna live, get along, and go along. They may not like the new order and new values, but they have no will to resist. Or even when they are partial to the new order and new values, they don’t want to commit or get involved. Passive people never gain power for obvious reasons.
Responsive people tend to be get excited but generally lack minds of their own. So, if the communist state puts out socialist propaganda, responsive people will cheer ecstatically. If the Nazi order spreads Nazi propaganda, responsive people will become mindless Nazis. Some of the most mindlessly politically correct people today would have made the most obedient communists or Nazis or Medieval Christians. Responsive people feel a strong need to belong, and this distinguishes them from passive people who wanna be left alone. Passive people may or may not agree with ‘gay marriage’, but they have no desire to join the parades and wave the banners. Responsive people, on the other hand, want to feel involved, but they have no minds of their own, and so they follow like running dogs or lemmings. Some passive and responsive people may be intelligent, but the nature of their personality doesn’t foster the spirit of individuality or independence.
Then, there is the reactive personality. Sometimes, responsiveness can morph into reactiveness. For example, if the communist order were to be toppled by a fascist order, the blind communist responsive-personality types may initially react against the new order. But because of the essentially responsiveness of their personality, they are likely to change their minds after undergoing indoctrination under the new masters. Twenty years ago, many liberals would have reacted to the idea of ‘gay marriage’ with mockery or even hostility, but after barrages of propaganda, iconography, and pageantry, notice how they’ve turned into good little children so eager to wave the homo flag. And if ‘conservative’ leaders(who sold their souls to Jewish power) also wave the homo flag, the responsive-personality folks among the American Conservatives will also just go along. If Rush Limbaugh comes out for ‘gay marriage’, his minions the ‘dittoheads’ may react with disdain and disappointment at first, but they’ll come around to muttering "dittos, Rush" all over again. But there are some people who are, by nature, reactive. It’s part of their personality make-up. They refuse to go along with something just because the powers-that-be say so and manipulate the masses by pushing all the vulnerable buttons of suckerdom. Most of those on the so-called Alternative Right are reactive toward the ‘gay agenda’ in this manner. They won’t be suckered by Jews and their mini-me allies the homos simply because all the ‘gay’ stuff has been promoted as the ‘new normal’. Alternative Right differs from mainstream conservatism in that it is reactive to conventional ‘traditionalism’ as well. Instead of just going along — responding sheeplike — with the positions and policies of Establishment Conservatism and politically approved organizations like Heritage Foundation(that rolled over the demands of the hideous Jewess Jennifer Rubin), reactive conservatives like John Derbyshire will not ‘sit’, ‘fetch’, and ‘roll over’(though, to be sure, Derbyshire is generally unwilling to touch on the issue of Jewish power). Jim Goad is another figure with a powerfully reactive personality. Reactive personalities do matter in the long run because they have the courage(as well as the panache) to oppose the powers-that-be and refuse to go along with the orthodoxy. There are reactive types on both the Left and the Right, and they don’t make ‘nice liberals’ or ‘good little conservatives’. Though generally pushed to the periphery of political discourse, they are often the only ones offering genuine resistance to the powers-that-be and are well-aware that, in the upper echelons of power, the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ often collude to favor their elite status over the liberty and interests of rest of the populace. But the problem of reactive types is that they only react to the power of others. They may oppose and resist a certain ‘crisis’, but they are not the makers and the manipulators of the crisis. As such, reactive people are almost never at the forefront of power in society.
For true power, we have to look to the proactive people who project new ways of thinking, new ways of being, new agendas and ideologies, and new paradigms. Proactive people may initially be on the margins and react to social events, but they are determined to go beyond reacting. They are proactive in putting forth their views, ideas, theories, and vision as essential, ennobling, and redemptive for a better society. In other words, Karl Marx didn’t just criticize or condemn capitalism but generated a whole new way of understanding and critiquing history and society. He created new universes of the mind. Ayn Rand didn’t merely oppose communism/socialism but re-envisioned capitalism into a battleship with romantic heroes and martyrs.
The moral worth or intellectual validity of Marxism or Randism is besides the point. What is important is that Marx and Rand(or L. Ron Hubbard for that matter) were visionaries who prophesied whole new ways of seeing the world and understanding oneself’s place in it.
And think of Betty Friedan. A sensible person may have every right to despise her as crazy & ugly Jewess kook, but she became one of the most influential people in the latter half of the 20th century, and why? One may say it’s because she was Jewish and was favored by powerful Jews in the media(and that is, of course, true to some extent), but why her and not other Jewesses who were also churning out books? Friedan could have led a perfectly happy passive, responsive, or reactive life. As her family was reasonably affluent, she didn’t have to worry about want. Like millions of other housewives, she could have been happy as a passive citizen of America. Or, she could have been happy as a responsive wife, taking joy in the communal culture of suburban housewifery. She could have met with others like herself and joined clubs and done volunteer work for the community. Or, if she didn’t like her lot, she could have reacted against it and critiqued its problems. Instead, she went further. She was proactive in envisioning a new way of how modern women should be and live. Whether this vision had positive value or not is irrelevant to our discussion. What matters is that, like Marx, Freud, Rand, and others, she offered a way for women(and some dorky men sympathetic to feminism) to see sexual relations in a whole new light. In contrast, a woman like Phyllis Schlafly has only been reactive, opposing the new feminists who came to define womanhood but having nothing to offer but ‘tradition’.

Karl Marx the Crazy Jewish Prophet of Modern Communism
Ayn Rand the Crazy Jewish Prophetess of Futurist Capitalism
Betty Friedan the Crazy Jewish Feminist who influenced a whole generation of nutjob women.
If our world was generally static, tradition would be appealing as most people would think change is either slow or non-existent and history is mostly continuation of timeless truths than confrontation with the new. But modern societies are dynamic, and the power of science & technology has profoundly shaped our expectations. It may well be that human nature hasn’t changed much in the past two thousand years, but consider all the technological changes that took place in the past one hundred years. Of course, rapid changes in science and technology don’t mean that everything about us, as humans, could be improved by political movements and social trends. After all, while tools for procuring and cooking foods may have made great advances in the past century, our bodies still live on proteins, vitamins, sugars, calcium, and the like. Humans have changed far less than the world around them. US has changed a great deal in the past 200 yrs but Anglo-Americans today are genetically nearly identical with Anglo-Americans who founded this nation. (Of course, this may be change in the coming decades with the rise of bio-engineering. We may live in a future where the very nature of what it means to be human may change as fast or faster than the surrounding environment of technology, transportation, and architecture.) If someone proposed a radical idea that we should replace bread, beans, and vegetables with glass, tacks, and plastic tape, we would all have to agree that would be insane. Similarly, many radical propositions and practices in the social and political sphere proved to be toxic and dangerous in the past 200 yrs, but many people fell for them or came under their influence because the Cult of Change often blindly favored the New over the Traditional. Of course, the New can be better than the Old, but the Cult of the New is a blind faith in something just because it is New. If not for the infection of the Zeitgeist by the Cult of Change, many more people would have been skeptical of the claims of radical ideologies such as Anarchism, Marxism, and Globalism(that now threatens the world). The Cult of Change came to affect every facet of human thought and behavior. (Of course, newness isn’t enough to capture the public imagination. Rather, it’s the combination of the Cult of the New and the Art of the Hype. As the rise of ‘gay marriage’ movement has illustrated all too well, even the most insipid idea can be made into a new mania with full backing of the hype machine of government, media, and entertainment.) Just because scientists and engineers produced amazing new ways of understanding and manipulating physical reality, even people in the arts, humanities, literature, politics, and etc. adopted scientific as a model, metaphor, or mirror to their own endeavors. It’s like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity made the notion of relativity fashionable in philosophy, anthropology, culture, and ethics. Likewise, if science and technology can make leaps and bounds, why not arts, music, literature, and what came to be known as ‘social sciences’(as opposed to mere ‘social studies’). But here’s the problem. Science works according to a strict regimen of methodology based on empirical observation, mathematics depend on ruthless logic, and the value of technology is based on whether it delivers or not in their practical application. If a rocket ship designed to go to the moon cannot go to the moon, it has failed. If a gun designed to hit a target a mile away cannot do the job, it is a flawed piece of machinery. Thus, there is a way of test the validity of science, math, and technology. But despite all the intellectual-istic, pseudo-scientific, and/or scientistic(as opposed to scientific) conceits of people in non-scientific(or non-hard-scientific) fields, there is no way to prove that something is indisputably right or wrong in the so-called ‘social sciences’ and especially in the arts and humanities. Too much of ‘truth’ or ‘validity’ in the arts and humanities, even in social sciences, depend on value judgments, taste, emotions, personal egos, tribal identities, and/or ideological concerns. If a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals say JEANNE DIELMAN is one of greatest and profoundest films ‘of all time’, there is no way to prove or disprove it in a foolproof manner.
This is true of any work of art. Even the greatness of CITIZEN KANE cannot be scientifically proven because art appreciation is inseparable from sensations, feelings, taste, and erudition. Indeed, even an intelligent person might not appreciate great art if he is lacking in taste or curiosity. It’s like even great food will taste dull to someone with a lousy set of taste buds.
(Of course, one could argue that even if a quality such as beauty is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, we could scientifically demonstrate that certain appearances are more appealing to most people due to human brain circuitry. Even if there is always the possibility that someone in the world might find the Elephant Man more attractive than Sean Connery, most people with normal brain circuitry will find Connery more attractive than a deformed wretch. That can be scientifically proven. And even in inter-species terms, humans will generally find deers and cats more attractive than warthogs and baboons. Now, given their own brain circuitries, warthogs will find other warthogs more attractive and baboons will find other baboons more attractive, and therefore, we cannot say there is any universal truth to ‘beauty’. All we can say is that, depending on the brain circuitry, members of a species will be attracted to certain looks, sounds, and smells. If warthogs were to gain human brain circuitry, they would stop mating since they would find each so ugly, and if humans were to gain warthog brain circuitry, they would find humans ugly and want to have sex with warthogs. Of course, the power of culture can distort one’s natural circuitry. After all, it’s not natural or normal to admire deformed feet or scarred faces. But the pressures of Chinese culture made men attracted to ugly bound feet, and there are primitive tribes where the culture pressure men and women to scar themselves for beauty.) Even so, given the nature of basic human psychology, it is true enough that many people can come to an appreciation of the CITIZEN KANE’s greatness. Who can deny its inventiveness, brilliance, and power, even by those who don’t like the film? Intelligence is something that can be demonstrated and observed scientifically, and it is indisputable that CITIZEN KANE is a work of great intelligence. One can appreciate the intelligence even if one may not approve of its application.
(Inspiration and ingenuity can be observed too, but they are slipperier qualities than intelligence. They require some degree of emotional and/or sensual response in the viewer.) Thus, the argument in favor of CITIZEN KANE isn’t merely personal or subjective. It’s like even a vegetarian will have to admit that, given the nature of human brain circuitry, a juicy piece of steak is marvelous to the taste. It’s like, despite human differences, most people’s taste-buds have been designed by nature to prefer ice cream to pea soup. This truth is amoral. Morally, one may be appalled by people who participate in the hogocaust — the growing, slaughtering, and eating of pigs — , but even members of the Pig Liberation Front will have to admit that BBQ pork ribs are among the tastiest things in the world. Just the thought of pork ribs makes good decent folks feel like the ‘good’ vampires in TWILIGHT who’ve sworn not to drink human blood but thirst for it just the same.
Pork Ribs - the Temptation of Evil
TWILIGHT - Edward and Bella(or Plate of Ribs)

So, even though taste is not a science, science can show how human tastes have evolved to favor certain foods over others Similarly, science can show — at least partly — why most of us prefer certain kinds of art over others. (Some theorists have argued that what we find beautiful is linked to what our early ancestors found materially beneficial. Thus, since early mankind found survivalist advantage in access to water and trees[as provider of food], we still love things like landscape paintings of forests and lakes. But the theory is suspect because, after all, so much of what we find beautiful has been dangerous to mankind. Even Hindus who still get eaten by tigers do not deny the beauty and majesty of tigers. Even African jigger-jivers who still get mauled by lions and stampeded by elephants — animals that have a better idea of how to handle Negroes than white folks do — find those animals awesome. If a rich Negro had to hang a painting on his wall, would he prefer a painting of a lion — a beast that done killed and ate many Negroes since the beginning of time — or a painting of a bunny rabbit? I’ll bet the Negro will go with the lion. Evolutionary psychology didn’t merely favor appreciation of the beneficial but of the powerful. As early man could not match the physical power of other animals, he had to crudely conceptualize power as an ideal. He came to worship power, and this worshiping of power was a giant leap in evolutionary psychology. Most animals don’t worship or admire power. They just fear power and run like a mothafuc*a when they see something more powerful coming their way. A squirrel just flips out and scampers up a tree when it sees a dog or a kid with a stick. A rabbit just runs from a coyote. But the psychology of the worship-of-power developed among complex social animals. Social animals were living in a kind of contradiction. Generally, animals think in terms of ‘good for me’ or ‘bad for me’. A beast that is more powerful is ‘bad for me’. It can kill/eat you instead of you killing/eating it. Thus, most animals needed only to feel fear and dread of animals stronger than themselves. But among social animals, the strongest member of the pack might whup your butt once in awhile, but it could also protect you, lead the pack, and play a key role in bringing down a prey that the entire pack could gorge on. Thus, instead of just fearing the member that was more powerful and stronger, the weaker member came to admire and appreciate the more powerful. This psychology can be seen in dogs. The weaker dog will prostrate itself before the stronger dog almost in a reverential and worshipful manner. And such behavior could be found among apes too. As mankind was smarter than wolves and chimps, they came to appreciate the greater power as a double-edged sword. The greater power might smite you, but it could also lead, protect, and help you. It could be on your side. Thus, mankind came to appreciate the idea of power-that-is-greater-than-your-own as a potential good. Also, in having conceptualized the power-that-is-greater-than-your-own, you could maybe hope to emulate that power and gain greater power for yourself and maybe even become greater than the ‘greater power’ itself. Thus, man’s sense of beauty in evolutionary psychology may derive not only from an awareness of what is directly beneficial but from what is directly threatening & powerful but could possibly be indirectly harnessed for the benefit of man. When an animal sees fire, it feels fright and sees only danger. But when early man saw fire, he not only saw danger and felt fear but a certain awe and fascination as to how the fire might be harnessed by himself. A kind of psychological judo evolved in the mind of man. Instead of just feeling the brunt of power, mankind began to sense the possibility of harnessing the power for its own sake. When early man saw a tiger or lion, he might have felt something more than dread and fear. He may felt appreciation and may have thought in terms of, "Ugh, how me gain the power of big beask?" African tribesmen wore necklaces made up of lion claws in the belief that the power of the lion would rub off on them. When Japan was faced with the might of the West in the 19th century, it felt fear and trepidation but also fascination and admiration. Japanese thought in terms of emulating the powerful West to equal and maybe surpass its power. And Jews were awed by the power of gentile Europeans and Americans, and there were arch-conservative Jews who didn’t want their own culture to be contaminated by the filthy ways of the goyim — to be sure, arch-conservative religious Jews were convinced the ultimate power was on their side since they were the Chosen People of the one-and-only God. But there was another side of Jewishness, a more modern outlook, that sought to learn everything about Western Man to equal and maybe even gain control over Western Man. Well, Jews certainly have gained control over Western Man in the 21st century. This is why it’s not enough to just hate or fear the Jew. As Jews are a great and awesome people, Jewish history and culture must be approached with admiration and reverence as well as with dread and fear. We must look upon and learn from Jewish Power just as Japanese of the 19th century looked upon and learned from Western powers. At any rate, the great advantage that Jews have over goyim is that they are the most pro-active people on Earth. Jews are never satisfied, never complacent, and never laid back. They are always on the look for new opportunities, new angles, and new dangers & threats to their power, not just in the here-and-now but in future; Jewish strategists are like chess players thinking several moves ahead and all their permutations. In contrast, most white Conservative gentiles just rested on their laurels after winning WWII and then the Cold War. While Wasps were feeling like kings of the world after WWII, Jews were playing catch up and indeed caught up or even surpassed the Wasps as the Cold War approached its end. When US won the Cold War, white American Conservatives felt vindicated, and when US handily won the Iraq War, it was if the George H.W. Bush would easily win another term. While white Conservative Americans were taking it easy, Jews were strategizing to take COMPLETE CONTROL of America, and this was achieved mostly in the Clinton years. Jewish power, in both the GOP and Democratic power, has grown even more since then, what with George W. Bush serving the Neocons and with Obama serving the Liberal Jews. To be sure, the restlessness of Jewish Will to Power can get the better of them at times. Throughout history, Jewish attempt to gain the world eventually led to anti-Jewish reprisals. Though Jews often yammer about how they’d been bullied by Big Dumb ‘Polacks’ in the past, the truth is that Jews, as often as not, provoked and enraged others by acting like not unlike George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Bill Maher, Tim Wise, Bernie Madoff, Rahm Emanuel, Paul Krugman, Jennifer Rubin, and etc. Since Jews routinely ridiculed, mocked, insulted, and hoodwinked the gentiles who lacked the brains to match the Jews in wit, the latter fought back with fists and pitchforks, thus conveying the impression that Big Dumb Antisemitic ‘Polacks’ beat up a helpless Jews. But as often as not, the Jew is likely to have berated and put down the ‘dumb polacks’. In Middle School, there was a Jew kid so full of himself. He laughed at others dumber than him. One day, some kid got a higher score on a test than the Jew kid, and the Jew kid acted extra-hostile and put down the test score of gentile kid as a fluke. The gentile kid just about had enough and got together with another gentile kid(who couldn’t stand the Jew kid either), and after school, they grabbed hold of the Jew kid and, after swinging him one-two-three, they threw him into a bush. Of course, the Jew kid’s mother howled ‘bloody murder’, and the gentile kids got suspended, but many kids in school thought it was funny, including some Jew kids who knew all-too-well that the Jew-kid-who-got-the-comeuppance was one of those nasty Jews, like Albert Brooks’ character in BROADCAST NEWS, and had been asking for it. The great irony of history is that Jews are now lecturing to us that ‘words are not harmless’, that ‘words are weapons that cause real harm’, and such. So, Jews call for speech control to protect people from hurtful words, but no people have used words in more hurtful, nasty, vicious, odious, noxious, and toxic ways than the Jews. Whether it’s Jews on the ‘left’ like Tim Wise or Jews on the ‘right’ like Michael Savage, Jews are verbally the nastiest and most vicious bunch of people on Earth(with the possible exception of Negroes, but then, half of Negro hollering makes no sense whatsoever. It’s just volume, like the howling of baboons and gorillas.) Just listen to Jews go on and on about Christians, Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs, white folks, Iranians, Chinese, Russians, white conservatives, and etc. Of course, when Jews put down others and make hatefully paranoid movies(via Hollywood), that stuff is not called ‘hate’. According to PC, it’s not ‘hate’ if Jews and homos hate Christians or conservatives. But, it’s ‘hate’ if Palestinians and white gentiles hate Jews. So, it’s very amusing to hear Jews lecture us about the hurtfulness of language and how words can be used as weapons of hate. Jews have been doing it for thousands of years, especially as the Torah and Talmud are filled with some of the most hostile passages about other folks. And Jewish merchants, gangsters, thugs, slavers, bankers, pundits, intellectuals, scholars, and critics have been among the most snide, sneering, arrogant, and vicious the world has ever seen. Anyone who has listened to Alan Dershowitz knows that he loves to verbally stick the knife and twist it.
Alan Dershowitz, the endlessly hostile and vile & virulent Liberal-Zionist Globo-American Jew
Given the way of Jewish personality and verbal habits, Jews have often been hated and reviled through history. Jews were rarely total innocents who were set upon by irrational and paranoid goyim. As often as not, Jews enraged non-Jewish communities with their nasty demeanor and hostile verbal missives. When Jews finally gained power in Russia, they treated Russians and other Slavs with far greater blood-curdling contempt than Russians had ever felt toward the Jews. The pogroms against the Jews had been mere picnics compared to massive Jewish blood-letting against the Christian Slavs. Before Hitler carried out horrible acts against Jews, Jews in the USSR carried out terrible acts against gentiles. Anyway, because Jews are never content and keep pushing the envelope and stirring up fears, manias, and hysterias in their ceaseless crisis mode, they come to define the social discourse and national debate.
As humans aren’t angels and no society lives up to utopian ideals, even the most peaceful and prosperous societies are beset with all kinds of problems. It’s like even the cleanest and healthiest person is full of germs. So, depending on who controls information and discourse, heaven can be made into hell and hell into heaven. A nice white person can be made out to be ‘hateful racist’ and a disgusting jigger-jiver can be made out to be Magic Negro. Sweden was a nice quiet place, but Jewish media-controllers kept telling Swedes that they are crypto-Nazi Nordics because they are ‘too white’; therefore, Swedes have come to feel that their all-too-Liberal society must be expunged of its ‘Nazis’, which aren’t merely individuals with neo-Nazi attitudes but the very ‘Aryan’ DNA of even the most ‘progressive’ Swede. The ONLY way Swedes could be cleansed of ‘Nazi-itis’ according to PC is by mixing their blood with the darker races since Nazism most favored Nordics like the Swedes. (It’s as if Swedes are Guilty-by-Admiration — by the wrong sort of people.) This explains the mania for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. And Oberlin College think it’s beset by the KKK because the Jewish powers-that-be have flooded the hearts and minds of Americans that the greatest evil in America is ‘white racism’. Of course, in reality, many more Americans — including the Negroes — are afeared of Negro violence, crime, and hostility, but to speak honestly of black threats and problems would be ‘racist’, and since ‘white racism’ is said to be a pall hanging over society, it just won’t do for anyone to say or do anything that might be construed as ‘racist’. So, Paula Deen’s saying ‘nigger’ after she was robbed at gunpoint by a ‘nigger’ is a greater crime than robbing a helpless woman with a gun. According to Jewish Liberal logic, if a black guy rapes you and kills your entire family and you say, "a fuc*ing nigger raped me and killed my family", YOU are worse than the lowlife ‘nigger’. But why do Jews get away with such ridiculously twisted political/moral logic? Because they are proactive and always stirring up one crisis after another. White conservatives are reactive in that they sometimes counter Jewish Liberal proactive-ness but always in response to proactive Jewish folks who set the agenda, define the conditions of debate, and control the rules of discourse. Since Jews, as socio-politico-moral plaintiffs, stir up the crisis and lodge the complaint, the reactive defense, as the accused, can only try to deny the charges and plead innocence. Accusers have the advantage in always going on the offensive.
So, if the Right really wants to fight and win, it must go into proactive mode(or at least counter-active mode) and lob charges against the Jews and Homos. (It’s like a boxer can move forward & punch OR move backward & counter-punch, but he cannot ONLY play defense.) Instead of having Jews and Homos stir up new crises and constantly accuse the conservative side of ‘racism’ and other ‘evils’, the conservative side must go on the counter-offensive and accuse Jews & Homos of all sorts of violations and crimes, thus putting them against the ropes.
Consider the matter of ‘gay agenda’. Why have homos been so successful? Because they kept on stirring up new controversies & crises and kept on accusing the straight population, especially conservatives, of ‘homophobia’ and ‘criminal neglect’ that supposedly led to all those victims of AIDS. So, even though homos brought about the AIDS epidemic by acting like sexually deranged animals committing massive all-around collective fecal penetration, the narrative has been "Reagan and heartless conservatives didn’t do enough to save those angelic homos." Homos accuse and blame others EVEN WHEN they themselves are to blame. Blacks do the same thing, of course. Blacks mess up their own communities and then accuse OTHER groups for not caring or doing enough to fix problems caused by blacks themselves.
Homos accuse conservatives of ‘homophobia’, but conservatives only cower, deny the charge, and insist that they are not ‘homophobic’. If conservatives had real courage, they would say ‘homophobia’ is a bogus term — as virtually no one has an irrational or extreme fear of homos — and then go on the counter-offensive and gain control of the discourse by accusing homos of being sexual perverts, fecal penetraters, neo-aristocratic snobs & braggarts, and dirty liars who push the ‘gay creationist’ nonsense that would have us make-believe that ‘two gays can have kids’. But conservatives never take the initiative against homos but instead, only respond to homo accusations, indeed very weakly and meekly, pleading with homos to please stop calling them ‘homophobes’. (It shows that the proactive and accusatory side has the advantage over the tolerant and ambivalent side. In the past, when America had been far more socially conservative and steeped in Christian values, it was the moralists who felt righteous & justified and went after sin, vice, and decadence. They did the accusing, judging, and condemning. And the accused had to either prove their innocence or plead for tolerance for their sinful or deviant ways. Initially, homos and their allies didn’t argue that homosexuality is good or healthy. They agreed that it was weird, gross, deviant, and even sick. And they conceded that the moralists had every right to be offended by such behavior. What they pleaded for was tolerance because democracy should be more about individual liberty and privacy rights than moral perfection or utopian ideals. Even so, the moralists were proactive and on the offensive while homos and their allies were on the defensive, often desperately so. But as American society lost its moral passion and pride against vice, sinfulness, decadence, deviancy, and degeneracy[not least because an increasingly prosperous society tempted and hooked consumers with leisurely vices], the issue of morality was no longer proactive but a personal matter. So, if you were morally outraged by vice, sin, and deviancy, just keep it to yourself and don’t push your values onto others. For awhile, America became neutrally tolerant of moralists and deviants. Moralists could have their moral values & communities, and deviants could have their own spaces for decadence and indulgence. But then, the deviants were no longer content to be tolerated as deviants. They began to justify their deviancy as something good, natural, normal, healthy, wonderful, and even moral... indeed even spiritual. With the backing of Jewish-controlled media, academia, entertainment, advertising, finance, and government, the homos and other deviants bestrode the horse of morality. They were no longer to be merely tolerated but to be celebrated, admired, respected, revered, and even worshiped. And then, this ‘new morality’ of the homos waged a crusade against all the traditional/true moralists who had been led to embrace the ideal of mutual tolerance between themselves and the sinners/deviants. Under this mutual tolerance pact, neither side was under any obligation to admire or respect the other; they could feel contempt for the other side, but at a bare minimum, they were supposed to tolerate even what they despised and held in contempt. But this pact went out the window with the rise of PC that said everyone must worship the Jews, MLK, and homos. It was no longer enough to tolerate homos, Jews, and blacks. It became necessary to admire, respect, and revere them; and it became a taboo to be critical of them. And since the homo deviants came to bestride the horse of ‘new morality’, they could trample on anyone with accusations and judgements. And in time, even tolerance for the moralists went out the window as all moralists were forced to celebrate, admire, and revere the homos and other deviants. Of course, this turn of events was promoted as Tolerance and Non-Judgmentalism, but it was anything but. It was the New Intolerance and New Judgementalism but in favor of deviancy & vice over virtue & morality. It’s like the New Liberalism was really just a form of illiberalism. The lesson to take from this is that it may not be enough to be ‘tolerant’. If indeed, all sides work in good faith and sincerity, mutual tolerance may work as policy: Moralists and deviants disagreeing with one another but tolerating one another. But the principle of mutual tolerance will break down if the other side really wants something more than tolerance. It may want more power, more control, and supremacism over your side. In that case, the other side’s initial call for ‘tolerance’ was merely a ploy to weaken your side’s moral righteousness and confidence. Lacking moral fervor, your side will no longer accuse, judge, condemn, and seek to convert the other side. Your side will shift into the mode of live-and-let-live. Now, if the other side is willing to maintain this status quo, it might be win-win for both sides. But groups like Jews and homos are extremely vain, nasty, vicious, narcissistic, egotistical, and/or power-hungry. They must have it all for themselves. So, once they persuade your side to adopt the ideal of tolerance, their side gradually ramps up its moralistic tone and move into accusatory mode. They will say it’s not enough for you to tolerate the sin or vice of homosexuality. You must no longer see it as a sin or vice. You must see it as good, decent, and healthy. But even that isn’t enough. Since it is good, decent, and healthy, you and your children must celebrate, admire, and revere homosexuality. And then, all the politicians better take part in the ‘gay pride parade’ because those who refuse to do so must be ‘homophobic’ and sick in the head with some kind of sickness. And then, finally, even the meaning of marriage must be changed to accommodate ‘gay marriage’, all bakeries must be forced to make ‘gay wedding cakes’, schools must teach kids the wonders of ‘anal sex’, and even churches must open their doors and fly the ‘gay flag’ in the conviction that Jesus would have been for ‘gay marriage’.) If you wanna win a war, you don’t shield yourself from the arrows and spears. You must shoot arrows and chuck spears at the other side. Many conservative bloggers and pundits are reactive of the crises, controversies, and ideas stirred up by Jews and Homos, but they are rarely proactive. Of course, it’s easier for Jews and Homos to be proactive since they have power over the media and academia. But Jews and Homos didn’t always have such advantages. There was a time when there had been many more conservatives and genuine liberals(as opposed to capital ‘L’ Liberals) in the media and academia. Why and how were they weakened and purged? Why did their children grow up to be Liberals? Because Jews and Homos, as leaders of American Liberalism, were always in the tireless proactive mode. So, if conservatives want more power, they must be more proactive in everything they do. They must be daring and unafraid to make mistakes and get bruised along the way. Being proactive can often lead to errors and mistakes since you’re charting new territory and taking risks, but only through such a revitalized sense of exploration, conquest, and crusade can any group or faction gain the critical mass necessary to command control the debate. Being proactive is also useful as a delaying-and-obstructing tactic. For example, many Jewish Liberals know that racial differences are a reality, but they don’t want to admit this truth since it will advantage the so-called ‘race realists’ on the Alternative Right. So, how do they prevent the emergence of such issue? Jewish Liberals keep proactively coming up with one bogus theory after another as to why blacks and non-white Hispanics have lagged behind in American schools. Just read the pages of the New York Times, and you can always rely on some new spiel from some academic study or intellectual theory or whatever. (To be sure, white/Jewish Liberals also maintain the myth of ‘racism’-as-reason-for-black/white-gap because it gives hope to blacks that, maybe just maybe, some new policy or program will fix the problem. If blacks were come to the brutal realization that they will never catch up to whites-Asians-Jews in academics and economics, they may well become more sullen, angry, bitter, and resentful. Paradoxically, blaming white ‘racism’ has both an inflaming and pacifying effect. As the ‘anti-racist’ cat is already out of the bag, racial issues will continue to infuriate blacks. But then, the Liberal Dream of overcoming the racial gap in the future by generous and ‘progressive’ policies lends some degree of hope-as-opiate to the jivers.) But these are not serious studies interested in the truth but obfuscatory measures to prevent any real discussion of racial differences and problems. So, PC treats us stuff like, eh, maybe the reason why ‘minority students’ don’t do as well in school is because "blacks don’t talk enough". If you wanna prevent someone from reaching the finish line, you might just keep throwing more obstacles and erect new barriers between the runner and the finish line. So much of modern academia(that is dominated by Jews) is less about letting the runner to make it to the finish line of truth than to place obstacles along the path so that the runner will never get to the finish line. The runner will be so busy removing one obstacle after another that he will never finish the race. It’s like Odysseus would have made reached his home in Ithaca in less than a year if not for all the obstacles placed in his way by hostile gods, nature, enchantresses, monsters, and the like. (The lesson of Odysseus is he never gave up and finally did reach home and overcame his enemies. Interestingly enough, the greatest adventure story is really about a man who just wants to get back to his home and family. It’s sort of an anti-adventure story as the last thing Odysseus is looking for is adventure, especially after ten years of toil and bloodshed in Troy.) Similarly, Jewish Liberals, by constantly employing new(or refurbished) pseudo-scientific theories about race as obstructions against honest discourse, prevent most people from knowing and accepting the real truth about race. Even brave souls who vehemently disagree with the Liberal theories on race must expend so much of their time debunking the BS that they have little energy left to get their own views across. (Or like Nicholas Wade, they must sugarcoat their race-ist views with feely-good bromides about how, despite racial differences, everyone can get along just fine if we tried a bit harder.) In the justice system, such ploy is called a delaying tactic. If the lawyer seeks to put off the obvious and/or inevitable, he keeps on bringing up all sorts of trivialities and technicalities to divert the judge and jury from the core matter of what the trial is really about. Therefore, the other side have to expend time and money debunking these nonsense issues, thus becoming delayed in their core objectives.
Alain Resnais
The fact that Resnais has received less attention than other master directors may owe to the side-view mirror aspect of his films. Even in the age of modernism and post-modernism, our mental habits make us ask the question, "what is it about?" or "what’s the point?" With some films, this is more obvious than others. Some films have a definite sense of place and time, like the middle class milieu of Yasujiro Ozu films. To watch Ozu films is to enter the same world over and over. In his films, style and substance essentially remain intact; they are about people repeating daily routines in a changing world that will never be the same; we become aware of the dissonance but also the consonance between the old and the new. (Indeed, if there is hope of constancy in Ozu’s vision, it is the Japanese manner of affecting a harmony between the opposites of tradition and modernity, of East and West, of old and young, of family and individual. It’s as if the essence of Japanese-ness is this quality of zen-like calm amidst the profound social and material changes. Ozu’s Japanese-ness is less about the ‘what’ than the ‘how’. It is about manners, a kind of transcendence from the very thing one is engaged with. Thus, it is a paradoxical modern form of Japanese-ness. It is dis-associative from the very object of one’s immersion. It’s like the ideal samurai must kill with full force yet also be disengaged from his fury. Anglos, like Lawrence of Arabia in David Lean’s movie, have a somewhat similar disposition in being, at once, fully committed and emotionally detached from the object of commitment: personally commit, impersonally execute. It’s like Lawrence tests himself with matches to rise above pain. Prior to its opening to the West, Japan changed very slowly, and Japanese-ness was defined by material things that were obviously and uniquely Japanese. Japan looked like Japan. Japanese adopted and then altered various ideas and styles from other cultures. The end result was a distinctness that set Japan apart from all other civilizations. More remarkably, in refining something foreign for their own purposes, Japanese elevated disassociation into an art form. In this process, Japanese had to extract and abstract from the foreign element and, in time, came to form a subtle sensibility that became essential to Japanese culture. This sensibility was both resilient and ephemeral. Resilient because a sensibility is an internal quality, sort of like faith, impervious to the physical world; it’s like you can take away a man’s property but not his irony or sense of humor. Ephemeral because sensibility, especially one as fine-tuned as the Japanese one, wasn’t grounded in any deep conviction[like belief in a righteous God] but built upon the poetic or conceited notion of elevated senses seeing what can just barely be seen and hearing what can just barely be heard. If some people read between the lines, Japanese ideally saw between the spaces and heard between the sounds. When Japanese saw a foreign object, they were less interested in its specific details than in the ghostly essence to be derived from it as the ‘minimalist’ basis for perfection-ization. Even so, traditional Japan changed slowly, therefore one could readily recognize Japanese-ness by sight and sound in old Japan. In contrast, modernity and industrialization transformed Japan almost overnight, and one could no longer tell what was particularly Japanese apart from rest of the modern world. So, Japanese-ness in modern times became less a matter of the what than the how. The ‘what’ had changed so much that Japan looked like a Western nation. But the Japanese could still maintain the ‘how’ in their attitudes, manners, and sensibility. They materially adopted the Western way while simultaneously remaining disassociated from it in ‘spirit’.) There is an element of grace in the veiled dichotomy of tradition and change. It was as if Ozu’s cinema transfixed our gaze on the art of flower-arranging, thus rendering imperceptible the profound changes in the room itself. Perhaps, Ozu’s hope was that, despite social transformation’s relegation of traditional Japan to obsoleteness and extinction, the Japanese essence could be preserved through a democratized art of manners and decorum: Japanese-ness as a state-of-mind involved with but indifferent to the world. If indeed the material world of Japan is in a relentless state of flux, especially due to foreign influences, wouldn’t Japan become a mere extension of the rest of the world? What then would remain uniquely Japanese? With standardized Western materials — dresses, architecture, contraptions, etc. — replacing traditional Eastern counterparts, Japan would become just an Asian addendum to the West. To be sure, there would still be race, language, and history, but race isn’t typically a topic in a homogenous society, language is more a tool than an identity in daily life, and history recedes into irrelevance for most modern people. So, if the Japanese were to maintain something unique in their culture amidst all the changes, one way was through the distillation of a dual sensibility of attachment and detachment. Attachment allowed for interaction with the changing world. Detachment allowed for the preservation of ‘spiritual’ constancy despite the changes all around. Whether Ozu’s films expressed quiet hope or rueful resignation, the Japan that followed his death has turned out to be a soulless bubble of vapid consumerism and timid conformism. But then, it is unrealistic to believe any society, especially one so swept up in the globalist tide of sewage and vulgarity, could maintain as its defining cultural and national norm the cult of manners as a democratized art-form.
With Robert Bresson, the subjects were often social misfits or outcasts — they were ‘all thumbs’ — , and the themes leaned austerely toward the spiritual. (‘Spiritual’ may be a misleading term in Bresson’s cinema because of the absence of outward signs of grace, divinity, and transcendence. Instead, there is the overwhelming sense of desolation and isolation, psychological if not always physical. The characters seem out of place in their environments. In the case of MOUCHETTE, there is an ethnic content for the girl is a Gypsy. In the case of AU HASARD BALTHASAR, the donkey obviously exists on a different plane than the humans. But even in cases of shared ‘ethnicity’[and species-hood], Bresson’s main characters seem incongruous to the others, rather like the obstinate Will Kane in HIGH NOON. They are like odd pieces that won’t fit into the jigsaw puzzle. If Kane is fueled by honor & heroism and ultimately triumphs as a winner, Bresson’s characters are ‘born losers’. And their separateness isn’t principally something as dramatic, heroic, or romantic as exile, repression, rebellion, or resistance. They are more the objects of neglect and indifference, like with Charlie Brown. Most folks just ignore them, rendering them invisible[or invisible-as-possible] from their own lives. It’s like townsfolk in MOUCHETTE just wish the gypsy girl didn’t exist[like we wish Negroes, most of them anyway, simply wouldn’t exist], and in the end, the girl, who has no place in this world, ‘disappears’ herself into a pond as if she had never existed. The scene is brutal and depressing for, indeed, the world carries on utterly indifferent to the girl’s extinction. Almost no one of the town will notice or care that she has gone missing, and nature is oblivious to all that happens in it. After all, only the humans care about what happened in the forest in RASHOMON. Nature doesn’t care if one or many were killed or if no one was killed. [Of course, one could argue that the human mind is part of nature, and therefore, its fears and anxieties are the sustained projection of nature’s own neuroses latent in all things.] But then, the short moment of quietude that ends the film following Mouchette’s absence suggests at a higher grace. From a brutalist viewpoint, the water just swallowed up Mouchette who will become food for the fishes. But from a poetic angle, there is grace in the sense of cosmic equilibrium being unperturbed by even the most horrible and dispiriting events. Higher truth and power, were they to exist, must be beyond our existence, actions, and happenstance. It’s like the Sun is great because there’s nothing we can do to alter its power, ‘will’, and ‘destiny’. After all, if the very fabric of God, cosmos, and nature could be altered by what we do and happens to us, it means we mortals are at the center of all things. What we do or what happens to us would define the universe since they would have seismic effect even on God and the cosmos. If so, the universe must be rather flimsy and weak, easily warped by the foibles of tiny transient creatures on an insignificant planet in one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies[according to Carl Sagan as I never bothered to count them all]. Some Jews lamented that God didn’t lift a finger during the Holocaust. Those Jews were not unlike Job. In a way, because each of us is wrapped up in himself, he instinctively feels as if he is significant to the universe[children especially feel as if the entire world should be happy with them or sad with them], and indeed, one could argue that the concept of God or gods is essentially a projection of our ego onto the universe. But if indeed the way of God or the universe could be fundamentally altered on our account, then it would imply that WE are gods or at least the god-tremblers. If our tragedies were to permanently reconfigure the way of the universe or higher reality, then the universe or higher reality cannot be all that great. For God, cosmos, or nature to be much greater than us, He or it must be unaffected by what happens to us. Of course, such a view could be deemed disconsolate as it would mean our existence makes no dent in the universe, but paradoxically, it is also consoling because we would know that there is indeed a truth and power much greater and grander than us. Even if we aren’t central to this higher truth or power, it can be assuring to know that each of us is a part of something immeasurably greater than any of us, all of us. Paradoxically, to know there is a power/truth infinitely grander than us diminishes us yet also soothes us. We feel insignificant in face of infinity but also as having been a part of infinity. [If some of us were to exist in a box, and if that box constituted all of space and all of time, and if that box came into existence only upon our arrival and than vanished upon our death, then we would be the begin-all and end-all of everything, but would such a truth necessarily be more consoling? It would mean there never was and never could be any truth or power beyond ourselves. If we were the center of everything, then everything would be petty and small since nothing beyond our box could ever exist. We could never be part of anything greater than us since nothing greater than us could ever exist. But suppose there is more reality, higher truth, and greater power outside the box, and suppose this reality, truth, and power existed long before the appearance of our box and will go on existing long after its disappearance. This reality would be oblivious to us, but then, we would also realize that we of the box had been part of something infinitely greater than the box.] If we tell ourselves that the universe is just an accident and that there is no God, our insignificance may indeed be dispiriting & lonely, and everything about us may seem absurd. But if we believe in the infinite reality and, furthermore, if we believe God or a mastermind behind it all, we may hope that each of us has been put on earth for a reason, even if it is beyond understanding. There is also the matter of the narcissism-of-small-differences. Whether God exists or not, most people suffer from the power of man, like with the character of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. Even though the mightiest man is an infinitesimal speck on the cosmic scale, he can have the power of life and death over you and your people. Indeed, even a lowly man can have all the power over you. In THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, the main character is entirely at the mercy of the lowly warden while in prison. So, even a lowlife sadist thug can have tremendous power over someone. It’s like the story of the gate-keeper in Kafka’s THE TRIAL. Even though he is the lowest of the guards, he has the power-of-god to over those who seek entrance. Given the common sense observation that more power allows for more oppression, one would assume that with less power would unite against the greater, especially the greatest, power. But in reality, it often doesn’t play out that way. Even those with little power have some power, and as such, enjoy power and privilege over others who have less. And to keep their power, however small it may be, they are willing to serve the greater powers on whom they depend for patronage. Even though the greater powers may oppress the lesser powers, the lesser powers still get something by serving the greater powers. The lesser powers get to lord over even lesser powers, and at least in this ‘duty’, they are protected by the greater powers. Why jeopardize their privilege by siding with the lowers against the highers who have the ultimate power? This is why an oppressive system can last for a long time. It’s because there are layers and layers of power, and each layer, by serving those above, gets something for its service. Without such layering, the oppressors would be in serious trouble as the masses would unite to challenge and overthrow them. But the layering of power has devised it so that the lower echelons of power have something to gain by serving those higher up. Indeed, imagine a military with only generals at the top and everyone else, the foot-soldiers, on the bottom. The masses of lowly soldiers might unite and mutiny against the generals. But if there are many ranks, then each rank will serve the rank above it which serves the rank about it and so on. This way, the multiple layering of power serve the interests of general whose hierarchical scheme ensures the most talented and/or loyal men will serve as agents or collaborators. Indeed, this is how Jews have gained power of goyim. If Jews hogged everything and ruled over all goyim as an undistinguished mass of cattle, the goyim might eventually unite and stampede the Jew out of town. So, Jews have created layers and layers of goy collaborators who, while having much less than Jews, win some prizes by serving the layer of power above them[and live in the hope that they will rise in the ranks]. In the tale told in Kafka’s THE TRIAL, there is the sense that all the layers of power are on the same page or share the same agenda. Thus, the lowest guard’s function is the pettiest version of the nature of the beast. So, even if the man-seeking-entry were allowed to pass through the first gate, he would be met with the same troubles at the next gate and then the next gate and so on. But, there is also the inkling of hope that, maybe just maybe, the higher powers or the ultimate power within the system would actually be on the side of the seeker of truth or the oppressed. What if the lowest guard in the tale isn’t really a loyal servant of the system but a rogue operator disobeying the system for his own personal ends[like the agents who stole Joseph K.’s shirts or the avaricious dwarfs in TIME BANDITS]? Many individuals crushed under the Red Wheel felt this way. They muttered to themselves, "If Stalin only knew..." They believed or hoped that their persecution at the hands of lower authorities was an accident or aberration carried against the wishes of the noble Stalin. So, it is not surprising that many people in the Gulag, upon hearing of Stalin’s death, wept with sincerity. But then, what of the belief that one’s suffering isn’t the doing of petty tyranny but has been willed by the greatest power of the system. The situation would indeed be depressing. Imagine being stuck in the Gulag knowing Stalin wants you to be there. In that case, the only hope is God, especially in the concept of Him as developed by Christianity. After all, Jews conceived of God as being all-powerful but always on their side. It was very egotistical or ‘ethnotistical’ of Jews to devise such a cosmic-scheme. They believed in a God that was bigger and greater than anything known to man, but, for some reason, He favored Jews over all other peoples. But then, cracks in this view appeared in the story of Job because God whupped him real good despite his pure and faithful heart. To be sure, God did restore his fortunes, but only after driving him to the brink of insanity — or maybe Job really did turn mad and only imagined that God restored all that stuff to him. Ancient Jews understood the moral paradox of God as the supreme power of the universe. If indeed God was totally supreme and the master of all that was-is-and-will-be, surely the world of humans would be insignificant and unworthy of His attention. After all, why would a man care about microbes in a culture dish? The Greek gods were more accessible since they lived in Olympus, were humanlike, were not all-powerful, and favored the Greeks, mostly anyways. But given that the Jewish concept of God was infinite and cosmic, why would such a Being care about tiny humans, let alone members of a tribe called the ‘Jews’? On the other hand, it must have been comforting for Jews to know that there is a power beyond anything known to man. No matter how much Jews suffered at the hands of other tribes, Jews could rest assured that there was a power much greater than their conquerors and/or oppressors. But then, there was the troubling question of, "What if this greatest of all powers didn’t care for Jews?" What if He hated Jews or favored another people? So, Jews came up with the myth of the Covenant whereby Jews bound themselves to God, or God bound Himself to the Jews. So, the greatest power of all time and all space came to be bound to the Jews through the ritual of the blood-pud. In a way, one could argue Jews pulled a fast one on God. Ostensibly, the story of Abraham and his tribe sounds like a case of Jews humbly serving the great God. But in a way, God is tricked into serving the Jews. After all, who got more out of the deal? If God is the master of everything, why would He need an alliance with the Jews? What would He get from it? What could Jews possibly have that God doesn’t have already? In contrast, Jews got from the partnership the spiritual blessing and protection of the greatest power of all time and all space. Imagine a billionaire and a homeless hobo. The billionaire doesn’t need the hobo to have his riches and privileges. In contrast, the hobo has very little, and there’s nothing he could do to make the billionaire richer or happier. Now, suppose the billionaire and the hobo make a pact whereby the hobo will worship the billionaire in return for the billionaire’s blessing and protection. It would seem like the hobo is faithfully serving the billionaire, but in fact, he is offering the billionaire nothing because it doesn’t cost the hobo a dime to offer prayers. In contrast, the billionaire now has to use all his power to protect the hobo. Jews are the people who swindled God, and it is no wonder they are so good at fooling the rest of us. I mean if you can fool the greatest power of all time and all space, you can fool the goyim. On the other hand, one could argue that God did get the better bargain. After all, while billionaires really do exist, there is no God or gods. He is just an illusion. Therefore, there was no real God that protected or blessed the Jews. It was all in the Jews’ mind. But with their faith in God, Jews constructed a great myth around Him, and this myth turned into Christianity[that decoupled the special Covenant between God and Jews] and inspired Islam. As a result, the majority of humanity came to worship Him.) Main characters of Bresson’s films are often seen, treated, or ignored as annoyances, like blemishes on photographs. But Bresson’s characters aren’t willful misfits. They are not trying to make trouble for others even if their hearts refuse to budge or yield completely to others. Even the most proactive Bressonian character, the ‘hero’ of THE MAN ESCAPED, is really reacting to events. He is resisting because France is under German Occupation. The characters are not begging for attention or trying to make a mark(like Paul Newman’s character in COOL HAND LUKE who, despite his aloof devil-may-care attitude, becomes addicted to the adulation of others). They tend to be passive and would ideally prefer to just fit in or be left alone. But it’s not in their nature to find an easy place in the world. Despite their lack of aggression, their presence has a way of discomfiting or even offending those around them. One would assume that their passivity would be ideal for just melting into the environment. After all, passive people have the option of conformism and adapting to the status quo. But Bresson’s characters either don’t yield to social standards(less due to willful rebellion than a kind of social ‘ineptitude’) or wouldn’t fit in even if they tried — it’s like the character of CARRIE would have been rejected by other girls even if she made an effort to fit in; she’s the kind who sends the wrong kind of vibes. Even the character of THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST, who’s been assigned with communal duties, ends up mostly keeping to himself because of his awkward disposition. There’s a cloud hanging over him, and the townsfolk don’t care for the gloom. It’s like being near Pig-Pen who always carries a haze of dust around him. (Though stricken with fatal illness, it paradoxically provides relief because suffering is the path to sainthood. Without the illness, he would be just some no-name priest in some nondescript town. Saint formula is a contradiction. The saint is both revered and reviled. It’s like Jesus offered warmth with love but also applied pressure with purity. The saint is loved and hated. For this reason, sainthood thrives in a crisis-ridden world filled with risks and dangers. Jesus and the early Christians lived in such time and place. French patriots faced trial by fire during the German Occupation. It’s like the communist in ROME: OPEN CITY dies a secular saint at the hands of the Nazis. The saint, in choosing purity of commitment, gains the respect of others. But he is also resented because his radiant soul exposes the shadowed souls of others. Those who receive the light may be grateful but also resentful since the light doesn’t glow from within themselves. The saint fears but also welcomes pain-and-suffering because it dramatizes his special calling in the world. Imagine if Jesus and His Disciples had just been ignored by the people and authorities as cranks or oddballs and left alone to go around preaching. The protagonist of THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST lives in a peaceful world without larger themes. Most townsfolk are not rich, but they are free from want. What then is the life of a would-be-saint in such a world? Saint seeks meaning by gaining the love and trust of others, but there’s also meaning to be found in being misunderstood, falsely accused, condemned, and even killed. The townsfolk have no affection for the priest, but then, they don’t exactly hate him or revile him either. There is no means for him to suffer in the name of the people or God. Now, if he were of a more easy-going nature and fitted in with the crowd, that would have been something. Nothing wrong with sociable. Who says one has to seek sainthood in life? Why not just get long and be happy? But for those incapable of fitting in or be liked, there is just the long life of weary isolation. In some ways, being ignored is worse than being hated. To be hated means there’s something real about you to elicit strong reactions from others. It’s like movie villains may be hated but worthy of the notoriety. Being an object of hate means you are somebody, at least if you’re willing to take heat. In contrast, the ignored are nothings, nobodies. Bresson’s priest is a nobody to those around him. He feels uneasy from the isolation, but it’s not agony filled with drama and passion. A saint craves the kind of suffering that tests the soul; he would rather be misunderstood and persecuted than be kindly ignored and left feeling irrelevant to the lives around him. Therefore, the priest’s illness lends special meaning by making him suffer like a saint, even if the psycho-drama serves no social purpose and happens all within the self, like the vision of power in ERASERHEAD takes place in the mind of the protagonist who himself is just a figment of David Lynch psycho-drama. If Arthur Miller’s DEATH OF A SALESMAN suggests that tragedy[in the classic sense] could define a nobody, THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST suggest that sainthood could define a total failure. George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE failed to live up to his youthful dreams, but in exchange, he gained family and friends. His guardian angel Clarence shows to him that he did affect lives for the good; he even saved lives. He was not a total failure. But there is no such assurance for the priest. He achieved nothing in life and failed to connect with people. The world would be no different had he never existed. He didn’t save anyone’s body or soul. So, what was the purpose of his life? Could such a man be considered a saint? A saint in the classic sense, no. But it could still be said that he was saintly in his devotion and quiet courage in face of death. My-private-sainthood isn’t the kind that warrants attention, but if there are to be saints, there has to be those who with saintly dispositions. It’s like a soldier cannot be a hero without war, but one can still be heroic-at-heart.) The mope-ishness of Bresson’s characters is compounded by their oblivious demeanor. Though Bresson’s films are not without emotional range, humor and gaiety are not their strong suits. Indeed, the happier and lighter moments aren’t presented differently from the unhappy moments. Regardless of the change in mood or setting, the camera nearly always watches in the same manner. (Such a view doesn’t accommodate the characters or the moment as in most actor-centric films. If anything, the characters are made to accommodate the insistence of the view. In most Hollywood movies, characters are king, and the style of any given scene will play them and their situations. So, if the characters are feeling down, the style will reflect their mood. If the characters are caught up in action, the style will speed up and go hyper. Hollywood movies tend to be actor-driven. In contrast, many European films have tended to be ‘auteur’-centric, i.e. the director would develop a world-view to be molded and cast into a signature style that is resistant and oblivious to the instabilities[and inanities] of the world. Indeed, the world-view would become the world. Not just a way of looking at the world but a complete formal domination of the world. This is why some people find European art films claustrophobic, rigid, cold, and mummy-like. The audience may feel entombed in the ‘oppressive’ vision of the ‘auteur’, often at the expense of actors, personalities, and situations. In American cinema, even the great ‘auteurs’ like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Sidney Lumet[at his best], Sam Peckinpah, Brian DePalma[at his best], and etc. put actors at the center. Even as they demonstrated their directorial prowess, it was always in relation to independent-minded characters, their situations and feelings. So, when Kilgore attacks a Viet Cong village in APOCALYPSE NOW, the style suits the mad colonel’s vision of war as a Rock Opera. But the style is entirely different in the den of Colonel Kurtz[Marlon Brando]. Contrast that to Werner Herzog’s AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD with a far more consistent style imposed by the director’s philosophical vision. [The style holds throughout despite Klaus Kinski’s raw eccentricity that taunts and tests Herzog’s ‘auteur’ dominance at every moment.] This was even truer of Bresson, of course. Had he made APOCALYSE NOW, the battle scenes wouldn’t have been shot or handled different from the quiet scenes. It’s like Bresson’s camera remains the same even when the donkey’s pace dangerously accelerates as it goes downhill. Of course, most European directors haven’t been as ‘extreme’ as Bresson, but many great European directors did develop a kind of philosophical view of life. It explains why Europeans have preferred Japanese directors[with more consistent and stable styles] like Kenji Mizoguchi, Yasujiro Ozu, and even Mikio Naruse over someone more adaptive and attentive like Akira Kurosawa who was sometimes devalued as ‘too American’. It’s like Europe and the Old World are about philosophy, whereas America and the New World are about practicality. As Europeans have a long tradition of thought, their art reflects a need for reflection, theory, or evaluation of the world. It’s like an adult may watch children, but he’s not supposed to play with them. Kids jump around & throw things, and their moods change all the time, crying one minute, laughing the next. In contrast, adults have control of their emotions and watch & interpret with their ideas and values in their mind. It’s like what Merlin says of Uther in EXCALIBUR: "It’s easy to love folly in a child." Arthur tries to be wiser than his father, but he too is a prisoner of the moment. He gives into rage when fighting Lancelot. He ignores Merlins’ warning that his best friend will betray him and marries Guenevere. The thrill of the moment makes us feel free. It’s like Uther wants the joy of ‘raping’ Igraine. Arthur loves dancing with Guinevere and dreams of making her his wife. But such charged moments are also prisons because lust, rage, thrills, temptations, self-pity, and etc. blind men to the deeper and higher truths such as "you and the land are one". Incidentally, Bresson made a film about the Arthurian legends in LANCELOT DU LAC, and it makes an interesting comparison with EXCALIBUR which, despite Merlin’s presence, is a very character-centric movie. American cinema has been most popular around the world because they are about the life as a series of moments than as a monument to philosophy. And even when American directors develop powerful personal styles, it is usually as showmen than as thinkers. They are circus ringleaders than priests or professors. Perhaps, Stanley Kubrick has been the most beguiling of directors for his films managed to be both actor-and-story-driven and so philosophically ‘auteurist’.) The gaze is fixed, rather like Ozu’s camera or HAL’s eye in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Bresson’s characters are among the most ‘uncool’ in cinema. Coolness is about maintaining mastery of control and composure — with a dash of style — in a situation marked by tension and conflict. James Bond is cool. He is keenly alert to everything happening around him but unfazed and un-panicked. In contrast, Bresson’s characters tend to be ‘dim’ in relation to their environments. They are often clueless, especially the hapless character of L’ARGENT. And, with the exception of the ‘hero’ of THE MAN ESCAPED, they have no mastery of the situation. Some of them aren’t too bright, but even the more intelligent ones are near-‘autistic’ vis-a-via the world. They are like the Tin Man of THE WIZARD OF OZ. They are stiff and unoiled. Given the starkness of Bresson’s world where key characters stick out like sore thumbs, little is discernibly spiritual in the conventional sense. We don’t feel the aura , hum, or glow of higher grace. And yet, if we were to expunge all spiritual considerations from Bresson’s cinema, something essential would be missing. Bresson’s films cannot be fully appreciated without consideration of Christian tradition and theology. If anything, the austere absence of spirit is felt because Bresson’s situation and characters are informed by spiritual themes. It’s like a cinema of fasting. A fasting person lacks food in the stomach but senses the essence of food all the more by its very absence. Paradoxically, it is this stark barrenness of obvious spirituality that makes Bresson’s cinema more deeply spiritual. It’s like gold is all the more precious where it exists only in traces than in a gilded palace. Much of Christian art in painting, music, and cinema presented spirituality in an all-pervasive and all-encompassing manner. The audience feel complacent in faith since the heavens sing with the chorus of angels blessing the saints over the sinners. In contrast, nothing is spiritually assured in Bresson’s cinema. Saints and sinners are stuck in the same sunken world. Also, the saints, if indeed meant to be such, are more accidents of personality, situation, and chance than beautiful souls imbued with holiness. The donkey in AU HASARD BALTHASAR surely didn’t seek sainthood. It was turned into one before our eyes thru a series of mishaps that led to suffering and death. And some, like Mouchette, are placed in quasi-saintlike situations but haven’t the grace or vision to pull it through. In a way, they are all fallen saints than true saints. Even so, their apart-ness and isolation offer glimpses of the spiritual, however soiled and stained they may be. After all, spirituality is about contact with eternal truth beyond the passing winds of manners, fashions, attitude, and ideas.
Spirituality and sainthood-in-particular must be defined by difficulty and maladroitness. Sainthood must not be adaptive because adaptation is always a form of compromise, a chameleon-like or Zelig-ish capacity to refit and serve any situation. The characters of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET are the masters of adaptability. Neocons have been very adaptive, going from Trotskyism to Liberalism to Zionist-conservatism, and now they’re thinking of returning to the Democratic Party. Adaptive people get far in life, and they prioritize power and winning above all else. They will make a pact with the devil to win. After all, the ultimate survivor in French history was Talleyrand. And the Rod Steiger character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, Komarovsky, is very adaptive and hedges his bets by investing his faux-loyalty in everything from Tsarism to Bolshevism. Such is the path of survival, power, and privilege, but it can never be the way of sainthood. Closer to sainthood are the characters of Zhivago and Strelnikov. Zhivago never lets go of his poetic vision, but then, sainthood is not about following one’s muse, no matter how beautiful it may be. Poetry is about the romantic ego, whereas sainthood is about humility and abnegation of ego. And while Strelnikov is ‘pure’ in his commitment, he is obsessed with worldly power and too ruthlessly impatient to have a saintly demeanor of forgiveness and inner peace. Strelnikov is willing to die for his beliefs like a saint, but he is also willing to kill any number of people, and no saint can be like that. A saint must be indomitable and strong-willed but also yielding and compassionate. He must be totally committed but also possess infinite patience. Though no character in Bresson’s cinema comes anywhere near being a perfect saint, their obliviousness to the world around them does strike a spiritual chord. When presented with the alienation of Antonioni’s socio-construction, the audience is made to feel the absence of soul in modern man. Antonioni’s characters are too sophisticated, privileged, and cosmopolitan for faith, tradition, & community, but they are also too vain, vapid, egotistical, and materialistic for an intellectual-philosophical understanding of life. They are trapped in the limbo of knowing too much but not enough. In contrast, the sense of desolation in Bresson’s film makes us aware of stark souls at odds with the world. Souls that won’t adapt and play the game. Souls that are about more than the whims of the time and place. They may only be traces of gold, but we sometimes catch the glimmer even if we can’t see the things themselves. To be sure, Bresson’s saints are not true saints since most of them don’t consciously seek sainthood. As often as not, their social ineptness places them in situations akin to that of saints. Such people in the past may have clung to God and Jesus and accepted the life of sainthood. In the modern world, with the absence of God, the outcast can go the way of the man in L’ARGENT who becomes a deranged killer. One thing for sure, saints are not supposed to commit suicide but instead accept lives of suffering and dejection til their last dying breaths, but MOUCHETTE and UNE FEMME DOUCE end in suicide. (Incidentally, there is the problem of hipster morality in the current culture, even though, to be sure, it had long been developing with the rise of modernism. But during the heyday of modernism, at least people — even advocates of modernism — were troubled by the split-morality or split-sensibility disorder. Today, people are shameless in their glib acceptance of it. Every work of art or cultural outlook comes with its set of values and visions. To appreciate and accept that culture means to uphold, defend, and even advocate for a certain world-view and set of values. It’s like being a Muslim means that one’s life has be imbued with Islamic values. A Muslim isn’t just a Muslim inside the Mosque. He is a Muslim all thru the day and in all places. His values reflect on everything he does. This is true of any religion. A Christian needs always to be a Christian. He can’t be a Christian today, Muslim tomorrow, anti-religious atheist radical the next day, a paganist the next day, a Satan worshiper the next, and so on. Christianity should inform his world-view, his hopes for humanity, his own self, and etc. Philosophy, being centered on reason than on faith[of the devotee] or vision[of the prophet], is more flexible as one’s ideas can develop and change over time in accordance to reason, logic, facts, and changes in social reality. Even so, every philosophical school has its interpretation of life, its own set of values and priorities. So, to belong to a school of philosophy means its ideals and principles constitute the values of its adherents through their lives, at least as long as they are committed to it. Surely, a stoic faces life and sees the world differently than an epicurean. And through most of history, each society or community adhered to a prevailing set of mythos and/or ethos that came to inform, mold, and shape every facet of life from education to social interaction to personal relations to governance to family life to arts & culture, and etc. Consider the impact of Confucianism on China, Islam in the Middle East, Christianity in Old Europe. There were commonly shared themes in a wide range of human value and activities. And even most of art and much of entertainment reflected these prevailing values. Because only a limited number of people were educated and because this privileged class had the learning and sensibility to appreciate higher forms of culture, artists came under pressure to aim for loftier themes and the audience under pressure to support and patronize worthy art while condemning and even banning ‘dangerous’ and ‘obscene’ ones. As for popular entertainment, it was highly limited since modern mass media had yet to develop. Most entertainment were local affairs of folk song and dance within the range of permissible moral values of the community. Also, the moral authorities of the church, state, family, and law made sure that entertainment didn’t become overly lewd, deviant, and corrupting. And there was no such thing as youth culture and libertine celebration of hedonism, especially in sex. So naturally, a typical community was bound together in all areas of life by common moral, spiritual, and communal themes. But things began to change with the rise of industrialism, big cities, and modernism. Industrialism disrupted traditional bonds, urban life intensified alienated individualism and mass consumerism, and modernism encouraged the cult of individualism and eccentricism. All of a sudden, individuals found themselves in a world without the certain themes of morality, spirituality, and community. Modern artists and thinkers began to use their freedom to sample and experiment with all sorts of expressions and possibilities. Modernism had a knack for the antipodal and then, with post-modernism, the ‘multipodal’. Instead of a people linked by common themes, it was as if individuals should go against all norms & conventions or sample ‘everything’ and toss together whatever suits their fancy. It was less about real obligations than fleeting options. So, nothing was certain any longer. Everything was just one of the many possibilities afloat and adrift in a non-gravitational world. This was liberating but also troubling. It’s like Gertrude Stein’s designation of Ernest Hemingway and friends as the ‘lost generation’, though paradoxically, his generation could be one of the first ‘found generations’ since the very sense of being ‘lost’ inspired them to find their own meanings instead of just accepting received ‘wisdom’. THE SUN ALSO RISES is about free spirits, but they feel hollow and subconsciously crave for something sure and resolute, even as they know all too well that it’s as impossible as regaining one’s lost virginity. They are too modern and ‘liberated’ to face this anxiety, but it hovers their lives always. So, the early generations of moderns, even as they indulged in freedoms, indiscretions, and the preponderance of choice, were nevertheless troubled by the loss of surer truths, values, and meanings. And this anxiety lingered in the modern world through much of the 20th century. Indeed, consider the seriousness, the moral themes, and intellectual commitment of the artists and intellectuals well into the 1960s and even somewhat beyond. Bresson, for one, was not a post-modernist who mixed-and-matched anything and everything. He had no use for cleverness. He formulated a personal-moral-spiritual view of life and perfected his art as an expression of his philosophy. He settled on a Truth that left him no choice but to adhere to its obligations and restrictions. He was not a free-wheeling sampler but a true believer. After WWII, many thinkers and artists chose Marxism as the compass for some sense of truth and destiny. They relished the freedom of modernity and individuality but also found themselves in the no man’s land of broken truths that, like Humpty Dumpty, could not be put together again. They sought some higher ideal and common theme that could unite the modern world with a renewed sense of certainty, and intellectual Marxism was like the new Christianity, just like homo-worship is the new credo of the Western ‘progressives’ in our age. But on a more modest level, there was humanism, and it came to inform much of serious cinema in Italy, France, Japan, America, India, and elsewhere. Elia Kazan, Akira Kurosawa, Vittorio De Sica, Robert Rossellini, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Satyajit Ray, and many others worked either in humanist mode or mode amenable to humanism. And even as humanism-as-dominant-artistic-mode faded, there developed and continued the sensibility of intellectual, moral, and/or philosophical seriousness & vigor so evident in the films of Alain Resnais, a revamped Ingmar Bergman, Hiroshi Teshigahara, Chris Marker, Jean-Luc Godard, Eric Rohmer, Antonioni, Shohei Imamura, and etc. In other words, being a true artist or philosopher required one to impart certain unified themes or commit to an outlook of respectable or radical pedigree. Of course, one was permitted to have a taste or appreciation for the light, trivial, or frivolous, but hierarchy had to be maintained, indeed a rather strict one that elevated certain ideas, attitudes, and perceptions above lesser ones. A serious person could appreciate comic books, trashy B-movies, or ‘camp’ but from an adult/intellectual sensibility, not through the eyes of a man-child or mindless vulgarian. A certain degree of intellectual distance, as opposed to childlike delight, was deemed obligatory. Or, if the serious person liked junk culture for no worthwhile reason, it was to be relegated to personal fetish or foible unsuited for serious discussion. Often, an intellectual was supposed to appreciate a certain popular work for the reasons that usually eluded the mass audience too blind, dumb, and/or simple-minded to appreciate its finer virtues. [The French have tended to have this attitude in regard to American popular culture. They supposedly ‘got’ what Americans were too stupid to ‘get’. Sometimes, the French were right, though not when they overrated the likes of Jerry Lewis.] So, Susan Sontag wrote about popular forms of culture from a higher perch. It’s like what Jonathan Rosenbaum remarked about the difference between Jean-Luc Godard and Quentin Tarantino in his review of PULP FICTION: "You won't find any serious discussion of art, literature, or philosophy or any serious technical innovations in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. But you will find an allusion to Anna Karina's dance around a pool table in Godard's Vivre sa vie and some dandyish dialogue from two hit men that may remind you of Jean-Paul Belmondo in Breathless--dialogue that includes an extended discussion about the difference between McDonald's Quarter Pounders in Amsterdam, Paris, and the United States." Godard was fascinated with pop culture but also immersed in serious culture, history, and politics. In contrast, everything about Tarantino is informed by infantile hipster pop sensibility. He juggles high and low as if they are interchangeable and equal in value. He thinks the trashy Japanese film BATTLE ROYALE is the best film of the 90s. Even his political activism plays out in the form of celebrity antics. Everything is a game or child’s play to the likes of Tarantino. It’s like the Looney Tunes cartoon "Bugs’ Bonnets" where identities & attitudes of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd shift according to hats that land on their heads. Tarantino’s ‘moral’ agenda is one of attitudes than convictions. It’s about the Hip Factor. Style whips substance. Puerility trumps reality. To be sure, RESERVOIR DOGS showed awareness of the hazard of style-as-sensibility. That film and the memorable scene between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper in TRUE ROMANCE are standout reminders that style, however hip or cool, burns in the heat of reality. Hopper’s ‘history lesson’ about Sicilians and Moors gets the better of the mafia chieftain, but the gun has the final say. But even as his later films became more brutal and violent, Tarantino’s main concerns have been style and attitude, thus more fantastic than realistic. They are more like violent video-games than stories, let alone moral tales. Likewise, Wes Anderson abandoned or misplaced the sense of conflict between reality and fantasy after his remarkable second film RUSHMORE. Of course, artists[indeed all people] have a tendency to want to create and live in their own universes, i.e. become the Great Dictator of their own universe, the ‘Germania’ of the mind where everyone and everything act according to one’s wishes. After all, God is a projection of human ego, and what did He want in Eden? For everyone and everything to obey His wishes. On the climb up the ladder, individuals experience conflict and tension, but, having gained success, they come to regard conflict as an obstacle than the material of their vision. In a relatively free society like the US, no one can play dictator, but artists and entertainers can create their own self-enclosed universes or fantasy-lands, like Elvis did with Graceland and Michael Jackson did with Neverland. And so many actors and performers, upon gaining fame and fortune, only want to be surrounded by yes-men and yes-women who tell them how great and wonderful they are. In their first efforts, directors like Tarantino and Anderson had to struggle against the odds to fulfill their ambitions, and the hunger & anxiety are palpable in their first or early films. But once they were established and feted around, they never wanted leave their bubble that grew bigger and bigger — it’s like Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys reached a point where he didn’t want to leave his house or even his bed; he just wanted to live in his bubble. Anyway, there has now been generations of people grown accustomed to the New Normal of no fixed communities, identities, truths, themes, values, and etc. Everything is a just post-modern or pomo sampler among countless others. Glibness and smugness are now so pervasive that they are hardly notice, like rudeness in NY. In a sense, such a liberation from the inhibitions of tradition, seriousness, hierarchy, intellect, and values could be ‘celebrated’ for allowing more expressive freedom and free-flowing creativity. This is true enough when we watch zany-inventive works from Pixar. And even though most so-called ‘creative’ people on the internet are without discernible talent, Youtube for one has also featured some amazingly clever and ingenious talents, such as Epic Rap Battle of History, and I say this despite my disdain for the rap genre. The sheer preponderance of shamelessness in our culture encourages people to be less inhibited in thought and behavior, that is unless it steps on the Third Rail of Political Correctness and offends the [ass]holy trinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. To be sure, even PC has an element of hipsterism. It’s not so much about puritanical dogmatism of, say, the communists but a movement of attention-whoredom, self-hype, cult of celebrity[as every new PC personality craves his or her 15 minutes of fame on youtube or twitter], and cleverness in concocting ever more outlandish grievances. If communism was about pressuring everyone to think alike, PC’s appeal is in encouraging every group to ‘fashionably’ and ‘creatively’ cook up its own victim narratives, slogans, antics, and styles. Be ‘creativictims’. It is no wonder that Jews, Homos, Negroes, and young people have come to dominate PC since they happen to be most flamboyant, expressive, and egotistical. Of course, for this reason PC is vulnerable to parody and unwitting self-parody[as its adherents seem utterly unaware of how ludicrous they’ve become]. PC has lasting power because it has turned the culture of grievance into a series of ever-changing fads. PC turned victim-hood into flashy fashions than a mono-passion. Marxism lost its appeal because its followers had to mouth the same slogans, worship the same icons, and march under the same banner year after year after year. In contrast, PC keeps changing in look, slogans, and themes by the season. Every year has new fashion show of grievance. Even as the show recycles much of the same old same old, the packaging is sufficiently ‘creative’ and ‘fresh’ enough to get people excited like children all over again. So, it’s about blacks with their ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’today, homos with more outlandish theories about ‘GENDER FLUIDITY’ tomorrow, feminists with another variation on ‘RAPE CULTURE’ the day after tomorrow, Muslims and their enablers with something about ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ the day after the day after tomorrow, and etc. So, just when people tire of one theme and are about to give up on the tiresome ‘victim’ narrative, PC cooks up a new batch of Outrage of the Month. That said, PC is still a serious obstacle to true creativity and expression, whether they be serious in the moral-intellectual-or-modernist sense or ephemeral in the post-modern or pop-culture sense. But, there may be a bigger problem than PC when it comes to creativity. While lack of inhibitions may allow more openness and possibilities[especially in the initial spring], it also has the effect of dissuading people from deeper examination, introspection, and reflection. When the prevailing attitude among young people is to immediately and impulsively blurt out whatever that pops into their heads, they are less likely to think things through. It’s like hipster-dada-ism of thought. Ideas and views do not full cook in the oven of the mind. They are tossed out as half-baked or just seared on the surface. Also, over-candidness and over-frankness in expression have led to talk that is about as interesting as animal grunts. When men and women yammer about ‘dick’, ‘pussy’, ‘ass’, ‘balls’, ‘pooter’[aka ‘cooter’ to some], ‘tits’ and etc. in blase manner, even smart and cultured people end up sounding like Beavis and Butthead. Mike Judge’s characters are endearing because they are harmless losers — besides, vulgarity is the only game they know — who don’t know any better, but when educated folks and sophisticates talk like vulgar tasteless tards, it’s just ugly and stupid. Not that people need be priggish or puritanical. But surely people with smarts can do better than grunting like animals. Also, the mind needs to be weaned from base facts of life to get to greener pastures. [It’s like babies mature into children by learning to control themselves via toilet training. A child that continues to just shi* everywhere isn’t lauded for being ‘natural’. He is disapproved for remaining in the animal stage of development. If babies need to be toilet-trained into childhood and if children need to be table-mannered into civility, teenagers need to be bed-trained into proper adulthood. Just as there are do’s and don’ts of eating and defecation, the rules apply to sex as well, but our popular culture and prevailing anti-ethos seem hellbent on encouraging teenagers to imitate the likes of Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, and Nikki Minaj. When it comes to sexuality, society encourages the equivalent of shi**ing all over and tossing food at the table. So, we have clubs where people ‘dance’ like they are fuc*ing out in the open. We potty-train the kids to not shi* all over, but we hotty-train the kids to be as lewd and trashy as possible out in the open.] Thinking should be like agriculture. Because ugliness, messiness, and grossness are a part of reality, they must be addressed and examined, not ignored and denied. It’s like a farmer has to deal with dirt and manure. But there is a difference between using dirt & manure to grow plants AND wallowing in them like a pig or Lena Dunham. Also, love is more than lust. It is a kind of myth, and it is as much about what should not be said as what is said. It is as much about what is suggested as what is made obvious. Love is about illusions and shadows of emotions. It is a kind of game or ritualized play. When men and women shamelessly talk like characters in ANIMAL HOUSE or PORKY’S, that’s the end of love. I mean you can’t have love in VERTIGO if the guy says, "Madeleine, why don’t you suck my dick?" and the woman says, "You gotta lick my bungy first." Of course, at the basic biological level, we are just animals that eat, sleep, piss, and shi*. If we choose to exist on that level, we will be no better than Sam Kinison and Lena Dunham. Now, Kinison was a funny guy, but his act was about humanity reduced to trash. Sadly, what used to be seen as barbaric male behavior has now come to affect female attitudes too. Men and women go to comedy shows where some disgusting fella comes on-stage and spews potty-mouthed garbage non-stop. Older guys like Henny Youngman and Rodney Dangerfield had a sense of limits, not least because social norms were different. But the standup comedy acts since Lenny Bruce have mostly become vile and putrid. We should be for freedom of speech, and if guys want to see some trashy show and laugh their brains out, that’s one thing. But what kind of man with any sense of honor takes his girl to a comedy show where someone on stage acts like a total lout? There was a time when women has self-respect and would have been offended by such ‘treatment’. Consider how the Cybill Shepard character Betsy reacts when Travis Bickle takes her to a porno movie in TAXI DRIVER. Granted, Bickle, being the most uncool person in the world, didn’t mean to insult her and acted in a way he mistakenly deemed appropriate. Betsy took it as an affront to her dignity. But today, we have millennial boys and girls watching porny stuff together, sexting one another, and texting one another with gems like "fuc* me in the butt". We have full-grown men like Anthony Weiner sending pics of his penis to young women. And Liberal Media told us there was no reason to be offended by Bill Clinton’s behavior in the Oval Office, especially as the bubble supposedly turning us all into millionaires. But what kind of mentality is that? Imagine CASABLANCA where the Ingrid Berman character says, "Rick, come here and fuc* me in the butt." Imagine IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE where George Bailey goes to Mary and says, "Watch my pants drop and suck my dick?" Imagine MILDRED PIERCE where the Joan Crawford character spends her waking hours talking potty-mouthed with her male friends. That would be pretty trashy and tiresome. Some people see no problem with millennials talking in such manner, but it really stunts their emotional growth and moral development. It’s like the movie ASS in IDIOCRACY where people do nothing but stare at a big ass on the silver screen and laugh. Once culture has been shameless and vulgarized, there’s the diminishment of the will for transcendence, myth, imagination, sublimation, and etc. At least when Philip Roth wrote PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and when Bernado Bertolucci made LAST TANGO IN PARIS, they were testing the boundaries of social norms and grappling with genuine pain. Even though their scenarios were anti-romantic, there was bravado and passion for physical actualization and emotional truth. But in a world where kids are raised in filth-as-norm from cradle, young boys feel and think like shameless clowns or thug-rappers, and young girls dress like whores, emulate the likes of Miley Cyrus, and talk like porn performers[or Sarah Silverman]. To be sure, the romanticist strain in culture isn’t entirely dead. Consider TWILIGHT, KINGS OF SUMMER, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, INCEPTION, SLOW WEST, TOMORROWLAND, and etc. But young people are so inundated with trashiness from an early age, especially via the internet, that higher standards of morality and culture fail to coalesce as an ideal to aspire to, cultivate, and sustain. Also, there is hardly any support for such standards from older people because our culture is so hysterically youth-centered & ‘progressive’, thereby intimidating older people into acceding to the demands of fashion[as manipulated by the Jewish-controlled media since young people are mostly mindless drones of Pop Culture and Political Correctness]; America is now a nation where older people sheepishly seek approval and plaudits from younger people than vice versa, e.g. the likes of the Clintons and Bushes must change their minds on ‘gay marriage’ and apologize that they’d been on the ‘wrong side of history’ before. Because ‘progressivism’ tends to see everything in the past as ‘less evolved’ or ‘reactionary’, older people are never to be respected for their experiences, achievements, contributions, and life lessons but only to be berated and lectured to by young people who, like the Chinese Red Guards, think they know best, even though, their faux-independent minds are really just crammed with a lot of PC nonsense. ‘Progressivism’ is where the young endlessly scold the old than vice versa on the premise that every generation is ‘more evolved’, thus more ‘justified’ and ‘righteous’ than the older ones burdened with all sorts of wrong -isms such as ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, etc. Vulgarity long ago shattered the Shock Barrier and has become a 24/7 part of our lives. And so much of it is gratuitous, as if the only way to be authentic is to spew filth as casually as muttering ‘hello’ or ‘see you later’. Just consider the gab content in MISTRESS AMERICA and JESSE AND CELESTE FOREVER. It is pukeville, though MISTRESS AMERICA is not without charm and special moments. Even the sexually twisted femme fatale Catherine[Jeanne Moreau] in JULES AND JIM didn’t talk so trashy. Love and romance are as much as about what is unsaid as what is said. They aren’t simply about whatever-comes-naturally or whatever-I-feel-like-saying. Breaking wind and burping are normal and natural, but any guy or girl who does that in public is being gross and disgusting. And what we have among millennials is the vulgarization of expression into verbal burps and farts. A man should be like a man, a woman should be like a woman. Even the rough and tough world of THE SEARCHERS, we have men with some manners, and womenfolk knowing what to say and what not to say. Of course, humans are all animals and beasts under the skin, and when Marty gets into a fight with the groom over Laurie[Vera Miles], we can’t help but see how, beneath the veneer of civilization, there’s the brute in every man. But at least them fellas and women are making an effort at most times instead of completely surrendering to the ways of ‘childish savages’. The millennial cultural landscape is a disaster. It is a world without love because every boy’s tongue is hanging out like a pud and because what blows out of a girl’s mouth is hardly different from the gas from her ass. Millennials need to get some decent lessons from SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS. In that musical, the men are rough and need to be civilized by decent womenfolk. Or, if the womenfolk have lost their way, then it is up to the men to act honorable and elevate the girls to a higher level. It’s like Francois Truffaut was forever grateful to Andre Bazin because the elder mentor did so much to inspire the delinquent misfit to become a useful member of the critical and later creative community. And Truffaut paid tribute to Bazin with THE WILD CHILD where a French doctor commits himself to civilizing a child raised among animals. Current pop culture seems hellbent on reversing the process. In today’s France, children of immigrants are turned ‘savage’ by the influence of black American gangster rap culture. And TV shows like Lena Dunham’s GIRLS encourage young girls to act like cave-whores. If men act like Don Vito Corleone, even slut-whores will learn to respect them and stop acting like dumb whores. But, we now have boys talking and acting like turds, and girls talking and acting like whores. Boys barbarize girls, and girls barbarize boys. And that is no way to encourage and sustain any kind of culture. Culture isn’t just about being natural. While it’s true that even the high rises from the low, like plants grow from the dirt, there is a process of cultivation that has to be appreciated and mastered. Manure can help plants and flowers to grow, but you don’t just dump shit on the greenery. There is a way to treat the manure before enriching the soil with it. Likewise, wine and cheese aren’t made simply by letting nature work on them. Exposed milk left outside will turn sour and gross. And wine isn’t simply a case of rotting grapes. There is a process whereby certain type of bacteria must be applied to the milk and certain type of yeast to the grapes in order for them to turn, respectively, into cheese and wine. Culture grows from nature, but it’s not nature as nature. When millennials fail to understand the proper process of culture and just talk trash because it comes naturally, they are just digging themselves into a hole. They are turning the stuff of life into spoilt milk or sour grapes than into cheese or wine. But then, absolute purity is also the wrong formula for the arts. Nazis got culture all wrong with their insistence on pristine purity in everything. But totally germ-free milk in a totally germ-free environment will just remain milk and will never turn into cheese. Culture requires transformation, and all artistic process requires some degree of eccentricity, decadence, and strangeness that serves as the agent that brings about the ripening, ‘turning’, or transfiguration. The trick is to effect fermentation without putrefaction. This is why Hitler’s vision of art could only be frozen milk or grape jam. He didn’t grasp the art of cheese-making or wine-making that calls for creative fermentation. His antisepticism didn’t allow for the element of eccentricity or strangeness[even a bit of decadence] that strangely alters mere beauty, grandeur, or facts of life into the mysterious stuff of art. A work of art is more than pristine prettiness because if art is only about prettiness, Vargas Girl pictures would be art. A work of art is more than a collection of facts, no matter how truthful they are. If facts are all one needs, then any decent newspaper article would be art. Art requires some degree of creative bacillus or yeast to turn the material into something peculiar, provocative, singular, or illuminating. If Nazi vision of creativity froze everything in its perfect state or processed it into mere eye-candy, the cultural attitude of too many millennials is to just let nature take its course. Just leave milk and grape outside, and maybe milk will turn to cheese and the grapes will turn into wine. But the result is sour milk and moldy grapes. Such millennial attitude is somewhat odd because, in many ways, the Millennial Age is cleaner, neater, and more orderly than 60s Counterculture and 70s Me-Decade when things got really grubby. SWPL is nothing like the Return to Nature indulgences of the late 60s and early 70s. But in a way, this contradiction makes Millennial culture all the more insufferable. While the cultural attitudes of the 60s and 70s did become lamentably excessive and ugly, there was at least commitment and passion in the agenda, however misguided it may have been. In contrast, the millennials want to have the cake and eat it too. They really don’t want to take any risks and can’t stand getting butt-hurt. Many grew up coddled by ‘helicopter parents’ and act like teacher’s pets bred and raised under the banner of Political Correctness. Yet, they flaunt their conceit of independence and freedom with their sexual bluster and lewdness. In a way, this over-sexed garbage talk is like compensation for their lack of true freedom and independence in life and ideas. Anyway, like I was saying, we now live in the Age of Sampling without dominant world-views or moral philosophies. Some might argue that Western people are united by Jew-worship, homo-worship, and Negro-worship, and indeed Political Correctness and Pop Culture pressure everyone to always be mindful of Jews, homos, and Negroes. But, mindless worship of hideous Jewish supremacism, vain homosexual decadence, and wild Afro-savagery doesn’t constitute a genuine moral or philosophical world-view. It is a cult, not a culture. In contrast, the life of personal, philosophical, and/or spiritual significance can be found in the films of Robert Bresson, Yasujiro Ozu, Michelangelo Antonioni, Andrei Tarkovsky, Carl Dreyer, and others. They were not mere samplers but partakers of a certain vision of life. They had a sense of right and wrong, a sense of priorities, sacred truths, or higher obligations; and even though imbued with different visions of life, their convictions remained true to the end. They didn’t see life and art as a constant sampling-session but as a devotion to a system of values, attitudes, and styles. Not that they were perfect saints or practitioners who never faltered, but they were men of conviction or, at least, men in search of conviction. Tarkovsky’s art was inseparable from his vision God, history, and humanity. He couldn’t just ‘sell out’ and make some silly movie to make money. It would have been like Alexander Solzhenitsyn opting to write a pulp romance novel for easy bucks. There was a time when artists were expected to commit themselves to a vision of life and for this vision to inform the totality of their life and art. Their art would be like a testament of their view of life. His life, world-view, values, and creative output were seen as mutually integral. [Of course, sometimes, the artist could go a bit astray, especially to make some money. Dostoevsky wrote some stories for easy cash, but even then, his stories stuck to his core thematic vein. Yukio Mishima also produced a good deal for easy profit or attention.] Ernest Hemingway’s life and art were one and the same. Such manner of art also shaped the manner of appreciation. For instance, a serious appreciation of art demanded something more than superficial sampling. It was assumed that if you could appreciate the meaning and depth of great art, you are of a higher cultural knowledge, disposition, and understanding. Therefore, your view of art and culture was assumed to be an extension of life considerably richer in meaning than that of the vapid vulgarian without taste or of dubious decadent without values[even if possessed of erudition and sophistication]. So, your appreciation of matters of profound moral, intellectual, or cultural significance implied similar understanding of the wholeness of life. [The perverse cosmic joke in Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is that the old philosopher with wise musings about life sees no reason to go on living, whereas the vapid egomaniac played by Alan Alda finds all the reasons to live. And in LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND, the cosmic joke involves John Hurt as a respectable English writer, aesthete, and sophisticate who finds the ultimate passion, even meaning, of his life through an infatuation with a young actor in a throwaway Hollywood sex comedy. Interpretation follows inspiration, and sometimes, people are most inspired by seemingly the most trivial things. But the spellbound would never know it because something about the work, however trivial it may seem to most people, unlocked a secret compartment within them. This accounts for the appeal for Cult Movies. No matter ridiculous they may seem, they stir something in some people that will never be understood by those who are not similarly affected.] So, if someone watched a work by Bresson or Antonioni and articulated genuine appreciation, it would have raised eyebrows if he shunted them aside in the next breath and stated his intention to go watch some worthless trash. While ‘guilty pleasures’ were understandable — as everyone had them — , it would have seemed odd for a person of taste and cultivation to shift so quickly from high to low. Multi-tasting went against the very spirit of art and culture. It was flippant and irreverent. After all, if one was truly affected by a Bresson film, wasn’t it deserving of certain amount of reflection? Was it proper to immediately go see a John Woo flick or some other trash soon afterwards, indeed as if one hadn’t seen[and been affected by] the Bresson film earlier? Furthermore, if one was genuinely affected by Bresson’s pessimistic view of life, should one just cast it aside immediately afterwards for something else that is hollow and mindless? Should one be like the guys at the end of THE TRUMAN SHOW who, upon witnessing Truman’s heroic escape, just wants to lose themselves in something else, indeed as if all that had captivated them have been forgotten already. It’s like a meal. If you ate something really good, shouldn’t you let it digest while you ruminate on the flavors instead of just diving into more food, especially junky ones? When Rome turned decadent, people lost the art of appreciation. They would gorge on a meal, then induce themselves to vomit to go have more meals. It’d be like a man bolting from deep prayer in a church to revelry in a brothel around the corner. Perhaps, people are not that deep or consistent and want to be constantly distracted by mindless stimuli. In Tarkovsky’s STALKER, we are told of the story of a man who entered the mysterious Room and was showered him with great wealth, whereupon he killed himself; he thought he’d been seeking the truth, but the Room peered into his soul and gave him what he really wanted, which was money. It’s like the young woman in Luis Bunuel’s NAZARIN discovering that her devotion to the hero is sexual than spiritual. The difference between David and Gigolo Joe in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is that David does have a true passion and goal in life whereas Gigolo Joe doesn’t. Wherever and whenver, David ‘believes’ in his ‘mommy’. In contrast, Gigolo Joe has no loyalties. He goes from woman to woman to woman, and his attention spans are never deep. He forms a bond with David and comes to his aid, but he could do just as well without David. In contrast, all roads for David lead to ‘mommy’. It’s like what Ken Kesey said of the Counterculture generation. He said they were searching for something, but along the way, they lost the ‘tiller’, something central to the soul of man. For a man like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, his life informed his art, and his art informed his life. Same was true of Tarkovsky and many of the great Russian artists. And this could also be said for many Europeans. Even experimental modernists developed a vision of truth and a system of meanings and stuck to them. Even when lost in state of alienation and disorientation, they remained true to their vision and were willing to pay the price. This was true of American artists like Jackson Pollock. The life one chose could be self-destructive life, as with Sam Peckinpah and John Cassavetes, but there was unity in the life and the calling. Art was an extension of life and vice versa. For the true artist, the personal, the philosophical, and professional were one; and it also applied to the critic and scholar, if to a lesser degree. This was why Sam Peckinpah couldn’t sign on to direct KING KONG or SUPERMAN. It went against what he stood for even if the monetary temptation was considerable. Even when Peckinpah signed onto more commercial projects, he sought out more adult material and sought to personalize them as much as possible. But we now live in the age of post-modern sampling where depth of conviction is dirty word. And due to such lack of priority or hierarchy, the discourse can instantly switch from the weighty to the trivial. Tarantino has exacerbated this process, but he himself is a product of a cultural trend that goes back to the rise of Camp & Andy Warhol or earlier. Tarantino is someone who can go from discussion of Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick to SWITCHBLADE SISTERS at the drop of a hat. To be sure, this very American pomo outlook has its advantages. It has a loosening effect and breaks down inhibitions, and that means more free-flowing creativity without constraints, stuffiness, snobbiness, doubts, anxieties, guilt, and etc. Indeed, if we contrast Ebert & Siskel with John Simon in their debate about RETURN OF THE JEDI, we can see the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. John Simon, as a devotee to serious culture, feels that STAR WARS is an affront to what art and culture, even entertainment, should be. Ebert and Siskel, with more of a pop sensibility, are open to appreciating and even celebrating STAR WARS for what it is. Ebert says he appreciates Ingmar Bergman and serious film-makers as Simon does, but he can also lose himself in populist fantasies. In Simon’s view, a person of genuine cultural sensibility should be offended by what STAR WARS stands for. Also, Simon seems to imply that when something like STAR WARS comes to dominate culture, it won’t merely be one hatching among others but the insatiable chick that hogs the nest and starves all the others. Now, there is something admirable about Ebert & Siskel’s ability to shift from high culture to low culture, from mature tastes to juvenile infatuations, but it also implies a lack of consistency and commitment. It’s like treating life as one big buffet where everything is to be sampled but nothing is to be valued as sacred and fundamental. Imagine someone who is apt to attend church, temple, or mosque and pray to God, but as soon as he bolts out the door, he joins a parade celebrating the idolatry of the Golden Calf. On one level, we might praise his ability to be multi-faceted and varied in his interests. But doesn’t one’s commitment or investment in one thing negate other commitments? If you’re a communist, should you rolling the dice at Las Vegas? If you’re devoutly Jewish, should you also indulge in idolatry? If you’re a libertarian, can you also be a Stalinist or Maoist? Granted, there are creative ways in which one may fuse elements of seemingly opposing or contradictory views. Fascism aimed for just that. But too often among modern folks, everything exists only to be sampled or enjoyed for the moment without lasting implications. While the recent brouhaha about ‘white people appropriating cultures of non-whites’ is ridiculous and childish, there is a certain validity to the argument that much of cultural appropriation tends to lack depth or genuine interest. In our post-modern era, everything is to be sampled, the high to be mixed with the low, the south to be jumbled with the north with the east with the west. It’s a collage-centered view of everything, like fusion cooking. Now, if the resulting work is interesting enough, it will create new value. But too often, the overriding attitude is flippancy, triviality, and characterized by attention-deficit-disorder or appreciation-deficit-disorder. Instead of immersion in any particular idea or work and mining its depths, everything is gleaned for its superficial value. And this affects all of us, including yours truly, not least because we are bombarded by so much stimuli, so much advertising, so many new books, articles, movies, music, and etc. So, we have to readjust constantly to what is ‘new’, ‘fab’, ‘hip’, ‘trendy’, ‘fashionable’, ‘relevant’, etc. In times past, someone might have seen a work by Bresson or Antonioni and then mulled over it the whole day or whole week. But now, with so much stimuli coming from all directions, our senses are in the constant mode of being distracted by something new, newer, newest. Also, popular critics cannot afford to concentrate solely on works worthy of serious attention. They must remain relevant in the ongoing ‘discussion of culture’, and that means watching every big Hollywood movie creating the latest buzz. Also, the range of ‘legitimate’ expressions has expanded from downright porny to very serious. In the past when things were more censorious and restrained, the cultural output — especially those deemed worthy of intellectual discourse — were narrower in taste and sensibility. Almost no one would have even thought to make something like Lena Dunham’s GIRLS or even discuss it at length if such existed. But now, there are tons of trashy stuff that are discussed by culture critics whose main fear is being considered snobby or ‘exclusive’[except when something is politically incorrect, in which case it is usually ignored]. What’s striking is that while sexual licentiousness has notably expanded, the range of ideological discourse has narrowed, indeed to such extent that any view that is deemed ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘homophobic’ are now defacto banned. Anyway, I find it somewhat disconcerting — and this applies to me too — that we are able to shift cultural and moral gears with such ease in our age. There was a time when most educated folks who could appreciate the ‘art films’ of Bergman, Bresson, Resnais, and Bunuel would have felt embarrassed to admit finding something admirable about the Spaghetti Westerns of Sergio Leone that were cruel, nihilistic, nasty, vicious, and heartless. If one stood for humanism or serious philosophical view of art & humanity, how could one praise the cold-blooded nihilism of Leone’s films that favored style over substance? Or, serious people might enjoy Leone’s Westerns and 007 movies but remind themselves, as well as others, that they know those are just ‘guilty pleasures’. So, commitment to real culture or moral life meant negation of certain things. Such sensibility is all but gone except when it comes to ideology, i.e. it is sinful to admire THE BIRTH OF A NATION or to appreciate THE SEARCHERS without screaming ‘racist’ a thousand times at mere sight of John Wayne. Today, it’s routine for someone to watch some Bergman, then go straight to some trashy cartoon and laugh like an idiot, and then watch some Bresson while feigning seriousness and then watch some John Woo bloodfest while munching on popcorn. And all in the same day. I find the earlier sensibility too limiting. Also, time has proven the works of Sergio Leone as something much more than cinematic bullfights drenched in blood and gore. Also, there are works like BUBBLEGUM CRISIS 2032-2033 that defied all categories and arrived at some crazy-inspired fusion. So, I’m for open-mindedness, and I can understand Ebert & Siskel’s defense of RETURN OF THE JEDI as great entertainment in its own right — my personal quibble, against both Simon and Ebert/Siskel, is that the idea of STAR WARS had the stuff of greatness but George Lucas blew it by underestimating both himself and his audience. In this sense, John Simon did come across as an old curmudgeon who just doesn’t get it. But in some ways, the passage of time has validated Simon to some degree. Whether art or entertainment, all works carry within them a certain sensibility. Not all sensibilities are mutually compatible, and some sensibilities tend to threaten and destroy others. Though some folks find Slavoj Zizek and Camille Paglia to be interesting critics of culture, I find their all-over-the-map sensibilities to sometimes verge on incoherence of sensibility. One wonders how someone who could appreciate something so serious, true, and/or high also be so enamored of something so low, trashy, ugly, and/or hideous. This applies to Quentin Tarantino too of course. I can appreciate high stuff and low stuff too, but even the ‘low’ stuff has to have redeeming value. Leone’s THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY may be deemed ‘low’ entertainment, but the composition, editing, choreography, and music are incredible. There is a lot of high talent in the low material. Or, I might enjoy something low & mindless and just leave it at that. Take RESIDENT EVIL series with Milla Jovovich. They are dumb and trashy, and I enjoy them, but I would never defend them as anything other than fun trash. What boggles the mind is how Paglia can mistake trash with no redeeming facet for something of great artistic value or cultural significance. She must seriously lack in taste and sanity when she defends madonna’s "Like a Prayer" as a great popular work of art or declares the final duel in REVENGE OF THE SITH as the greatest work of art in the past thirty years. Especially beginning with the rise of youth music culture and Hollywood blockbusters, it’s become apparent that certain sensibilities, once loosed upon the world, aren’t content merely to be one among the many. They tend to become the dominant or overriding sensibility because they gratify the lowest and basest natures of man and woman and drive them into a state of frenzy, like the crazy birds of Alfred Hitchcock’s movie released at the height of Beatlemania. Hip-Hop isn’t just one musical form among many, but THE dominant form in the black community that is now a total cultural wasteland — unsurprisingly, the hot topic among black ‘intellectuals’ is the courage of Beyonce, a light-skinned black biatch with blonde wig who acts like a whore in the name of ‘black pride’. It’s like children who are allowed to indulge in cookies and ice cream will pig out on that junk while ignoring everything else. Therefore, people who really care about culture and morality must find some way to balance the need for commitment/investment with the need for flexibility and adaptability. The answer is neither Ebert-&-Siskelism or John-Simonism but something in between or something beyond them.)
Robert Bresson on the set of AU HASARD BALTHASAR
Bergman approached his themes with a powerful dose of psychology and philosophy, with sharply etched compositions and strong acting styles. The knife could feel the bone within the flesh. The films of Orson Welles were autographed with charisma and showmanship. Truffaut was romantic and endearing, Godard edgy and aggressive. Hitchcock elicited emotions of fear and suspense in the audience. He scared us and humored us, entertaining us with artful tweaking of our emotions and expectations. Eisenstein is associated with the revolutionary technique and expression of montage. Most famous admired directors are associated with something ‘singular’ and ‘powerful’ that defines them. Think of Peckinpah and his obsession with violence(especially as conveyed through slow motion montage). Think of Ford and his Monument Valley, his reiterations of themes of loyalty, honor, community, and family. But it’s been harder to put a finger on the elusive and elliptical qualities of Resnais. What has he been ‘about’? What’s the ‘point’ of his films? With HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, one could at least mention World War II, and its effect on Japan and France, especially as the opening segment depicting the horrors of war is so potent. And later, the woman’s slow undressing of emotional scars makes for powerful drama. Also, one could say that most of Resnais’ films have something to do with Time and Memory. But apart from HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, Resnais almost never put his ideas and themes on the table for tangible study and observation. There’s a moment in MURIEL where a young woman looks at her lover through a kaleidoscope.
The image is a useful indicator of Resnais’ style. There’s the perplexity of perspective. We see the characters, the places, the objects, and the setting in time, but the secret to their interrelation seems hidden in another dimension that, however, is parallel, even concurrent, to our own. If some secrets remain unattainable, some paradoxically remain unseen because they are so pervasive and everywhere. It’s like what Dorothy realizes in THE WIZARD OF OZ: "There’s no place like home." Resnais’ films simultaneously make us feel as if we aren’t seeing enough of what’s happening and more than what is happening. Thus, Resnais’s films can seem at once provocative/enigmatic and portentous/banal. Some critics have even said that a film like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD is utter nonsense dressed up in fancy pseudo-intellectual ‘art film’ garb, a pretentious case of ‘less than meets the eye’. All those stately tracking shots, haute poses, arty compositions, metaphysical voice-over narration(at once numbing and trance-inducing), and temporal tricks could be taken as the real stuff(of art cinema) or a big put-on for phonies. Some critics tried to have it both ways, arguing that it’s both heavy art(even horror) and light comedy. Of course, such critics tend to be preening in their self-regard of ‘getting’ what eludes the rest of us, and worse, their pathetic ‘millennial’ running dogs cop their poses and parrot the mannered insights.
Personally, while I can admire the meticulous construction and the elegant experimentalism of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, it fails to connect with the audience like THE SHINING for example. To be sure, the film seems to have been conceived of as a game than as a narrative. What we are shown registers as merely one of the infinite number of possibilities than as an inevitability or finality. There’s a sense of everything — characters, relationships, emotions, memories, etc. — being up-in-the-air or in state of flux, made all the more discomfiting since everything seems so exactingly fine, fixed, and finished. It’s like perfect crystal frozen in form but for the fact that the slightest turn profoundly alters the world seen through its multi-angled surfaces.
The writer Marguerite Duras of HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR had ‘something to say’, but Robbe-Grillet seems to have be mainly fascinated with processes and possibilities, and as such, might have been an influence on Charlie Kaufman, the writer of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF SPOTLESS MIND. Thus, a film like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD is best seen as a work-in-progress-forever-trapped-in-progress than one brought to conclusion. Generally, I have problems with such works. I prefer open mazes — like THE SHINING — to circular mazes. THE SHINING probes the core themes of family, creativity, individuality(and the will to power), and history(as frightful and fragile), but the ever shifting-patterns keep us disoriented and lost, unable to gain access to their secrets. Thus, THE SHINING is a film that seeks answers even as they cannot be found. In contrast, LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD lacks something that might called a center, a gravitational core. It’s like a M.C. Escher paradoxical maze, content to just draw us in and make us go around and around by a sleight-of-hand trickery with time and space. It’s all very exquisite and extraordinary but leaves us wondering what it’s supposed to be about. With CITIZEN KANE and RASHOMON, there was at least the substance of the characters if not the certainty of events. In Robbe-Grillet and Resnais’s film, we even question the validity of the characters. Not only are we unsure of what may or may not have happened ‘last year’ — or maybe the story is taking place in the ‘last year’(as the ‘present’), and the characters are actually imagining the next year in which they are imagining the ‘last year’) — , but we are not sure if the characters are meant to be real or figments-in-the-process-of-creation in the minds of their creators. But then, the creators — writer and director — have control over the minds of the characters. So, creators can make one character remember what happened last year and have another character not remember(and then suddenly reverse the dynamic), indeed as if they reside in a modular realm operating by the laws of quantum mechanics.
Perhaps, there is a historical implication to all this. Our historical memory, after all, relies largely on the ‘creators’ behind the powerful institutions of media and academia. For most Americans, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians never happened because the Jewish writers who control the universities and news organizations have inscribed and beamed mostly pro-Zionist narratives into our collective memory. So, we think in terms of "noble Jews suffered the Holocaust and found safe haven in the Holy Land, but then, neo-Nazi Palestinians are trying to wipe out the Jews like the Nazis tried to do." Thus, if we see characters in LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD not as real characters but as characters-in-progress or characters-whose-‘minds’-are-toyed-with(like with the character in LA JETEE whose mind is manipulated by scientists experimenting with time), it might make a little more sense. It’s like Daffy Duck who is at the mercy of the ‘creator’ in "Duck Amuck".

Some people are partial such exercises/experimentations and find them endlessly fascinating, but my favored response to cinema(and art in general) tends to be emotional. I can appreciate ideas and experimentalism in film but prefer them to be interwoven with characters and situations of identifiable emotional and moral content. Mind needs blood pumped from the heart. For me, something like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD is overly anemic.
Among Charlie Kaufman films, I prefer ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND to AUDITION or SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK because it has characters we can connect with and even care about(even if flawed and unlikable). The sterility of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD leaves me numb, as if anesthetized. And films that use characters as stick figures for scoring cheap pseudo-intellectual ideological points, such as Chantal Akerman’s insufferable JEANNE DIELMAN, almost always turn me off, even driving me to the edge of psychosis — sanity goes crazy as it seeks deliverance from lunacy. When watching Akerman films and their ilk, one wonders, "why not just work with the comic book format to get the same dreary point across?" People are living, breathing creatures, and live-action films have living actors with blood pumping through their veins playing living roles; so why reduce them to two-dimensional stick figures? This has been one of the worst developments in the culture of ‘art film’. Prior to the arrival of cinema, the only living narrative art form was Theatre/Drama(as well as musical drama) — storytelling by verse had mostly declined as an art form. Books, paintings, sculpture, and the like could only convey the MERE impression of the vivid dramatics and colors of life. Words on page are literally nothing more scribbles of black ink. Objects in paintings cannot move. Sculptures are frozen in time. Even so, writers, painters, and sculptors perfected means of expression that lent the impression of life, movement, and spontaneity. Thus, well-written novels didn’t merely tell stories or relate details but made them spring to life as if the reader was transported to another place and time. Our minds ‘animate’ images in a painting, rather like what the mysterious woman does as she stares at a Peter Brueghel painting in SOLARIS. It is the nature of the human mind to give ‘life’ to stuff. This is why children who read comic books don’t merely see still images. In their minds, the images come to life and fill in the gaps between the frozen images on the page, as happens with the girl in the Aha music video "Take On Me".

Drama was the one art form where characters were tangible as flesh-and-blood players. You saw their faces and heard their voices, their motions and feelings. Even so, there were no close-ups in Theatre, and those sitting in the back couldn’t see much. Also, in physical depiction of its reality, Theatre was limited, especially in contrast to what cinema would achieve later. Also, Theatre at its best was an expensive/elitist art form for a limited audience, and even Popular Theatre (subsidized by the state for the hoi polloi) could only accommodate so many people. A Dustin Hoffman movie could be seen by tens of millions all over the world, but a Dustin Hoffman play, even if aimed at the masses, could be seen only by one set of audience at a time. Unlike novels that could only lend the impression of living-and-breathing characters, cinema brimmed over with them. Now, we know what makes humans human. It’s the thoughts but also the emotions and the pains and pleasures of the flesh. Yet, something happened in ‘art film’ where actors and actresses were hired NOT TO ACT and instead to stand around or sit still as stick figures. Some may argue Bresson was one of the first offenders — and some many mention Ozu too — , but his austere and restrictive regimen for actors didn’t vitiate the depth and soul of their characters. And Ozu characters’ narrowness of expression can be appreciated as refined reflection of Japanese devotion to manners and decorum, its poetics but also problems in a rapidly changing nation. (Furthermore, Ozu’s films are often endearing, humorous, and touching. Even if oblivious to the formal content, the viewer, even if non-Japanese, will find the characters and situations recognizable enough.) For a fuller view of life, there’s Akira Kurosawa whose main inspirations came from vodka-swilling, table-dancing, and bear-wrestling Russians. I can’t imagine Toshiro Mifune in most Ozu films, though, to be fair, Mifune could be versatile. Bresson ‘muted’ the noise of egotism to tune into a deeper hum, bypassing not only personality but psychology and pressing one’s ear to the recesses where spirituality co-exist with animality(as spirituality and animality, though opposites in conventional formulation, have in common the elements of purity and ‘innocence’); it is no wonder that several of Bresson’s main characters are like stubborn mules; it is also why the childlike brute beast, like Zampano in LAST STRADA and Jake LaMotta in RAGING BULL, is more likely to touched by the higher spirit in a way that is impossible for a sophisticate. It’s like if you wanna hear life in a city, you might have to turn off the traffic noise. In this respect, there is something that connects Bresson with David Lynch who burrowed deep into the human psyche and physiche to hear the internal simmers and tremors of life. In ERASERHEAD, we sense the characters not only on the outside but on the inside, as if our ears are affixed to a stethoscope tuned to inner regions stewing up spermic brew or stirring up neuronic blizzards.

Anyway, because films employ flesh-and-blood actors, it is usually displeasing to see them reduced to stick figures or conceptual pawns. If directors don’t want to use actors as individual beings of passion or complexity, why make movies at all? Or why not just use mannequins? If the director is primarily interested in ideas, why not just stick to essay writing or academism? While a character can serve as an archetype or stereotype, in order for him or her to be interesting — and all humans, even crazy Negroes, are of some interest — , he or she has to be more than a type, model, or a piece on a chess board. Even in satire where characters are often flattened into stereotypes or exaggerations, they must still be more than effigies with placards hung around their necks. After all, the best works of satire tend to be as much counter-narratives against ideas as well as against particular individuals(usually of power) or mobs of humanity(usually of ignorance and superstition). Satire uses ideas against egotism of individuals and/or the passions of the mob but also invokes individual freedom & conscience against the totalitarian tyranny of ideas. So, the humanness of characters matter even in the exaggerated domain of satire. We sympathize with the horse in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM. We become engaged with the inner lives of Winston Smith in 1984 and John Savage in BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley. We grieve for the ‘hero’ in CANDIDE after all he’d been through. And there’s a degree of devilish complexity, even perverse moral justification, in DR. STRANGELOVE’s eponymous character played by Peter Sellers. And upon closer inspection, General Jack D. Ripper is more than a cartoon villain. In his glare we see the darkness that is all too human as people of all political affiliations or tribal loyalties can be as cocksure, bitter, despairing, and apocalyptic as he. And the character of Gulliver grows on us, and we come to care about him as something more than a vessel of satirical mockery. Though Stanley Kubrick was often criticized for presenting mechanical characters devoid of human feelings — and this is indeed problematic with some of the minor characters in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and some other films — , most of his characters were much more than stick, puppets, or pawns. (One could argue that a more animated and colorful figure is actually less imbued of individuality and freedom. This is apparent in some of Woody Allen’s films where everyone seems so lively and full of gab but is no more than one of Allen’s sock-puppets. So, even though the film looks like a vibrant story filled with eccentric characters cracking with individual angst and opinions, it begins to sound more and more like an echo-chamber of Allen just talking to himself. The constant buzz creates the illusion of freedom and independence, but like so much of the so-called ‘free media’ in the West, it’s just a Jewish monologue pretending to be a dialogue or multi-logue. Ever notice all the Talking Heads on TV news sound like sockpuppets of AIPAC? In contrast, in a film where the characters are more muted and less animated, we are made aware of the fact that characters are indeed puppets of the creators. It’s like some characters have to be ‘animated’ by others in David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ. Characters can never be free, and this awareness of lack of freedom or illusion of freedom is the beginning of freedom. Of course, the fictional character can never be free because his or her being is inherently always ‘written’ by others. He or she, lacking the independence of existence, can only be realized through the agency of real people as creators. It’s like what Omar Sharif says to Peter O’Toole in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, i.e. that one’s destiny is ‘written’. Fictional characters have no agency. But an awareness of lack of agency is a kind of freedom in and of itself. If you’re in chains that can never be broken, you will never be free but in seeing and knowing of your chained status, you are at least free of the illusion of freedom. So, even though fictional characters can never be free, the lack of pretense of agency on their part in certain conceptual films of Resnais, Bresson, and Kubrick tend to make us think about the nature of freedom.) Unlike pawns on a chessboard, Kubrick’s characters do carry the burden of anxiety, loss, and/or humiliation. Barry Lyndon may ultimately have been little more than a mouse in a maze, but his downfall is genuinely moving. We enter the dark night of the soul in EYES WIDE SHUT. It is chilling when the American soldiers tower over the ‘gook’ at the end of FULL METAL JACKET. We laugh along at ‘Gomer Pyle’ as a cartoonish butt of jokes but also sense symptoms of a tumor growing inside him. (Speaking of cancer, one reason why the future is difficult to prophesy is because the next big thing may arise from ‘nowhere’. Suppose a doctor examines a man in his 30s and concludes that he’s in tip-top shape. His limbs are strong, his mind is alert, his eyes have 20/20 vision, his hearing is excellent, his testicles produce normal sperm, his heart and lungs work fine, his teeth have no cavities, and etc. So, if one were to predict the capability of his mind and body, we would focus on those major health factors that seem so sound. But suppose, out of ‘nowhere’, he comes down with leukemia. Suppose this cancer began with only one blood cell but then spread throughout the body. Thus, all the major heretofore indices of his health becomes moot in the face of this deadly killer that came out of ‘nowhere’. One faulty cell undermined the entire system. History is often like that, and the metaphor of cancer can be used positively or negatively — cancer is the body betraying itself, but it is also true that some of the greatest revolutions in myth and history resulted from betrayal: Jesus betraying His own tribe in favor of universal humanity[in contrast to someone like Moses who was raised as an Egyptian but reverted to his original identity; his betrayal of Egyptians who raised him was a necessary precondition for regaining his loyalty to his true tribe], Founding Fathers betraying their Mother Country. Every new start is a betrayal against the existing order. All revolutionaries and prophets must be traitors to some extent even if the betrayal is justified on grounds to loyalty to a higher truth and justice, like what the character says of Brutus’s killing of Julius Caesar in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO. After all, the new-and-revolutionary destroying something vital and good is tragic, but if it destroys something rotten and inhuman, it is a triumph. Thus, both Hitler and Jesus could be seen as cancers of history. Though Susan Sontag used ‘cancer’ in the negative sense when she said white folks are the cancer of history — later, she turned against the very concept of using cancer as a metaphor — , we can twist the metaphor as a compliment of the white race. Yes, the white race, especially Northern Europeans, was the cancer of history in the sense that its power, which came to overshadow all heretofore powers in human history, emerged seemingly out of nowhere. The serious civilizations were in North Africa, Near East, Asia, and Southern Europe. During Ancient Times, almost no one would have expected Northern Europe, populated with barbaric Celts and Germanic/Slavic tribes, to amount to much. Yet, something happened in Northern Europe that would come to change not only Europe but the entire world. Just like there’s the wicked witch and the good witch in THE WIZARD OF OZ, one could say there is the bad cancer and the good cancer of history. Genghis Khan was a bad cancer. He came out of ‘nowhere’ as a leader of cattle herding nomads in the steppes and deserts of Mongolia as, indeed, no one had taken him seriously. Yet, he made almost the entire Old World of the northern hemisphere tremble at his feet. He came to conquer China, Persia, parts of India, Russia, and some of Central/Eastern Europe. Prior to his rise, who would have thought Mongols would play a key role in changing the trajectory of history? Muhammad was another ‘cancer of history’, with as many detractors as followers. He too came out of ‘nowhere’. Science and technology have often played a [positively]cancerous role in history, with a seemingly minor, even insignificant, invention having future implications way beyond the initial conception. And some personalties have done this in the world of business. In the late 90s, most people assumed that Steve Jobs’ best days were behind him and Apple’s decline was irreversible. No one expected Apple to become the premium company in the world. And when Yahoo was flying high, Google seemed like just another search engine newcomer, but Google changed ‘everything’. And who would have thought that a bunch of ragtag Eastern European Jews arriving in boats to America in the late 19th century and early 20th century would rise so high and so fast and even relegate Anglo-Americans, whose ancestors founded and built this nation, into hapless running dogs playing fetch and roll over? Jews have been the cancer of history, for better or worse. Just as the entire body can be tripped over by one problematic cell that turns cancerous and spreads its ‘influence’, history sometimes undergoes such radical turns. Someone like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao can arise from ‘nowhere’ and turn the world upside down. [Since historians and intellectuals control the discourse and narrative, we tend to focus on ideas, institutions, and industries, but every great thing is done by individuals, and we need to give greater credit to the parents of ‘great men’. After all, even if Karl Marx had lived to formulate his ideas, had there been no Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, history would have been very different. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao didn’t spring from books or materialize out of ideas. They were made real in flesh-and-blood by their parents.] There have been two ways to control the cancers of history. One way was for the powers-that-be to allow minimal freedom and rule with terror so that would-be upstarts, rebels, mavericks, visionaries, and prophets wouldn’t dare think of upsetting the order. And indeed, some civilizations have continued on for centuries or even millennia through ruthlessly repressive controls over the population. But the price of that kind of stability is often stagnation. Everyone is made so accepting of his allotted station in life that there’s little impetus for initiative and innovation. Stagnation may lead to dissipation and decay. And in time, the social order may come under threat of other more dynamic civilizations or even barbarian hordes who are spirited and aggressive in attitude and ambition. Egypt and Persia fell to the more dynamic Greeks. China fell to the more restless Mongols. Rome fell to the more rough-and-tumble Germanic tribes. Soviet Union decayed under the stability of communist rule. Therefore, if a social order, in search of absolute stability, excessively emphasizes order and continuity, it risks suppressing and wasting the energies of its most talented individuals who might have made great contributions. Due to its ruthless chemotherapy against all ‘bad cancer cells’ that may upset the social order, the system also ends up destroying many ‘good cancer cells of history’, as well, those that may revitalize and expand the wealth and power of the nation. But then, the danger of freedom is that it may unleash not only ‘good cancer cells’ but lots of bad ones. Hitler could not have risen in a more autocratic Germany. Had he been peddling his vitriol in the 19th century, the German police would likely have locked him up or exiled him. But Hitler was protected by the democratic freedoms of the Weimar period. So were the communists and the Jewish degenerates who were fouling up German culture. So, the freedom of the Weimar period made possible the rises of all sorts of ‘good cancers’ and ‘bad cancers’. Unprecedented things were happening in the world of ideas, the arts, economy, and politics, but there was as much in the New that were sick, ugly, corrupt, and/or pathological. All said and done, had it not been for the economic malaise caused by the punitive measures against Germany drawn up at Versailles, German democracy most certainly would have survived, and there would have been no chance of the National Socialists coming to power. Germans voted for Hitler for the same reason that Americans voted for FDR. Though the two men were very different, there was much in common in the reasons why American masses and German masses voted for the ‘radical’ candidate: economic malaise. Even so, only a third of Germans voted for Hitler, and if the communists had sat out the election, the left-liberal side would have defeated Hitler in a landslide even during the throes of the German Depression. Communist intransigence and refusal to ally with the German socialists and liberals was what helped Hitler to power, and this was one of the reason why Stalin decided to push the Popular Front stance in Western nations. If the Soviet-backed communists in Western nations refused to form an alliance with social-democrats and liberals, the ‘far right’ might sneak into power as Hitler did in 1933 with only a third of the German vote. But then, the Popular Front policy had a way of radicalizing society in an unexpected way. If liberals and social-democrats were willing to forge an alliance with radical communists, it meant conservatives had no choice but to form an alliance with the forces of the ‘far right’ and fascism. Thus, both moderate liberals and moderate conservatives were radicalized as all liberals were expected to favor communists even over mild conservatives AND all conservatives came under pressure to favor fascists over even mild liberals. In America today, if Liberals are willing to tolerate the ‘far left’, then it leaves no choice for conservatives to eventually side with the ‘far right’. The only thing that is holding both sides together today is their slavish allegiance to Wall Street and Zionism/Jewish power, both of which are closely linked. Despite some token lip-service about the 1% vs 99% and populism in both parties, both the Democrats and Republicans will do anything to gain more support and funds from Wall Street and other big hitters dominated by Jews. And despite their differences, the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ are agreed that Jews are the best, Jews are the greatest, Jew are the most perfect, and how we must do everything to make Jews richer, more powerful, and happier than the rest of us. It’s like two dogs under the same roof may hate one another and bark/bite one another but both are equally devoted to their master. If Jews were evenly split between the ‘left’ and ‘right’, the mindless devotion to them by both political camps would be more understandable and tolerable, but most Jews are anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, and anti-Western; therefore, it makes no sense for conservatives and the ‘right’ to give a crap about Jews who hate, hate, and hate white gentiles. [Jews despise white gentiles in general and just barely tolerate white gentiles who grovel at the feet of Jewish supremacism.] The proper rule of politics is HATE THOSE WHO HATE YOU. It’s clear that most Jews feel little more than hatred and contempt for most white conservatives, especially white race-ist conservatives who want to preserve their race and identity. Jews despise but tolerate those Christian conservatives who’ve duped into supporting Israel[on religious grounds], worshiping MLK[on grounds of expiating ‘white guilt’], and ‘welcoming’ homosexual supremacists, but Jews hate white race-ist ‘rightists’ who believe in the truth of racial existence and racial differences that account for higher intelligence & cunning among Jews AND harder muscles & aggressive impulses among blacks. Race-ism is truth as ‘ism’ means belief, and race + ism = belief in the existence of races and racial differences. It’s so unscientific to say all men/races are equal because Thomas Jefferson pontificated as such long ago. If I say, ‘all men are pink bunnies’, does that make it true? Yet, so many liberals and conservatives act as if Jefferson’s statement is a scientific fact when it was merely a ‘noble sentiment’ uttered to sanctify the American Revolution. It’s like Zionists making a big fuss about how "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" when the primary aim of Zionism was to have a Jewish state regardless of its political system. If Muslim nations were to turn democratic and if Israel were to come under the rule of military generals, Jews would still support Israel against the Muslim world because their commitment to Zionism is Jewish power, not some liberal notion of freedom and human rights. Would Jews prefer a non-democratic Israel as a Jewish state or a democratic Israel as a Palestinian/Arab state? For Jews, it must first and foremost be a Jewish state. After all, if Israel was founded on the principles of human rights, why did it commit massive ethnic cleansing against Palestinians? Why does Israel continue to occupy the Palestinian territories where Palestinians are herded together like cattle, indeed worse than Japanese-American ‘interned’ under FDR? Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent and important man, but we mustn’t confuse his ‘noble sentiments’, the meaning of which were as flatulent as "I have a dream" or "thousand points of light", with his honest statements borne of observation and reflection. Never trust a politician’s noble sentiments that, however uplifting in a feel-good way, are mostly hogwash. Intellectually and scientifically, Jefferson of course knew that all men were NOT created equal. Anyway, the history of Weimar Germany illustrated how freedom can lead to the emergence of cancer cells in the forms of Communism and National Socialism. Communists persuaded Germans to demean and oppose liberals and socialists more harshly than the National Socialists. Communists even thought that the Nazi victory would be preferable to liberal/social-democratic victory, hoping that the Nazis would mess up the economy, thereby paving the way for the eventual communist victory. But the German communists only played into the hands of Hitler. One wonders what Stalin really felt about all this. On the one hand, he was surely alarmed by the victory of the Nazis and may have had second thoughts about advising German communists to undermine social-democrats and liberals. But on the other hand, maybe Stalin was relieved that Hitler had out-maneuvered the German communists because, if Germany turned communist, it would pose a challenge to his authority as the premier leader of international communism. As Germany was the most industrialized nation in Western Europe, a communist Germany might have superceded communist Russia in importance as the center of World Revolution. Indeed, it turned out that Stalin was more than happy to strike up an alliance with Hitler, and prior to Hitler’s invasion of Russia, there was mutual admiration between the two men despite their ideological differences. If German democracy of the Weimar Period failed and was killed by the cancerous tumors of communism and National Socialism, the American system of freedom survived and thrived. Even though democratic America was freer than even democratic Germany of the Weimar period, it was able to hold the cancer cells of radicalism in check. As pro-democratic forces in America were more robust and aggressive, they were more likely to take the fight to anti-democratic cancers of both the far right and the far left. Americans, by and large, rejected ‘far right’ ideas and proposals, and the ‘far right’ especially found itself on the defensive after Japan, allied with right-wing Germany and Italy, attacked the United States and with the blessing of Adolf Hitler, but, to be fair to Hitler, he was angry with America because it was sending material aid to German enemies in the European theater; America, even prior to its entry into the war, was hardly a neutral player and was, in effect, fighting a proxy war against Germany and Japan before the momentous attack on Pearl Harbor. And when Japan and Germany were defeated, Americans instinctively felt a revulsion against ‘Godless’ and totalitarian communism, even though this revulsion came under attack by Jews in the media and academia who associated anti-communism with the ‘paranoid’ mentality. To be sure, there were some people on the anti-communist Right who were paranoid to the point of seeing Eisenhower as a communist agent, but then, there were plenty of paranoid cranks on the Left as well, but Jews promoted such people as ‘progressives’ and ‘forward-thinking intellectuals’. According to Jews, if you saw communists in the State Department, you were ‘paranoid’ and sick in the head, but if you saw the assassination of JFK as a CIA plot, you are a thoughtful intellectual. [We need a word that is the opposite of paranoia. A paranoia is excessively anxious, fearful, or suspicious of something or someone who may mean to harm to him. What Europeans and whites suffer from seem to be the opposite. They are so willfully naive and eager to trust and invest hope in that is obviously ruinous and dangerous: massive non-white immigration, black thuggery and sexual debauchery, homo decadence and degeneration, and globalist cunning fueled by obvious contempt for whites. How about 'afelinoia'. Afelis in Greek means 'naive'. Or we might try gullinoia, a thought process of being gullible. Or suckonoia which should be obvious: sucker-noia. Or maybe cuckonoia will work. Excessively trusting is more dangerous than excessively suspicious. In nature, the paranoid animals have a better chance of survival than afelinoid ones. World is a dangerous place filled with competitors, predators, parasites, rivals, enemies, and etc. And even those who don't mean to destroy you physically wanna gain control over you and exploit you. After all, whites didn't destroy blacks physically and let them live but blacks had to be slaves. Globalists don't want equality with us. They have a plantation mentality over us.] At any rate, the reason why America proved to be a less prone to radicalism than Germany may owe to a certain paradox. It could have been because Americans were culturally more ‘conservative’ and less intellectual. The kind of ‘degenerate’ decadence so rife in Germany during the Weimar period was relatively absent in America. There was the Jazz Age and all that ‘Negro music’, but American fun-times seemed less degenerate than the German counterpart with its transvestite-ism and near-open-pornography. Americans were mostly dancing and drinking champagne whereas Germans in cabarets acted really pervy, like with the decadent ‘superman’ act in THE GODFATHER PART 2. [It’s interesting that Liberals expressed outrage about conservative German reaction against Weimar cultural decadence but generally sympathized with communist moral rage against decadent American capitalist influence. When Jews used decadence and degeneration against white gentiles, that was all very good. But when non-whites waged moral crusade against Western Capitalism dominated by Wasp America, the non-whites were the good guys and America was the bad guy. But because US is no longer white-America-dominated but Jewish-dominated, globalist Jews are now openly using decadence and degeneration as a Culture War against the entire world, and homo activists are the main agents of the Weimarization of the world.] But perhaps, decadence was a bigger problem in Germany because, in certain respects, society was more distinctly conservative — with greater homogeneity, deeper historical roots, and vestiges of the older aristocratic order — , and therefore, deviance from social norms seemed more disruptive. Also, American Jews in that period tended to be less nasty than German Jews. American Jews composed popular songs[among them many Christmas songs] and made Hollywood movies, whereas German Jews made bitter satire and pornographically mocked everything that German conservatives held dear. Perhaps, this is why American Jews during the Depression were willing to accept culturally conservative norms in popular culture, such as more censorship in cinema. American Jews could not have failed to notice that Jewish support of decadent and ‘degenerate’ culture during the Weimar period had rubbed many Germans the wrong way, paving the way to the rise of National Socialism. Especially when people are out of work and nearly starving, they aren’t going to be heartened by images of the haves acting like pigs at cabarets with freaks, whores, drink, and lewd music. Likewise, Chinese communists were angry with the decadent ‘bourgeoisie’ of Shanghai who were dillydallying with imperialists when so many Chinese were poor and living under foreign invasion. National Socialists played on German righteous rage about how the privileged Germans were dancing and having sex with rich Jews who made fortunes through financial manipulation[while so many Germans lost their entire savings] and who exploited German women to be sold and traded like pieces of meat. Also, as Americans tended to be pragmatic than intellectual, the political issues mainly came down to ‘who could manage things better’, whereas the issues in German came down to issues of identity and values. Most Americans supported FDR not for intellectual or ideological reasons but because they wanted security. In contrast, there was more of an ideological & cultural passion among Germans who voted for the communists or the National Socialists.) I have an allergic reaction to films that use actors as ideological mascots. The worst offender by far is Chantal Akerman who has her characters be and do nothing. Such negation of acting is supposed to reveal something ‘profound’ about the socio-economic-sexual dynamics of patriarchal-bourgeois-capitalist society. I’ll leave it up to the ‘wise’ and ‘profound’ radicals to make sense of something like JEANNE DIELMAN — surely the worst film ever made — , which is like a film about a diet-pilled zombie without appetite. Nearly as worthless are the later films of Jean-Luc Godard where his characters either sit or stand around, moping around like the ‘apathetics’ in ZARDOZ. In Godardville, it’s a sin to be a living/breathing character. Every character is owned by the Mind of Godard who allows him or her some minimal movement just to suggest some philosophical idea that remains too elliptical or profound for us regular folks to fully grasp. Perhaps, Godard feels that lively characters with individual personalities and foibles will come between his ideas and the audience, but as I’ve said earlier, if Godard wants to deal with ideas, why not just become a writer or philosopher? Why make films with actors with minds, souls, and bodies who are mostly just instructed to stand or sit around and do nothing? Why use them as something akin to figures in illustrations? Why not just write books instead? It’s like an instrumentalist playing notes without interconnecting them together into the form that we call music. It’s one thing to challenge and question conventions, as Godard did provocatively in his films up to around 1966. But when cinema-as-feature-film is stripped of its most compelling elements — and when the novelty of such radical scheme has worn off — , it’s like staring at a chop-shopped car without an engine. It’s like calling two pieces of bread without anything in between a sandwich. And despite the high standing of Godard and Akerman in the critical community, let’s be honest and admit that no one really likes anything by Akerman and most of the later films by Godard. Akerman has gotten as a pass for all the right labels and signals: Jewish, Marxist, lesbian, experimental, intellectual, and feminist; and Godard’s legendary status as The ‘radical’ film-maker of the 60s has followed him all these years and has been turned into a cult. Thus, when young would-be cinephiles watch a latter-day Godard film and have no feeling for it, they will just go through the obligatory motions of thinking about an ‘important’ work.
Jean-Luc Godard, running on empty tank of Cult.
Even though Resnais’ intelligence, erudition, mastery, and brilliance as a film-maker were in full evidence since the 1950s, why did was he overshadowed by others in either audience popularity or critical loyalty? Why is it that many more critics think so highly of the ghastly JEANNE DIELMAN than of true masterworks like HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR or MURIEL? Indeed, even Resnais’s lesser and throwaway films(and he’s made some of those too) easily have more artistic worth than all the garbage made by the loathsome Akerman whose shtick is essentially an ‘intellectual’ variation of Ally Sheedy’s antics in THE BREAKFAST CLUB. One reason is, despite his leftism, Resnais has always been a gentleman and not the hardcore agitator-provocateur that Godard was for awhile. Godard’s personality, like John Lennon’s, has been one of the most fascinating in cinema. Even as Godard kept making mostly clunkers since the late 60s, one could always count on his acerbic and sardonic personality to convey an impression of ‘style of radical will’. So, all the would-be/wanna-be radicals in the film community could go on looking up to him as the purist who never compromises and keeps fighting the good fight — even if one has no idea what the fight is about anymore. Something to do with meta-socialism or meta-revolution? Godard has the same kind of ‘radical’ cachet as Che Guevara or Noam Chomsky. The eccentricity of his persona ensured a kind of cult, and cults have lasting value. (After all, even an unsuccessful musical act with a fanatical cult following has longer career-span than a very popular act with no cult following. Acts like Shaun Cassidy may be top of the world when they hit the charts, but they are gone for good once the moment passes, and no one cares anymore and never will. But even a rock band with a very limited but devoted following can have a long career because the core base will always show up, and if the band gets lucky, the fan base will grow, and maybe just maybe, it might even become like the Grateful Dead that always came back from the dead because of the zealous cult-following.) In a world of compromises(and movies are nearly impossible to make without some compromises), Godard stood for undying commitment to his self-defined enfant-terribles-ism. If Truffaut started out as a ‘bad boy’ at war with the establishment but then turned ‘bourgeois’ and basked in affection of critics and fans, Godard stuck to his self-appointed role of troublemaker, even when the ‘radical’ moment passed in history and film culture. Even when most of the ‘art film’ community stopped caring about Godard, he stuck to his guns and could also rely on a coterie of critics, friends, academics, and programmers who remained devoted to him or inherited the devotion from their mentors. For someone who railed against the power and privilege, his persistent ‘relevance’ was ironically kept alive by an inner-circle that treated him like royalty.
I mean, what is one to make of films like DETECTIVE, KING LEAR, and KEEP UP YOUR RIGHT? You can barely stay awake watching them. But, Godardian critics have been propping up his image and ‘importance’ in the manner of ‘emperor has no clothes’ pedantry. Godard has been a has-been at least since the 1970s — though some of his films since, such as FIRST NAME: CARMEN, HAIL MARY, JLG/JLG, and NOTRE MUSIQUE, have been of some interest — , but his critical fanboys and handlers have always spun his image as being, once again, ‘relevant’ or ‘twenty years ahead of his time’. It’s like Bob Dylan pretty much lost his muse, but the legend kept him afloat as the ‘spokesman of his generation’, and so Dylan, even when boozy and unfocused, would be brought out on-stage to sing, yet again, a tired rendition of "Blowin’ in the Wind", and the audience would dutifully show respect. Indeed, Godard himself is not the worst thing about the Godard cult. Rather, the real culprits are the ‘corrupt’ critics, journalists, academics, and programmers who keep insisting that he’s still an important film-maker. (The sentiment is certainly understandable, not only for nostalgic reasons but because so much of today’s film culture is so debased with triviality, infantilism, vulgarity, and nonsense. But dragging Godard out as contender is like bringing Jim Jeffries out of retirement as the ‘great white hope’ to take on Jack Johnson. Whatever one feels about the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Lars von Trier, and their foul ilk, they hold the Zeitgeist of today’s cinema. And it’s been all the more pointless since, let’s be honest, no honest person really liked anything Godard did in the past 20 or 30 yrs. Unlike Luis Bunuel, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa, Orson Welles, John Huston, and Alfred Hitchcock who surprised even the best of the younger directors with their comebacks, final acts, or new experimental bursts of creative energy — or like Claude Chabrol and Eric Rohmer who only got better with age — , Godard simply couldn’t get it together again, and his later films are appreciated mostly by anemic interpretive academicians — the vegans among intellectuals — than seen with any joy by the ‘art film’ community.) Without such diehard support, Godard would have disappeared down a sinkhole long ago. When I speak of ‘corruption’, I don’t mean that Godardians are financially corrupt as there’s no money to be made from his films. It’s possible that only BREATHLESS and LE MEPRIS made any kind of money — and maybe HAIL MARY because of the controversy following the denunciation from the Catholic Church. Among Godardians, it’s a corruption of purism and deception(and self-deception). The idea of purist corruption seems counter-intuitive, an oxymoron, and therefore often goes recognized. After all, ‘selfless’ devotion of the fans, devotees, and cultists have little to show for in terms of financial rewards. But when blind respect and recognition are bestowed on someone who is no longer deserving out of mere cultist devotion, it IS a form of corruption, whether money is involved or not. When Godard makes a series of films that are repetitious, indulgent, and lazy, but they continue to be hailed as ‘important’, it is a corruption of intellectual habit. Oblivious to truth and reality, the intellectual realm prefers worship over worthiness. Such cult of personality was what allowed Federico Fellini to keep making films even though his creative well had run dry. Indeed, because of so much attention on Godard, there was a time when other more deserving French film-makers, especially those who are starting out, went relatively unnoticed, while other directors wasted their time by trying to be the heir of Godard, whose best qualities were inimitable and whose worst tendencies weren’t worth imitating. It’s rather sad that so many forgettable latter-day Godard films got theatrical releases(however limited) in America, but Gilles Mimouni’s masterpiece L’APPARTEMEMT never did? If the role of intellectuals and critics is to judge worth without fear or favor, then critics and intellectuals have failed in the case of Godard. They continued to cover up for him long after he no longer mattered as a film artist. Likewise, Fellini kept on making one monstrosity after another in the late 60s and 70s because of his cult as the Great Italian film-maker when all the precious money poured into his bloated epics could have been used on projects by other directors with fresher ideas. While I can understand the reverence for Godard, truly a mythic figure in his day, among many film critics and intellectuals who came of age in the 1960s, their unwavering apologies have had a deleterious impact on film culture. Such cultism has spawned yet another generation of film-goers who really don’t care for Godard but invoke his name to validate their own intellectual/radical credentials. Instilling such uncritical or even anti-critical reverence is a cultural counterpart of Political Correctness that pressures young ones to uncritically worship figures like MLK and Harvey Milk. In the SIGHT & SOUND POLL, Godard came in after Hitchcock in the rankings of ‘greatest director of all time’. Godard’s importance in the annals of cinema cannot be denied, and he made some of the most daring and brilliant films in the 60s, but one really wonders about the kind of people who think PIERROT LE FOU and LE MEPRIS are among the greatest films ever made.

At any rate, there is a sense that Godard is trying ‘say something’ even when his films are most obfuscatory. It’s like listening to a philosopher whose language you don’t understand. It’s like he is trying to reach us and clarify matters but fail to do so because he plays by his own rules that most of us aren’t privy to. Picture a man wiping the window to make us see him better, but the towel is soiled and only makes the glass more opaque. In contrast, Resnais’ films tend to suggest than ‘say’, and they are less insistent on us getting the point. Resnais was more a croupier than a priest. Even at his most ‘radical’, there was something a measured, patient, and ‘professional’ quality about Resnais, as opposed to the acerbic, accusatory, and arrogant stance of Godard. For members of the Boomer(or May 68) generation seeking to deal a blow against the Man and the System, Godard was the obvious choice, even if they were loathe to admit being bored to tears by the films of the Dziga Vertov Group period.
Among Resnais’ fictional feature films, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR is the one that could be unmistakenly called a ‘statement’ film. Even so, it is more about memory than urgency. The 60s radicals and activists wanted to discuss issues of the Now — the ‘evils’ of America’s Naziesque role in Vietnam, Che Guevara, capitalism, revolution, Maoism, Rock as rebellion, and the like — , yet when the 60s culture war was just heating up, the Resnais made LA GUERRA IST FINIE(or THE WAR IS OVER), which harked back to the lost cause of the Spanish Civil War and sullen defeatism that followed. Resnais did contribute to two documentaries dealing with political issues, one with Vietnam and other with social tumult in the West(even in collaboration with Godard and other political directors), but his signature works beginning in the 60s were feature films that seem somewhat aloof to and disassociated from political causes. And even though Resnais’ sympathy was mainly reserved for people of leftist persuasion, there was also the curious empathy and civility acknowledging the personal truths of all the characters, while also fixing a critical eye on the flaws of people whose ideas Resnais agreed with. And it wasn’t affected in the Aaron-Sorkin-ish manner of faux-complexity hoodwinking the audience into seeing themselves as bearing witness to multi-faceted truth when, if anything, they are being cheaply manipulated to feel intelligent while being duped like dummies. Indeed, much of current ‘progressivism’ is about treating people as dumb children while making them feel glibly sophisticated and superior. Inferior stuff offered through ‘superior’ selling, like what the shysters do in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Even cheap wine can be sold as the fancy stuff if you know how to sell it. ‘Progressivism’ sells the ruse of intelligence, hipness, and sophistication. It also craftily combines elitism with egalitarianism, whereby you can believe yourself to be for ‘equality’ because you cheer for fancy privileged homos favored by the globalist oligarchic class.
Though Resnais has been mistaken as a member of the ‘French New Wave’, the movement(if so characterized) refers to film-makers that arose from the ranks of critics at the journal Cahiers Du Cinema and exploded on the scene in the late 50s and early 60s. Because Resnais’s fame was catapulted with HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR around the same time as 400 BLOWS and BREATHLESS, he became conflated with New Wave directors. But Resnais film-making career began considerably earlier, and his camp(if so characterized) tended to differ from the New Wave group in key ways. Though there was no single voice or style in the French New Wave, it was regarded as somewhat pro-American, if only in taste and sensibility. Whatever New Wavers may have thought about American society or politics, they were crazy about American cinema. Given the leftist orientation of most of French culture — and its ties to the French Communist Party with close links to Moscow — , this made the New Wave seem a bit ‘right-wing’, even though the only reliably ‘conservative’ figure of the French New Wave was Eric Rohmer.
At any rate, some elements of the New Wave delighted in pushing the buttons on the hardline French Left and even flirted with ‘right-wing’ attitudes or anti-leftist sentiments(though more to shock the dominant Left than to champion the reactionary right) — as seen in Claude Chabrol’s LES COUSINS — , but the French New Wave, at least in its origins, had almost nothing to do with overt politics, and even the most political of them, Godard, tended toward ambiguity on political and ideological matters before his radical turn later. Godard’s early films focus more on individuals-seeking-personal-truth than on Left vs Right or Third World vs America or Worker vs Capitalist or Revolutionary Expression vs Bourgeois Art/Entertainment. Following his radical phase, Godard returned to ambiguity and complexity, but the creative fire no longer there. His films became like ashes left from a funeral pyre.

In terms of quality of output, Resnais sits somewhere between Godard & Truffaut on the one hand and Eric Rohmer & Claude Chabrol on the other. Godard and Truffaut were sprinters, Rohmer and Chabrol long-distance runners. Godard and Truffaut burst out at the staring line but were soon sapped of creative energies. It’s difficult to think of any Godard film after 1967 that will really pass the test of time. And even though Truffaut made some quality films in the 1970s, his great period was from 1959 to mid 60s. (Among Truffaut’s later works, THE WILD CHILD, TWO ENGLISH GIRLS, and STORY OF ADELE H. are stand-outs but rather conventional works nevertheless. There was nothing ‘new’ in New Wave anymore.) More than most, Truffaut and Godard were youthful and hungry in their desire to make their mark on cinema and culture, to prove their worth and make a difference. Chabrol(who delighted in decadence) and Rohmer(steeped in Catholic moralism) were less urgent, more patient and more accepting of people for their failings that Chabrol found perversely amusing and Rohmer found eminently forgivable. Chabrol and Rohmer were more like coaches watching from the sideline whereas Godard and Truffaut were more like players eager to run the field to make the goal. Therefore, Chabrol and Rohmer were slower to be recognized. Rohmer’s true international breakthrough, MY NIGHT AT MAUD’S, came fully a decade after Truffaut’s 400 BLOWS. (Chabrol’s breakthrough film, LES COUSINS, was released in the same year as Truffaut’s first feature film, but it was too perverse and strange for mass appeal. It lacked the soul of Truffaut’s film and the style of Godard’s trend-setting BREATHLESS.) Perhaps, this explains why the Beatles were creative together only up until 1969. They burst on the scene in 1963 and relied on their well of youthful energy. Once the energy faded, they had nothing more to go on. In contrast, some other Rock acts of the 1960s lacked the popularity of the Beatles but had considerably longer spans as they were more about creative evolution than revolution. If Truffaut had pretty much lost it by the late 70s — and even his best of the 70s pales in comparison to his best of the late 50s and early 60s — and if Godard’s films increasingly became a chore for everyone except weirdo-beardo cultists like Richard Brody, Chabrol and Rohmer seemed to get better and better with the passing years. Just about everything Chabrol did in the 1990s and 2000s is a gem. And Rohmer’s later films are more open, relaxed, and welcoming than the earlier somewhat-conceit-driven films. (To be sure, the central theme of THE SIX MORAL TALES can be found in most movies in the sense that they tempt us with the thrill of nihilism of sex and violence but pull us back by having the ‘good guy’ defeat the forces of chaos and restore order in the world.) Instead of trying to prove a theorem, they just observe life under the Sun. They allow the narratives to ripen of their own accord. Chabrol and Rohmer didn’t start out trying to make a difference or to prove a point, such as ‘this is the way movies should be made’, which was Truffaut’s tireless gripe as critic. Rather, they carefully honed their skills and paced themselves. For that reason, neither made a film as remarkable as 400 BLOWS, JULES AND JIM, BREATHLESS, or ALPHAVILLE — with the possible exception of Chabrol’s LES COUSINS, a perverse black comedy drama — , but they have a better track record, and their creative energies aged than faded. In contrast, Truffaut never lost his sentimentality for youthful romanticism — even after the fire was gone — and Godard never lost his penchant for enfant terribles persona — even as an irrelevant relic. Those who cling to youth end up feeling older. Fixated on past glory, they keep looking back than looking forward or at the world around them.
In contrast, Chabrol and Rohmer, having no special fixation on youthful romanticism or radical bad-boy-ism — Chabrol certainly had no illusions about the young people in LES COUSINS, and Rohmer’s timeless Catholicism treated modernity not as a clean break but yet another chapter in human history governed by God’s truth — , were more in tune with the natural flow of life, which is to grow old in a changing world. There is an impatient individualism at the heart of Truffaut and Godard that wants to make believe, like the Jack Nicholson character in CHINATOWN, that the bold personality can make a difference in the world. In Truffaut’s films, there’s a sense of "I want to be young again" and "what happened to my dreams?" One can sense it in THE WILD CHILD, TWO ENGLISH GIRLS, STORY OF ADELE H, SMALL CHANGE, THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN, LOVE ON THE RUN, and others. There’s the tragic sense of the transience of youth, dreams, and romance(that may have influenced the ending of THE GRADUATE where Benjamin Braddock feels empty after winning the girl). Catherine in JULES AND JIM leads a life of futile resistance against time and responsibility. In LOVE ON THE RUN, Antoine Doinel rehashes his past as if to retrieve his youth. In some ways, Godard was no less romantic than Truffaut, especially as pertaining to women. One could even argue that Godard was more of a romantic in his longing for a woman of his dream or at least conviction. Though Godard was no paragon of sexual morality or fidelity, his fixation was more about the woman than the women. He was looking for that one true other, whereas Truffaut was in love with all the women as conquests and dalliances.
LOVE ON THE RUN starring Jean-Pierre Leaud, final in the Antoine Doinel series. 
The paradoxical nature of romanticism is that it is as repressive as it is sensual. While sexual romantics wanna ‘do it’, they want to believe themselves to be(or be perceived as) pursuers of higher love, a kind of dream of love. And yet, such romanticism was problematic for Godard who, as a radical intellectual, didn’t want to come across as a mush-head. So, his sexual romanticism gave way to ideological obsessionism. He divorced the beautiful Anna Karina and married the rather homely but ideologically committed Anne Wiazemsky and later formed a partnership with fellow-intellectual Anne-Marie Miéville. It’d be like the eponymous Jewish hero of Cecil B. DeMille’s SAMSON AND DELILAH dumping Delilah and going with the "milk faced girl with the cow’s eyes".
If Godard repressed his sexual romanticism, Truffaut used romanticism as ruse for his out-of-control sexual appetite. He was screwing everyone but affected the persona of a dreamy-eyed lover. When Truffaut wanted to air his dirty laundry, he generally used Jean-Pierre Leaud as alter ego, and LOVE ON THE RUN may have been Truffaut’s reply to Godard’s criticism of DAY FOR NIGHT in which Truffaut(playing a film director) keeps his fly zipped while everyone else is jumping in and out of the sack with everyone else. In LOVE ON THE RUN, through the semi-biographical alter ego of Doinel, Truffaut indirectly admits that he can’t help but to stick his wanker into everything. To be sure, he admitted as much two years earlier with THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN, which really should have been called THE MAN WHO HUMPED WOMEN. At any rate, the desire to screw everyone is not very romantic. Truffaut wanted to be loved(possibly to compensate for insufficient affection in childhood), and so, he created a public image of sensitivity and softness, like that of the Oskar Werner character in JULES AND JIM, but in reality, Truffaut was often like the impetuous Catherine(Jeanne Moreau) in his egotism, appetite, deviousness, and machinations. This tension could serve as creative fuel, vitriol, or snake oil.

Resnais’ sensibility operated on a different plane. The main focus of Truffaut’s films is on subjectivity and personal emotions. When someone feels something, Truffaut has to be with that person as if joined with him or her at the hip, at the heart. (P.T. Anderson is an extreme example of a director who feels ‘too closely’ with all his characters, which explains why MAGNOLIA is the ultimate empathy opera. Too much in my estimation.) Resnais, though acutely attuned to his characters’ emotional states, maintained a certain distance as if to focus primarily on the dynamics among the characters. It was as if Resnais was working on a calculus of human relations. Due to eccentricities of personality and cultural background — Resnais was born nearly a decade earlier than Godard and Truffaut — , he was more self-aware, more reflective of man’s flaws and delusions. Thus, his films tend to be less romantic, judgmental, purist, and/or aggressive. Hardline radicals might have disparaged such an approach as ‘uncommitted’ and ‘bourgeois’, despite Resnais’ ideological credentials as a man of the left. In all his feature films, even the one addressing the powerful themes of Hiroshima and German Occupation, there’s a dissonance between passions(personal or collective) and actuality that could conceivably be spun into infinite permutations of meanings. Consider how the all-too-compelling horror of the opening scene of HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR is intercut with docu-drama footage, thus accentuating a sense of history as a reconstruction as well as recollection. (Our emotions aren’t allowed to settle on a single plane. We are made to feel outrage that all-too-easily grows into sanctimony that risks indulging in moral porn, especially as the horror of the Bombing is meta-dream-narrated by a couple engaged in sex. The docu-drama footage of the ‘survivors-among-the-ruins’ hints at our moral self-aggrandizement, a tendency to exaggerate the horror and our self-righteous sense of social/historical justice. The intersection of psychology and politics is often kitsch. Yet, there is a further irony in that the docu-drama footage is as much a woefully inadequate under-representation as a shameless agit-prop piece of exaggeration. The makers obviously went out of their way to make it as horrible as possible to tug at our heart-strings, yet no amount of effort and effects on their part could convey the actual horror of what had happened in scale and details — also, even if a film could, the audience still has the advantage of being safe from harm; indeed, consider the harrowing opening scene of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN that placed the viewer ‘in the middle’ of war-as-hell but didn’t nick the skin of a single viewer with a stray bullet. The docu-drama footage in HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR is at once too much and too little. It’s an exaggeration of an horror that cannot be exaggerated, a self-defeating and unresolvable conundrum often found in art and propaganda in relations to history-as-tragedy.)
History turned into Kitsch: Docu-Drama footage from HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR
Whatever may have happened, however momentous or intimate the impact on the affected populations, Resnais’ films remind us of how so much of ‘reality’ is filtered through the unstable traces of time and memory. His films work like a museum of magic trickery. The museum atmosphere gives it the esteemed mood of ‘art film’, but nothing on display yields to close exacting examination. Rather, it’s like watching a shell game — the one with three nutshells and a ball — or a card trick, where what was or appeared to be true a moment ago has been displaced by something other. Or it might be said to be like the theory of Observer Effect in quantum theory. That which we watch is altered by the dynamics of our watching. For this reason, some critics underestimated Resnais as more a stylist and poseur than an artist of true vision and/or commitment. John Simon, though admiring of some of Resnais’s earlier films, complained that Resnais often took simple ideas or narratives and needlessly complicated them with the tricks of editing and chronology. Such arguments are partly valid in relation to Resnais’s lesser works like JE T’AIME JE T’AIME where the technical brilliance fails to justify the paper-thin characters who are supposed to be scarred by personal tragedy. LA JETEE is only 25 minutes of still images, but the hero’s life becomes a universe unto itself. In contrast, the character of JE T’AIME JE T’AIME is just diced onions. As Francis Ford Coppola amply demonstrated with ONE FROM THE HEART and RUMBLE FISH, technique and experimentalism are never enough. It’s like no amount of mastery with a topnotch knife is going to turn vegetables into meat. If anything, the fancy preparation will likely make the eater notice the discrepancy between the mastery and the material. The last thing we need is a Potemkim Village ‘art film’. Only a rare artist like Orson Welles can turn tripe into (a kind of)truth, as with F FOR FAKE, a work of such devilish tinkering that the con is elevated into concept of seeing the way of seeing the world. Of course with Welles, it helped that he had himself to put between the material and the audience, serving as a kind of grand-poobah-as-genuine-genie with all sorts of wondrous powers unknown to ‘mortal’ directors. Resnais, in contrast, was always the man behind the camera, the man behind the curtain. Welles could work the magic as a puppeteer even when his puppets failed. Resnais succeeded or fail with his puppets. I must confess, however, that there are some Resnais films I have yet to see. Though a major cinematic presence in the 1960s, he increasingly became neglected outside the film festival circuit since the 70s. Many of his films didn’t get theatrical release in the US. In the 1980s, I recall Dave Kehr named MELO as one of the best films of the decade, but it mostly went unnoticed. I haven’t seen LIFE IS A BED OF ROSES, LOVE UNTO DEATH, and I WANT TO GO HOME, all released in the 1980s.
MELO with the lovely Sabine Azema
Some of the criticism of Resnais may apply to French culture and intellectualism as a whole. Though an unfair generalization, there’s been a tendency to approach French arts and ideas as one of flair than of flesh. The French style became a substance in its own right. Thus, both Francophiles and Franco-hostiles, as well as the French themselves, have tended to lose sight of genuine value in French culture. Because of the centrality of style in French culture — French language itself has a stylizing effect on everything voiced or written in it — , a common expectation has been the sauce with every dish, decor with every design. (Of course, some Frenchmen, being all too aware of this stereotype, often associated with effeteness or decadence, went out of their way to go against the cultural and/or aesthetic grain.) This isn’t the case with many other cultures. One may appreciate German, Russian, or Turkic ideas or expressions despite the absence of style that isn’t as synonymous with their cultures as with the French. But as style permeates almost everything French from decor to fashion to cooking to manners to philosophy to painting to music to etc., one tends to conflate style itself with what is essentially French. When something of substance is presented with unique style, it is something to marvel. But what of style as mask for lack of substance? If Francophiles tend to overvalue French culture for its preponderance of style, Franco-hostiles tend to devalue French culture for the same reason but with a twist — they see much of French culture as mostly style and insufficient substance, and indeed, there were plenty of Frenchmen to agree, and some of French revolutionary rhetoric was a war on style & signs in favor of substance to wash away the sins of privilege, of which style is an integral, indeed aristocratic, element. (Anglo-American intellectual community, especially of conservative bent, has attacked much of modern French philosophy as hot air and fancy wordplay than anything that has anything to do with anything.) Aromas may be mere ‘ghosts’ of the real thing, but they have a way of outlasting the real thing. It’s like what the Scatman Crothers character says in THE SHINING: how when something burns, it can leave traces of its smell in the room even long after the burnt object had long been discarded. (Some might argue that this is an allusion to the ovens in the Holocaust death camps.) Smell thus has a ghostly presence, especially because the olfactory memory is among the acutest in identifying something in the past. Though the horror genre is read through words or seen through images, the most effective human sense in relation to horror may be the smell. Indeed, it’s so horrible that we don’t wanna go there. We may get a certain kick out of reading about or seeing gore and gross-out things, but we don’t wanna smell it, especially as it begins to decay. Looking at a rotting corpse is one thing, but just imagine smelling it. When we read or watch, the horror exists at a certain remove. But when we inhale the rot, it’s like the ghostly horror is entering our bodies and infecting our souls. The most shocking image in Stanley Kubrick’s THE SHINING is that of the dead old woman’s body in the bathtub because we are made to wonder what it smells like. And in THE EXORCIST, we are grateful that we are spared the putrid smell emanating from the possessed character of Regan. (William Friedkin’s THE EXORCIST was more popular and notorious in its day, but THE SHINING has garnered more attention and respect over the years. There was also something of a backlash against THE EXORCIST[as with Michael Cimino’s THE DEER HUNTER] for its moral politics, social message, sensationalism, and the fact that Friedkin’s career was mostly downhill afterward, the one exception being TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. Of course, the critical & commercial failure of most of the sequels and prequels of THE EXORCIST didn’t reflect too well on the original either; there was also the miserable knock-offs like BEYOND THE DOOR. If Kubrick’s works were always interesting even when problematic or misconceived, some of Friedkin’s films have simply been terrible, or worse, terribly stupid. Nevertheless, given its place in the pantheon of horror films, THE EXORCIST needs no defense. As for its critics — Pauline Kael and John Simon were especially harsh — , their condemnations were valid insofar as the movie is utterly ludicrous in its logic and tawdry in its manipulations. That said, it is a masterwork of shameless frights and interesting as stylistic bridge between European art cinema and the looming blockbuster genre, of which it was surely one of the instigators, even if unintended on Friedkin’s part. Though JAWS is credited as the first true blockbuster of the 1970s, Spielberg surely learned a thing or two from Friedkin’s movie. The ways in which the Great White and the Devil incrementally draw closer, lay low, and then lunge forth are similar in both movies. THE EXORCIST is no less manipulative than JAWS or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND — and it surely had an influence on John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN as well, no less than PSYCHO — , but because of its serious acting, moral & religious themes, and solemnity[at times touching on sanctimony] — and because of Friedkin’s association with the gritty crime drama THE FRENCH CONNECTION — , it hasn’t generally been thought of a blockbuster movie despite its tremendous box office numbers. As Friedkin was associated with other key figures of New Hollywood such as Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, and Peter Bogdanovich — plus the fact that he was a decade older than the generation of Lucas and Spielberg — , THE EXORCIST was still treated as a serious film, one for adults, not least because of its explicit scenes that nearly led to X-rating that was stamped on LAST TANGO IN PARIS released a year earlier; incidentally, the young woman in LAST TANGO IN PARIS sort of looks like an older version of Linda Blair, and it’s like she is possessed by the demon spirit of Marlon Brando’s lusty character. Even the detractors of THE EXORCIST attacked it as a disgusting and/or dishonest serous film than as a popcorn movie for the masses. Besides, THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE GODFATHER films — as well as THE GRADUATE in the earlier decade — had demonstrated that a film could be serious and popular. Because Friedkin’s horror movie was so over-the-top and pushed the envelopes[especially pertaining to sexuality at a time when the legalization of pornographic films was still a hot topic of controversy], it was compared with films such as THE WILD BUNCH, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, STRAW DOGS, and DIRTY HARRY, other highly contested works of the decade. But if one looks beyond all that, Friedkin could be credited as the one who laid down the basic template for the blockbuster movie-making to come because THE EXORCIST is more a thrill-ride than a mind-trip like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Friedkin’s horror film was the bridge between personal film-making that defined early 70s cinema and crowd-pleasing populism that came to define most of the works of Spielberg and Lucas. It was easier to recognize Spielberg and Lucas’ intentions because most of what they made were PG-rated summer movies especially aimed at young audiences. But in the art of crowd-manipulation, they were following in the footsteps of Friedkin. Friedkin was different from Hitchcock and even from the other stalwarts and mavericks of early 1970s personal film-making like Peckinpah, Kubrick, Altman, Polanski, and others. With Hitchcock, there was always a sense of restraint, of repressive control of the furies locked inside the bottle. He was like an Aladdin who never let the genie escape. Even THE BIRDS, his movie about sexual energies loosed upon the world, is a film of masterly control from beginning to end. Every moment of violence and transgression seem carefully choreographed. Crazy things happen in Hitchcock films, but the master’s hand is always steady and sure, always in control of the action and suspense. [The anarchic Pauline Kael may have preferred Brian DePalma because he took Hitchcock’s machinery and cranked it to the point where it broke apart into so many pieces. Kael had a penchant for Kaos. Hitchcock was like a dirty old man peeking through a hole. DePalma was a like a biker who smashed through the wall.] THE WILD BUNCH and STRAW DOGS have some of the most memorable scenes of blood-letting, but one senses that Peckinpah’s impetus was to present a personalized vision of the outlaw West or the troubled modernity. It wasn’t mainly to excite the audiences and pull them into theaters for kicks. Same goes for Coppola’s treatment of violence in THE GODFATHER. Though tailored to be suspenseful and entertaining, Coppola was swept up with the themes of its characters, their dreams, histories, and tragedies. In contrast, despite the serious overtones of THE EXORCIST, the underlying impetus of the violence in THE EXORCIST is hardly different from that in JAWS: to scare the audience out of their seats. No doubt, a lot of thought and brilliance went into both movies’ use of violence, but the ultimate purpose was to elicit emotions antithetical to thought or any kind of mindfulness in the audience. They are mindful manipulations inducing mindless surrender. What made THE EXORCIST so unique at the time was the combination of Hitchcock’s masterly professionalism and the no-holds-barred tantrums of New Cinema violence. Generally, the notable suspense/horror masters of the past were pronounced in form/structure and restrained in the use of ketchup/gore, whereas many of the independent horror film-makers of the early 70s were the opposite: heavy on the ketchup but lacking in method. Wes Craven’s vile and abominable THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a good example. [For a time, especially following the success of EASY RIDER, rank amateurism was admired as the sign of artistic authenticity and spontaneity in contrast to the artifice and conventionality of professionalism. But it wasn’t long before people got tired of formless film-making, Dennis Hopper’s followup THE LAST MOVIE being a good example that elicited boredom and disgust from critics and the audience alike.] Friedkin took the new licentiousness in violence — predominantly featured in cheapie independent horror films — and combined it with a level of craftsmanship that made the violence reputable, even respectable to critics and mainstream middle class audiences. Someone who refused to see an independent slasher or ‘exploitation’ splatter film might go see THE EXORCIST as the horror movie that offered food for thought. THE EXORCIST let loose with the gore and violence like the cheapie splatter movies did but with the professionalism, craftsmanship, and production values that could only be provided by the big studios. Prior to THE EXORCIST, there had been reputable/respectable horror movies but hardly one that could be said to be a respectable splatter movie. THE EXORCIST made splatter-ishness ‘respectable’, even if it had to drag in the Catholic Church to make it so. Thus, the middle-brow middle class ‘mainstream’ adult audiences could see the possessed girl vomit pea soup on the face of a priest and see it as some kind of ‘spiritual’ challenge. Similarly, THE GODFATHER made the gangster genre respectable by loading it with ‘art film’ conventions borrowed from Luchino Visconti and Akira Kurosawa. Some critics like John Simon saw through the tailoring and condemned both THE GODFATHER and THE EXORCIST as sensationalistic entertainments dressed in serious attire. In contrast, critics like Pauline Kael praised it as a fusion of art and populism, at least in the case of THE GODFATHER. An anti-moralist — as opposed to being anti-moral — , Kael was turned on by the amoral tribalism of THE GODFATHER — as she was by BONNIE AND CLYDE’s romantic nihilism — but was offended by the dishonest puritanism of THE EXORCIST, which she found all the more offensive for peddling pornography in guise of spiritual uplift; and of course, the same objections were later leveled against Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST, a kind of gore porn sold as passion play, though, to be sure, there has is a sexual-moral contradiction in Christian iconography to begin with, one marked by compassion and sadomasochism. To be sure, the machinations of THE EXORCIST weren’t all that different from the movies of Cecil B. DeMille — or Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA for that matter — , as they were all about serving up the pagan delights and/or thrills for the audience to gorge on until the final part when the world is redeemed by some miraculous resistance against wicked temptations. In that sense, THE EXORCIST is kinda like THE WIZARD OF OZ. Dorothy wanders off to Oz to enjoy all the wonders before finally deciding there is no place like home. It’s interesting that the three closest friends she meets are all men, but they are all incomplete/impotent in some way and cannot seduce her and rob her of her ‘innocence’. Instead, they help her like the priests help the girl in THE EXORCIST. The witch must be killed and the false wizard must be exposed before Dorothy can go home again. She must be exorcized in her dreams. Arguably, the ‘spiritual’ opposite of THE EXORCIST is ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, not surprisingly a film Pauline Kael loved despite its dishonesties and manipulations. If men of order try to save a girl from chaos in THE EXORCIST, Randall McMurphy unleashes anarchy to ‘liberate’ the patients from the castrating Nurse Ratched. Sexuality is satanic oppression in THE EXORCIST but devilish liberation in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. To be sure, there are conservative overtones to ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST — at least one that is libertarian as the nemesis of Nurse Ratched stands for Iron Control and Big Sister Matriarchy — , and there are liberal or counterculture overtones to THE EXORCIST in its sheer visual and aural audacity and outrageousness. The early to mid seventies were a confused time, carrying over both the high spirits and the hang-over of the late 60s. Consider how PATTON was sold as a kind of counterculture right-wing movie about the ultimate maverick and rebel. And in the TV sitcom ALL IN THE FAMILY, the bigot Archie Bunker is more the maverick and free spirit than Meathead who, for all his libertine boomer conceits, is a moralistic do-gooder who sounds like a Boy Scout reading from a manual. Even EASY RIDER released in 1969 said "We blew it." And even MIDNIGHT COWBOY, generally loved by liberals and loathed by conservatives, was far from simple in its ‘politics’. While it exposed America’s ethos and dreams as false and phony[and mocked the myth of the cowboy], it also presented urban liberal-bohemian New York as indulgent, decadent, and ridiculous. In the end, the lesson that Joe Bucks learns is an old-fashioned one: dignity is found in honest work. Thus, even though counterculture may have claimed EASY RIDER and MIDNIGHT COWBOY as it own, the films were marked by ambiguity than clarity. They questioned or rejected the norms but were unsure as to what comes next. And this duality of rebellion and reflection came to characterize many of the key films of the early 70s. Both THE GODFATHER movies and THE EXORCIST appealed to many for their perceived certitudes. While THE GODFATHER was less moralistic, there nevertheless was a sense of family, tradition, loyalty, and identity in the Corleone clan, and this aspect of Italian-American-ness felt reassuring at a period defined by the Generation Gap, embattled values, and rising crime rates. At least Corleone violence was ‘organized’ and used in accordance with the rules of ‘business’ in stark contrast to New York in the late 60s and early 70s beset with random street crime all over the place, usually by black thugs. And even though women played secondary roles in the Corleone, at least they were taken care of, protected, and appreciated as wives and mothers. In contrast, the mother and daughter in THE EXORCIST are what one might call ‘modern people’. She is a career woman and divorced, and the ex-husband is off doing his own thing and even forgets or neglects to call his daughter on her birthday. The daughter is a modern girl whose mode of communication with her mother is casual and ‘frank’. They talk to one another more like friends than as parent and child. But then, she becomes possessed by the Devil, rather like the girl in PEOPLE NEXT DOOR becomes possessed by hippie-demonism. [It’s interesting that PEOPLE NEXT DOOR and JOE, starring Peter Boyle, both released in 1970s, are about parents trying to reclaim their daughters from temptations of the New Savagery. The mother in PEOPLE NEXT DOOR and the father in JOE become like Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS.] The mother, as a modern woman, turns to all kinds of rational, scientific, professional, and/or medical solutions to her daughter’s problems, but it turns out that the only answer is Faith and spiritual salvation, and the tough medicine must be administered in the most old-fashioned way by Catholic priests. It is significant that the girl turns twelve in the movie, the same age as that of the Iris character in TAXI DRIVER. Twelve is when girls seriously begin to blossom into a woman with onset of puberty and first menstruation. The bio-chemistry changes and with it comes all kinds of emotional and sexual crisis. It’s an uneasy period for girls and boys as they grow into adulthood, with which they have no prior experience; thus the body and biochemistry move ahead of sense and understanding. It’s like Jacob tells Bella in TWILIGHT: NEW MOON that he used to be a good kid but isn’t sure what is happening to him as the wolfish ‘genes’ kick into high gear. It is a dangerous period for many young people, a time when their bodies and souls are shedding off the vestiges of childhood and transforming into adults. It is also a time when many young people discover they are suddenly as strong or stronger than their parents, teachers, and other adults. Especially in a society where adult authority has waned, ‘thugocratic’ tendencies define the suddenly empowered young adults who judge everything in terms of ‘coolness’ or ‘badass-ness’. [In America, youth power rose parallel to black power, partly because much of youth music came to be defined by black rhythms and because older white order came to be associated with ‘racism’. Thus, just as it was deemed terribly wrong to call a black man a ‘boy’, it also came to be deemed ‘repressive’ to deny teenagers their ‘rights’ as adults. Just as white people came to feel they have no moral right to have any authority over blacks, adults came to feel they have no moral authority over kids. This provided golden opportunity for Jews-and-homos who control Entertainment Industry to gain near-total control over young people hooked to pop culture. Of course, some adults seek clever ways, via helicopter-parenting and political correctness, to gain and maintain some control over the young ones.] In traditional societies where the authority of parents and elders was more respected — and rules of social behavior more stern and enforced — , the children-turning-into-adults had to mind their behavior and emotions despite the tumult and anxieties growing within them. But in the modern order where young people are afforded more freedom, they can go very wrong in their transformation from childhood to adulthood. They can end up like Lindsey Lohan and other dirty skanks. Given the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s, the Madonna/whore complex thing in THE EXORCIST surely resonated with many. Today, when the Catholic Church is as rotten and decadent as a ‘gay’ club and when freaks like Ellen Degeneris and Lena Dunham are celebrated as the ‘new normal’, a film like THE EXORCIST means very little. But back in the 70s, there was a cultural and moral clash between the old and the young. The old saw the young as wild, crazy, and unruly; the young saw the old as repressive, ‘racist’, and bigoted. Because the girl in THE EXORCIST is modern and has a modern mother, there’s a bigger chance of her going ‘wrong’ and being possessed by ‘temptations’ of evil. More freedom means more openness to both good and evil. Thus, her evil is different from the kind of evil that takes over Michael Corleone. Michael grew up in a strict family, so he always knew that his father was the boss of the family and he had to mind his manners. So, Michael’s story is not innocence corrupted but intelligence corrupted. In contrast, Regan is innocence corrupted, rather like what happens with Iris in TAXI DRIVER. But if Iris cannot even see that something is wrong with her life, Regan senses the terror as well as the thrill of being possessed by the Devil. There is still a part of Regan that is saying ‘help me’, even if she must scribble the SOS on her abdomen. Michael’s corruption is ironic because it owes something to his virtue and spirit of independence. Though he grew up as a dutiful son like his older brothers, he was also more intelligent, righteous and willful. Since he loved and respected his father, he could not rebel against him directly. Instead, he signed up for the Marines in order to serve the nation. He did his own thing for what he deemed to be a higher cause. Therefore, even though Vito didn’t want Michael to risk his life or limb, he respected his youngest son all the more for his iron-willed principles. [There may be a further ironic twist to this. Though Michael joined the Marines out of patriotism, his idealistic impulses may actually have been subconsciously opportunistic. After all, Vito raised his youngest son to be ‘different’, to go legitimate and be something like a Senator. Then, it is natural that Michael, raised with such expectations, wanted to do the respectable thing. So, even in going against his father’s wishes, he was in a way acting according to ‘plan’. And later, at the Congressional hearings, Michael’s military service proves to be useful in brandishing his image.] Indeed, Vito was probably more upset to learn that Michael killed Sollozzo and the police captain than when he heard Michael signed up for the Marines. After all, even as Vito didn’t want Michael to die in a war, he wanted big things for Michael, the apple of his eye. He wanted Michael to be succeed in respectable business or become a high powered politician. And one way to gain respect as a ‘real American’ was to serve in the US military. It is this courageous and strong-willed side of Michael — that could be virtuous — that leads him to the game of power rife with compromise and corruption. After the assassination attempt on his father, his courage and sense of vendetta[a form of justice] & loyalty — as well as a sense of pride and independence — lead to the fateful decision of being a gangster for life. The world and human nature being what they are, the ‘good’ side of us can paradoxically lead us to the ‘bad’ side. Because THE GODFATHER is well-aware of this dynamics, it is less judgmental and accusatory than THE EXORCIST that simplifies the conflict of good vs evil into one of ugly & smelly Devil vs brave & noble priests. In THE GODFATHER PART II, Kay does something ‘good’ by doing something ‘bad’. She kills/aborts her own kid to bring this ‘Sicilian thing’ to an end. She acts like Gregory Peck in THE OMEN who decides to kill the Devil’s kid. It’s like Ethan Edwards thought of killing Debbie in THE SEARCHERS before her womb could be used to create more savage Red Braves who will attack more white folks. Control of women, especially young girls as they’re turning into women, has been crucial for the health and strength of civilization. The people of a race, clan, nation, or community come from the wombs of women, and so, ideally, young girls ought to grow into moral women who love their racial and cultural community and feel proud to produce and nurture babies who will become the future warriors and defenders of her race/clan/community. Thus, every civilization feels anxiety about their young girls being corrupted, seduced, or taken away by the enemies. This fear unites THE EXORCIST with TAXI DRIVER, and of course, TAXI DRIVER owes something to John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS where a white guy frets an awful lot about what’s gonna happen to the pooter of a white girl abducted by Comanche Indians. Pussy Politics is at the center of all these films. In one scene in THE EXORCIST, Regan mentions how she met some man atop a horse at the park and how he offered her a ride. It sounds innocent enough, but there’s a suggestion of sexuality in the girl riding a horse, especially since it was a male horse, and we know that horses naturally have mega-penises; incidentally, it was a ‘gelding’, a castrated male horse, which hints at the sexual tension in the film as Catholic priests are male but celibate, i.e. they must be human ‘geldings’, and indeed Father Karras is athletic — built like a boxer — but repressive of his sexuality; he might have been the inspiration for the ex-priest brother in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. There’s even a slight suggesting that he might be a fruiter in the scene where he momentarily grabs the arm of another priest but then lets go. [Sexuality has been seen as both the great prize and the great obstacle of man’s achievement and destiny. As the great prize since, as Tony Montana explained so eloquently in SCARFACE, a man of ambition seeks money to gain power to gain the woman. Indeed, the great incentive for gaining money and power is to gain a trophy wife or to bang a lot of ‘hot babes’. But, there is also the image of the woman as the destroyer of man of destiny. She tempts and lures him from his true or higher calling. In THE NATURAL with Robert Redford, the rising star is nearly killed by a femme fatale. In THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, Jesus must overcome his longing for wife and family to fulfill his true calling of saving the souls of humanity. In ROCKY, the trainer warns the Italian Stallion to stop fooling around because sex weakens the legs. In PAPER CHASE, Hart must choose between total devotion to the Law under Kingsfield or take things in stride and be happy with Kingsfield’s daughter.] It’s rather odd that the males who are most involved in Pussy Politics are men without women. The priests in THE EXORCIST are sworn to celibacy. Travis Bickle messed up his would-be-affair with Betsy, and Ethan of THE SEARCHERS had lost the woman he loved to his brother before losing her to the Indians who raped and murdered her. Thus, they are not trying to save their own daughters or their own women. And yet, they are utterly committed in their will to complete the ‘mission’. Why such passion for girls who are not even their own? To be sure, one could say Ethan kinda sees Debbie as his own girl since she is the daughter of the woman he loved and his brother. She is a blood relative. But what about the characters of THE EXORCIST and TAXI DRIVER? What personal relation do they have with the girls they are trying to save? None. [Paul Schrader, the writer of TAXI DRIVER, also wrote & directed HARD CORE with a somewhat similar story of a man trying to save his daughter from the sex industry. He assumes that his daughter was abducted by gangsters to be abused as a slave. But like Iris in TAXI DRIVER, it turns out that the daughter ran away and chose the life of a whore. Women are naturally whores, just like men are naturally the boing-ish creatures of Beavis-n-Butthead’s vision. So, why has it been so difficult for men to accept the truth about women throughout history? Part of the reason has to do with male possessiveness. A man wants to own and hold a woman to be his wife and the mother of his children. Therefore, men constructed cultures and values that forced men and especially women to act properly at the risk of severe punishment. The prevailing cultural norms created the false impression that men and women are naturally at odds with raw sexuality. Also, there is the factor of father-daughter relationship. While a man has powerful lusty feelings for young women, he feels differently about his own daughter whom he raised since birth. His affection for her is of a non-sexual nature, and he wants her to grow into someone decent and proper. This is why the father freaks out in OLD BOY upon discovering he used his own daughter like a whore. This is why fathers fret about their daughters in movies like FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE HEARTBREAK KID, and FOUR FRIENDS. Also, there is the power of myth. Possessed of imagination, there is a side to men — at least non-Negro men — that sees women as something other than skanky bitchass whores. So, the power of imagination has a way of idealizing women into what they are not. But in truth, women are whores and goddesses exist only in the imagination.] But paradoxically, their child-less-ness and family-less-ness could be the driving factor behind their zeal. Since Travis Bickle and the priests in THE EXORCIST don’t have blood relatives, they have conceptualized the civilizational ideal of the good girl who must be saved from the forces of chaos, especially if Devilish or Negro-ish. In the original screenplay of TAXI DRIVER, all the pimps were black, as indeed was the reality in NY at the time. And even though there are no black characters in THE EXORCIST, the story takes place in the Georgetown area of Washington D.C. at a time when Negroes were committing lots of crime all over. Also, the evil statue of the Devil we see in the film has a giant snake penis that is positively long-dong-silver-ish. And when Regan’s mouth turns potty, figuratively and literally, she speaks with the abandon of a skankass Negress. She become crazier than James Brown and turns into a one-girl Blaxploitation cinema. The struggle between the priests and the Devil-possessed girl is almost like the battle between choir-singing British soldiers and black savages chanting ‘jungle jive’ in 60s epic ZULU. Indeed, we are told that Father Merrin — played by Max Von Sydow — nearly lost his life exorcizing some Negro in Africa years ago. THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, directed by John Boorman, goes to the heart of black Africa to find the source of the funky-ass Devil. However, as vile and crazy as the Devil may be, he has one advantage, that of forthright vulgarity of someone like Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern, or Sarah Silverman. The priests in THE EXORCIST are noble and dignfied, but nobility and dignity could become articles of priggish vanity and repressiveness. Because the naked truth is often raw and ugly, we use the veil of codes and manners to uphold a semblance of order, and this is true of all civilizations, be they Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Zoroasterean, communist, etc. In no social order can people just say whatever’s on their mind, no matter how truthful it is. If a teacher enters a class and finds a particular student to be fat, ugly, and stupid, he can’t say, "You are one fat, stupid, and ugly girl." He would be seen as a cretin, the girl would be devastated, and other students would be very upset. So, teachers have to act dignified and proper. But, there are times when the truth must be said no matter how rude and disruptive it may be to conventions of peace and normality. We want to be ‘nice’, but nice-ness
only preserves the order; it doesn’t fix problems. A doctor who pretends all is fine with a seriously ill patient is being ‘nice’, but it won’t heal the sickness. If the disease requires a drastic and ‘rude’ treatment, the truth must be told if the patient is to survive. The downside of dignity, nobility, and propriety is that they necessarily come with built-in mechanics of inhibitions. It is difficult for one to seem or sound dignified if he is discussing ‘vulgar’ sexual matters. Thus, dignified people choose not to discuss certain ‘troublesome’ realities or they discuss them through technical jargon or neutral words. So, instead of ‘fuc*’, he or she might use the term ‘intercourse’. Or black thugs might be called ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. But when such words are used, they tend to miss out on the true nature of the reality. Since humans are emotional beings, much of what they do is charged with emotional content, and therefore, neutral language tends to miss the felt-essence of the act. So, if a Negro jumped on some ‘white boy’ and beat him up, the spirit of the incident would be something like, "I done whupped dat white boy’s ass real good and bust da mothafuc*a’s head open", but if it’s described as ‘young teen assaulted a white male’, it doesn’t get to the gist of what really happened. Human truth cannot be understood apart from human emotions, and human emotions are essentially ‘animal’ at the core. Also, there are many taboos surrounding many subjects, such as the issue of race for example. Because the worst possible thing is being called a ‘racist’ — after ‘anti-Semite’ — , people are very careful about speaking about racial matters. Thus, their PC inhibitions are activated when the topic of race is broached, and these inhibitions prevent or stifle honest discussion. Thus, if you wanna discuss certain matters honestly, you must first lose the inhibitions, and to do so, it sometimes helps to shift into vulgar mode. When I speak to my close friends — especially with politically incorrect liberal ones as there are some — about ‘sensitive’ topics, we regularly speak of ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘faggots’, ‘chinks’, ‘sand niggers’, ‘rednecks’, ‘white boys’, ‘stupid bitches’, ‘punks’, ‘Jesus freak’, ‘fatsos’, and etc., not necessarily out of disrespect for any of these groups but in the mutual understanding that it’s going to be a no-holds-barred and take-no-prisoners discussion that puts all the cards on the table. We hide nothing from each other and say it like it is. Dropping such inhibitions and using vulgar language allow us to speak more candidly about a whole host of issues, but of course, the world would be an unpleasant place if everyone were to publicly speak in such manner all the time. Rules change or should change in accordance to situations, which is why I don’t care for stuff like FAMILY GUY and HOWARD STERN. Vulgarity as a means to grease the discussion of troublesome topics is more justified than vulgarity for vulgarity’s sake. And of course, vulgarity can be used to tell lies as there are plenty of ignoramuses and devious lowlifes who hyperventilate and throw ugly fits to intimidate and threaten others into compliance. Think of Robert DeNiro as Al Capone in THE UNTOUCHABLES. Negroes speak a lot of vulgar crap but hardly make any sense. Jewesses like Sarah Silverman rant and scream all the time to project a false sense of liberty. Adam Sandler acts the clown to mask his lack of real talent — though he had his moments in HAPPY GILMORE and BILLY MADISON. Just because the snobby bourgeoisie perfumed their deceptions with dignified airs doesn’t mean that slobby vulgarians necessarily own the truth. In Peckinpah’s THE KILLER ELITE, the guy who speaks the plain truth is the stubby and grimy character played by Burt Young, but there are plenty of vulgar slobs mired in nothing but lies. Generally, you’re better off trusting a preening snob than a puerile slob. And what kind of ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ has Iris found in NY by ‘working’ as a twelve year old hooker who even ‘takes it up her ass’? Pauline Kael used to play the vulgar-truth-speaker act, but she was actually no more honest than the ‘dignified’ critics. Also, Camille Paglia is a prime example of someone who speaks frankly but still manages to spew so much bullshit. And Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are fat slobs posing as ‘man of the people’ who are no more truthful than the class snobs of Luis Bunuel’s THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE. So, even though vulgarity can be used to weaken inhibitions — like alcohol — to allow a more honest and candid mood for discussion, it can’t be, in and of itself, a guarantor of truth, because, if that were true, we would only need to listen to rappers, punkers, metal heads, and potty-mouthed standup comic for all the truth we need. It’s a fallacy to assume that just because vulgarity played a role in ferreting out the ugly truth of snobs putting on fancy airs, vulgarity itself is the very stuff of truth. But as our minds tend to work associatively — like the Pavlovian dog that identified the bell-sound with food — , we tend to confuse matters; this certainly happens with racial issues, e.g. because blacks had once been oppressed and struggled to achieve equal justice, it’s become an article of faith among white Liberals and even Conservatives that blackness = nobility, which is why conservatives pee in their pants when they have some ‘noble Negroes’ on their side. At any rate, the priests in THE EXORCIST are both at an advantage and disadvantage. Their advantage is the shield of order, cleanliness, and Faith/Truth against the Devil’s mud-slings of chaos, filth, and deception. But the Devil has one big advantage in having no qualms about fighting anyway he wants without principles or inhibitions, whereas the priests must stick to the holy ways of the Church.[With the rise of Reason and Science, religion can no longer claim the mantle of truth. There was a time when Faith and Truth were one and the same in a world where God was synonymous with the Cosmic Law. But as science won the battle of Truth, religion had to increasingly rely on Faith, and religion seemed more ignorant and superstitious, even stupid. If Faith is at odds with the Truth, which is best revealed by science, then isn’t Faith a kind of evil since it is a willful self-deception that denies the truth? Also, given the nature of power, is honesty necessarily a good? While honesty can be an advantage with those on one’s own side worthy of trust, it is a fatal disadvantage when practiced with the untrustworthy and/or the enemy camp? After all, the animal world and even plant world are all about deception. Predators use stealth. Prey animals use camouflage and ruse. A pig hiding in its den would be awful stupid to honesty blurt out to a tiger, "Hey, I’m hiding over here, oink." So, nature is all about deception since so much of life lives by devouring other forms of life. Subterfuge is the way of gaining food, the way to avoid becoming food. Hunter-gatherer societies and merchant-middlemen societies value the art of deception more since hunters must use stealth to ambush animals and since merchants must be smooth operators or skilled hagglers to buy and sell. It’s no wonder that Negroes of hunter-warrior background and Jews of middlemen-merchant background are the least trustworthy people in America. Human world, like the natural world, competes for power by the way of deception. Sports teams hide strategies from other teams. Corporations guard their secrets while stealing secrets of competitors. Financial investors use bluff and send mixed signals to gain advantages. Governments have ‘intelligence’ networks to secretly gather information and use ‘disinformation’ — a euphemism for lies — to fool other governments. Jews are expert liars not unlike the con-men of David Mamet’s plays and movies. Anyone who operates honestly with people like the Jews will be at an advantage. But selective honesty can be an effective weapon against the enemy. Liberal-Democrats Woodward and Bernstein exposed the truth about the Watergate coverup and brought down Richard Nixon. In the realm of power, honesty can be used as a weapon but never as a principle. As the Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything.] But there are, of course, other problems for the priests of THE EXORCIST. Order is related to reason, but Faith is the antithesis of reason. If we must have faith in God, how do we know if God is good or bad? Faith means we must believe in the goodness of God without question, but without questioning, how can we know? After all, the people in the USSR and Red China were told to have faith in Stalin or Mao. Winston Smith was told to have faith in Big Brother. And the Church, even as it stood for order & justice and faith in the perfect God, once used all sorts of horrific tortures that would have delighted the Devil himself. Though the priests in THE EXORCIST are humane and courageous, what about the fact that the Church used to burn women as ‘witches’ in the Middle Ages in the name of Faith? Was the Church correct back then in believing that certain women were witches possessed by demon spirits? In a way, the clergy could be seen as the cleaning ladies of God or gods. We see this in the film DHARM where a Hindu priest is ever so committed to purifying the souls and spaces of those around him as prescribed in the sacred Hindu texts. Temples and altars must be cleansed, and the soul must be washed, and this process is constant and ceaseless. It’s like companies hire cleaning crews to wipe and vacuum after each work day. The filth, grime, dust, oils, germs, and odors must be removed over and over. As the saying goes, "cleanliness is next to Godliness." Catholic priests must keep the Church clean and even make Holy Water. And men and women wear their best when they go to Church — as it is wrong to defile and befoul the House of God — , and their souls are cleansed and purified through Confession and ritual involving wine and wafers. Thus, the defilement of the Madonna statue in THE EXORCIST seems especially risible. It’s like having the Pussy Riot enter your church and act like dirty skank agents of World Jewry. But, the compulsive ritualism of purification can separate the priesthood from humanity. When Jesus sought to cleanse the sick and diseased, He went among the people and touched them, and they touched Him with their diseased hands. He got dirty along with them. He didn’t safeguard a clean pure place for Himself, but spread His Holiness among the poor, wretched, sick, gross, and smelly. But the Church Clergy have created a vaunted world of their own. Though they serve the Lord and perform cleansing rituals for the flock, they are cloistered in their own world. Instead of taking their purity to the people, they stay in clean environments and carry out perfunctory rituals that have lost even their symbolic value in the modern world. Thus, one could argue that the True Church is to be found outside the Church, and in this regard, THE EXORCIST has something in common with Martin Scorsese’s MEAN STREETS, the main character of which seeks, however foolhardily, his own way of absolution by wrestling with the everyday demons of the streets. ROCKY has the same appeal: a contender from the streets who fights for honest pride than hyped-up prize. The young Father Karras — Jason Miller — is confused because he works inside the Church as a councilor to other priests. His practice of Faith has become insular and cloistered. He begins to regain faith by meeting head on with filth, and there’s nothing filthier than the Devil in THE EXORCIST who even makes Regan defecate through her mouth. Like Jesus went among the lepers and others who were thought to be possessed by demon spirits, Father Karras takes it upon himself to take the work of the Church outside its walls to help a family of non-believers living in sin. And the Devil messes with his mind like the mysterious beings in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY mess with David Bowman’s mind. Only through a personal one-on-one struggle with the Devil outside the comfort zone of the Church can Karras regain his faith. But of course, it is an oversimplification of Evil. Paradoxically, greater the manifestation of Evil, easier it’d be identify and resist it. Even though the Devil in THE EXORCIST puts up one hell of a fight — he sure scared the living daylights out of countless viewers — and even manages to kill Father Merrin and cause the death of Father Karras, the sheer concentration of Evil in the body of a single girl made the fight rather convenient. This is the appeal of most Westerns where the vices and villainy of the Wild West are concentrated in a handful of ‘bad guys’, the dispatching of whom quickly restores sanity and order to the community. But what if the deeper problems of the West weren’t so concentrated in a few bad guys serving as magnets of all the evil? What if the problems of the West are more like in MAN FROM LARAMIE, BIG COUNTRY, ONE-EYED JACKS, or PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, troubled scenarios with no certain saints and villains, where no amount of gunplay can restore goodness that never existed in the first place. And this is why some people were upset with HIGH NOON where the problem wasn’t only the looming arrival of Frank Miller but the whole justice system that set him free and the townsfolk who, for reasons ranging from cowardice to opportunism, refuse to stand with the sheriff against the killers. Thus, killers of HIGH NOON don’t own evil; it also pervades among the ‘good folks’ of the town who don’t have the guts to do the right thing. [HIGH NOON has been interpreted as a commentary on the McCarthy Era when ‘good people’ didn’t do anything McCarthite paranoia, but this is rather odd considering that the ‘good progressives’ looked the other way when it came to mass-killer Stalin and his agents. Why didn’t they do anything about the communist threat? Given Fred Zinnemann’s Jewishness, HIGH NOON could also be seen as a commentary about how so many ‘good’ and ‘decent’ Germans failed to take a stand against Nazism. But why didn’t ‘good’ and ‘decent’ Jews stand up against the evils carried out by Jewish communists who killed millions before Hitler switched on his own mass-killing machine? And why were so many Jews silent about what was done to Palestinians? And why are Jews so silent and even supportive of the mass invasions that are sure to destroy Europe in the coming decades? Jews need to shut up.] Thus, there is positive evil and negative evil. Positive evil goes out of its way to be wicked and bad. In contrast, negative evil may not have an evil agenda of its own; it prefers stability and peace but, for that very reason, lacks the will to stand up to positive evil. Most of the townsfolk of HIGH NOON are not positively evil. They are decent folks who want to live in peace and safety. So, when push comes to shove and they must make a stand, they crawl inside their own holes because they prefer peace and security above all. Thus, the sheriff Will Kane has no choice but to make the stand on his own as the one true good man. Even so, one could argue there’s a kind of evil in his character too. Perhaps, evil is too strong a word. It’s more like sin. He has the sin of pride. Maybe it would have been better for everyone if he just rode out of town with his freshly-minted bride. But his pride forces him to take a stand even though it’s obvious that the town is undeserving of his heroism. Also, it’s possible that the new sheriff[soon to arrive in town] will maintain order in his own way, but for some reason, Will Kane thinks only he can do the job of dealing with Frank Miller and gang. As for Kane’s wife, she’s a good Quaker woman who doesn’t believe in violence, but one could say there’s an element of sin in her righteousness bordering on self-righteous, a kind of moral hubris. [Or maybe on the subconscious level, the reason why some women tend to abhor violence is the fear of seeing their own men defeated and humiliated. It’s like Adriane in ROCKY doesn’t want to see the fight because she fears her man’s brains are ‘gonna fly now’ when pummeled by the fearsome Negro. All women want to be with winner men. They prefer that their men beat other men. But men often lose, and the humiliation of the men rubs off on the women. Imagine how white women felt when Jack Johnson knocked out Jim Jeffries. Well, at least back then, most white women identified with the fallen white hero. Today, if a Negro beats up and humiliates a white guy, the deracinated white girl weaned on political correctness and rap music laughs at the fallen white boy, throws herself at the Negro, and uses her womb to produce a mulatto kid for the Negro winner. White race has become a total disgrace, and of course, Jews are loving it because they want whites to be psychologically and physically destroyed. The black male victory over white males is doubly humiliating. On the individual level, the white guy gets whupped by the black guy, and the black guy gets the white girls. But there is shame on the collective level as well. If a white guy loses to another white guy, at least some white guy is still the winner. So, while an individual white guy lost, white race as a whole still won because the champ is still a white guy. But when whites lose to blacks, they lose individually and collectively. And when white guys lose pride, they also lose their women who shut off their wombs to white men and reserve them only for Negroes.] If Will Kane is stubbornly prideful, she is stubbornly principled, but there are times when one must be more flexible. Maybe Kane should have rode out of town with her. Maybe she should have stood by his side. Anyway, even though the bad guys are killed at the end, the morality of the tale is not resolved. The town is still inhabited with decent folks who lack courage and honor — they are infected with negative evil — to resist positive evil. And despite defending his pride, the sheriff went through all that trouble for an undeserving town; and he nearly got his wife killed in the bargain. Also, she has to violate her Quaker principles and kill someone. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. In a way, as horrible as the confrontation between the priests and the Devil is, it is a copout since it plays on the gimmick that Evil can be concentrated in a young girl’s body and that an exorcism is a blow against Evil itself. But all it does is distract us from the intransigent and incorrigible evils all around us. After all, as difficult and hazardous as the task is, it is at least doable. The Devil can somehow be removed from the girl like a sick organ from a patient. If the sole reason for the sickness is an ailing organ, the patient can be saved by healing the organ or replacing it with a healthy one. But what if a sick person is diseased throughout the body? Removing the sick liver won’t save him or her since the entire body is diseased. And the world is a body that is diseased from head to toe, with all sorts of problems and evils all around. When Damien Karras visited the mental hospital, he saw psychologically disturbed patients everywhere, and he knew nothing could be done about them. And such people number in the millions all over the world. So, how convenient for THE EXORCIST to concoct a story about a girl possessed by the Devil? By thus concentrating or magnetizing the evils of the world in the body and soul of a single girl, we can believe that an epic battle of good and evil is about to take place in a bedroom[though perhaps one could make a metaphoric case that the bedroom is most appropriate since the ultimate battle of civilization involves control over sexuality]. And of course, there was such rhetoric during WWII with the notion of the ‘Good War’ where Good guys were battling the Evil guys. Though one could make a convincing case that the Allies were better than the Axis powers, it was far from a simple conflict between Good and Evil. And the end of the war hardly ended evil around the world, and evil is still everywhere and will be around as long as life exists, especially as Jews, homos, and Negroes have so much power. There is no simple Narrative or perfect Idea that can explain the world in terms of good and evil, though Negroes come pretty close to monopolizing the worst kind of evil. [‘White guilt’ pertaining to black slavery is foolish and misguided. Suppose a community captured the Devil and used him as slave for a spell. Suppose the community came to feel sorry for what they did to the Devil and developed a sense of collective guilt. Since the Devil suffered at their hands, they begin to see the Devil as angel incarnate. But the Devil is still the Devil, and once freed, he will do devilish things. The Negro is a savage being whose soul was molded by 100,000s yrs of wild evolution in hot, dangerous, and diseased Africa. While some blacks are sane, intelligent, and responsible, too many of them have the Jafro DNA that makes them ill-suited for civilization. But the cult of ‘white guilt’ makes white people see Negroes as eternal saints. Perhaps more troubling is the cult of ‘white guilty pleasure’ that makes white boys worship Negro athletes and white girls lust for Negro studs. White race is addicted to Negroes for spiritual and sensual reasons, and that will be the downfall of the white race.] Because moral issues are rarely simple or clear-cut, some are tempted to think in terms of Beyond Good and Evil, like with the characters in Alfred Hitchcock’s dinner mystery THE ROPE, a film that might have influenced EXTERMINATING ANGEL and THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE. And there was certainly a disdain for conventional morality in Adolf Hitler whose world-view obsessed about beauty vs ugliness, superior vs inferior, and will-to-power vs will-to-cower. The fallacy of nihilism derives from dispensing with the whole of morality because of the failure of moral simplicity. It’s like throwing the baby out with the bath-water. But moral simplicity is very much a problem in our world, and it may even unwittingly lead to a kind of nihilism because true-believers who are so righteous in their beliefs are convinced that any means are justified to achieve ‘noble’ ends. Such nihilism exists in the logic of THE EXORCIST too: Since the movie is about good defeating evil, ANYTHING is justified in graphic gore and sensationalism. There is something hoary and bogus about THE EXORCIST, the moral and spiritual dynamics of which is manipulative and simplistic as a means of offering escapism from the real world with all its real problems that cannot be solved by charged displays of epic holiness. Yet, what makes the film partly self-subversive or auto-subversive is the way in Friedkin’s direction slyly suggests that the whole thing is a crock of bull. On the surface, it is a very earnest, serious, and straightforward movie about Evil rearing its ugly head and being challenged by saintly priests sacrificing their lives to save a girl’s body and soul — it’s hard to tell which is which in the movie. And yet, scratch the surface, and there’s a sense that Friedkin was screaming, "This is total baloney, and I’m just doing it for thrills." As I haven’t read the novel and have no idea how closely Friedkin stuck to William Blatty’s screenplay, I’m not sure who was responsible for what, but much in the film, especially in its first hour[and in the choice of music], suggests that evil lurks, crawls, and cringles everywhere we walk and in the air we breathe. Even smiling nuns in windblown garb walking past the actress-mother has an air of something strange and sinister. Thus, the movie’s notion that Evil can be met head-on in epic fashion contradicts with how images and sounds are used throughout. Besides, in the end the priests hardly fixed the world any more than Joe Buck in MIDNIGHT COWBOY did anything to alter New York despite the realization & rejection of his wasteful, sinful, and stupid ways. The girl is saved in THE EXORCIST, but how does it change the world which abounds in evil? Some evils are plain to see for most peoples around the world regardless of faith or culture. Most people of most cultures know that stealing is wrong; the lowly Gypsies and ghastly Negroes might disagree, but thievery may be in their DNA. But some ‘evils’ are defined culturally. THE EXORCIST begins in northern Iraq, an Arab-Muslim nation. From the Christian viewpoint, Muhammad was a false prophet, and thus an agent of Evil. Though Friedkin didn’t present Arabs as particularly barbaric, there is a sense of something sickly and wicked in the opening scene amidst the archaeological excavations of ancient ruins. The Muslim workers seem backward, crude, and gargoyle-like. The land seems parched and dry, inhospitable and cursed; the scene might have inspired the opening scene of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS in the dry Mexican desert and may have even inspired a bit of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, much of which is set in dry Near East and has something to do with supernatural forces. While William Friedkin was recycling shopworn ideas, the stark brutalism and ruthless efficiency of his electro-charged treatment surely influenced younger directors like Spielberg and Lucas, and in this sense, Friedkin, instead of Coppola, should be seen as the real godfather of New Cinema. The bedraggled Arabs, most likely working for a pittance and ignorant of their history & culture, seem like emaciated figures without souls living under false faith and social repression. And given that Iraq is thought to be where Eden and the earlier civilizations were located, there’s a sense of Evil emanating from the very beginning of mankind. The movie begins with stark and barren reminder of the Fall. Also, the archaeological digs uncover ancient idols, and according to Abrahamic religions, idolatry is sinful. One might say the practice of archaeology itself is a kind of sin or evil since it disturbs the burial grounds of the dead, and indeed, Father Merrin is frightened by the discovery of certain artifacts from the pit. One is a figurine of the Devil, and the other seems to be coin or medal of saintliness. It’s like good and evil are always inseparable and side-by-side, in the ancient world as in the modern world, because Evil stalks the Good, and the Good hunts the Evil. [But coin also symbolizes money, so there is the sense that worldly ‘good’ is inherently corrupt in and of itself because of its compromises with material reality.] Good and Evil are like the two men entangled in fight in Ridley Scott’s THE DUELLISTS. We also sense sinfulness in the poverty of the region and in the ‘exploitation’ of the workers who do the back-breaking labor at the site. We also see men with rifles, implying a society dominated by repressive military rule. Friedkin’s handling of the first scene is masterly. Initially, we think it’s just another day at an archaeological site, like how Sam Neill and Laura Dern are introduced in JURASSIC PARK. But as Merrin inspects the figurine of the Devil, there’s a subtle shift in tone. Friedkin restrains from overt use of music or visual effects. Instead, by focusing on Merrin’s facial expressions and belabored movement of workers who dig on[into the bowels of hell?], there’s a grave sense of shift in cosmic balance unbeknownst to anyone but Merrin who, for reasons of biography, is targeted by the Devil for another battle of wills. There’s a strange sense that everything remains the same yet has been altered. It’s the same place with Arab laborers going about their daily work and routines, but Merrin senses something that no one else does, indeed something he can’t discuss lest others think him crazy. Merrin feels it’s no accident that the figurine appeared at this particular site. Just as he, the good priest, had devoted his life to fighting the Good Fight, the Devil stalks him for a rematch, preferably in the capital of United States, the most powerful nation in the world. This probably explains why the Devil foresaw that Merrin would return to the United States. It could be the reason why the Devil possesses some girl in Georgetown to lure Merrin there. That Max Von Sydow was cast in the role of Father Merrin probably owes to his association with Ingmar Bergman, some of whose earlier films dealt with the subject of God and [loss of]Faith. Consider films like WINTER LIGHT and THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, a story of a mentally ill daughter convinced of her connection to spirits or God that turns out to be a spider. And a year before THE EXORCIST, Bergman made CRIES AND WHISPERS with some creepy gothic elements — THE SERPENT’S EGG and FANNY AND ALEXANDER that came later, along with THE MAGICIAN from the 1950s, suggest Bergman would have made a good horror director. Of course, one difference is that Bergman was working as an artist — personal searcher of truth — , whereas Friedkin was [over]loading his movie with anything for maximum effect. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bergman, likes him or not, he belonged to esteemed group of European art film-makers expressing their deeply held convictions and anxieties aboutd themselves and/or humanity as a whole. Friedkin was never quite the artist in that vein. If he were, he’d never had the success of THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST. Friedkin was an astute admirer and student of European cinema whose appropriated its ‘truths’ with the myth-making of the Hollywood genre. For his international renown in Bergman films, Sydow was also cast as Jesus in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD by George Stevens. Though the whole concept of THE EXORCIST is ludicrous, even offensive, the artistry on so many levels is amazing, and Sydow, in a rather shoddy role, pulled off a magnificent performance, all the more amazing since he was only 42 at the time. Sydow is undoubtedly one of the great actors of film history but may have received fewer accolades than other major actors because he was overshadowed by the reputations of directors he worked for. Also, he never had the big persona of, say, Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, James Stewart, or Toshiro Mifune. Sydow’s greatness revealed itself patiently and gradually, like the honest work of a craftsman. He didn’t bloom like a flower but grew sturdy like a tree. His acting style carefully chiseled off a bit here, a bit there, and so on until a form of exceptional quality emerged. And he had a voice like a creaking door that neither flung open or slammed shut. I can’t think of another actor who could have done Merrin better. The acting is excellent all around in THE EXORCIST, and Friedkin deserves much credit for his uncanny knack of unearthing startling possibilities from the material. Friedkin worked like the Heinrich Schliemann[the discoverer of Ancient Troy]of cinema. Of course, quality of the screenplay has been a decisive factor in Friedkin’s inspiration as a director. When working with confused, incomplete, or lousy screenplays, he didn’t know what to do with his actors, however talented they may be. Undoubtedly, some critics were offended by the casting of Sydow as a short cut to ‘art film’ status. And they may have balked at the overly ‘serious’ tone of the movie, basic material of which is hokum. But, it was to Friedkin’s credit as film-maker — even if discredit as charlatan — that he was able to pull everything together in so original and powerful manner. For whatever reason, Friedkin refused to treat the material like a cheapie horror show and instead poured his heart and soul into it, though we will never really know why. Of course, the studio was worried about all the effort Friedkin was putting into the movie. Movie executives figured a reasonably scary movie made out of the best-selling novel would increase cash flow. They didn’t think some demon-possession story could be made ‘artistic’, just like the studio executives behind THE GODFATHER didn’t believe gangster movie could be made as an ‘art film’. Even so, because THE GODFATHER is also a family drama than merely a crime flick, Hollywood could understand its ambition to be something on the scale of David Lean. But why would a director expend so much time, money, and effort on some horror story about demon possession? The production problems that dogged THE EXORCIST anticipated the troubles between Spielberg and the studio over JAWS. Hollywood couldn’t understand why a hot young director was being so perfectionist with a movie about dumb killer shark. How much could be done with such material about a big shark chomping off arms and legs of tourists? And yet, through THE EXORCIST and JAWS, Friedkin and Spielberg demonstrated that even the silliest or trashiest material can be transformed into something ‘great’ by cinematic genius and wizardry. Trash could turn out to be treasure, not just commercially but critically. This led to a revolution and reevaluation in Hollywood’s thinking. While Hollywood had been about entertainment from its very beginning, the truly big production values and film-making talent were directed at prestigious projects like GONE WITH THE WIND, BEN-HUR, and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. There had been many profitable horror movies and animal-attack movies, but they’d mostly been relegated to B-movie productions. If you wanted respect in the industry, you made historical epics, serious dramas, or literary adaptations. If you wanted to make stuff like THE EXORCIST or JAWS, you were better off contacting Roger Corman or one of the lesser studios specializing in low-budget movies that could be profitable even from lower grosses. And yet, Spielberg poured just as much time and energy into JAWS as John Huston had done with MOBY DICK. If Huston’s madness seemed redeemable given that he was adapting the Great American Novel, Spielberg obsession with a pulp novel about a killer shark seemed insipidly indulgent. And yet, upon release, THE EXORCIST and JAWS astounded the audience with their total transformation of ‘trash’ into powerful cinema. Perhaps, Friedkin’s achievement was trickier and more demanding for he had to balance the serious with the sensational, whereas JAWS is essentially an action movie. Both movie viscerally work on the emotions and senses, but THE EXORCIST does have an element of psychology and even narrative complexity in the contradictory layering of plot and details. At first glance, it would appear that a perfectly wonderful and happy relationship between a mother and daughter is torn apart by the intrusion of demonic force, but actually, hints of evil are everywhere even before the trouble starts, scattered like leaves by the wind. But they are so much a part of our mundane existence that we fail to detect the ‘Fallen’-ness — traceable to the Exile from Eden of Adam and Eve — inherent in all the things in the world. It’s like signs of madness are already there, albeit undetected, before the patient goes fully schizophrenic. Evils can be sensed even among the decent characters, even in moments when everything seems to be fine and dandy, merrily and gently. Of course, troubled soul of Father Merrin is aware of this. Upon inspecting the figurine of the Devil or Demon, his sixth sense is acutely tuned to the wickedness all around him. It’s like he has a stethoscope to the hearts of those around him. He can smell it in the winds, see it in the dirt. He could also sense it in himself for he is not without fear and anxiety, the seeds of betrayal, as when Peter denied Jesus three times. He knows that Evil is ineradicable, at least in the world of man, and that doing battle with the Devil is mortal combat[but worse than the danger of losing one’s life is the danger of losing one’s soul in this battle]; we learn later that he almost died in an epic exorcism he undertook a decade ago in Africa. He takes nitroglycerin tablets to fend off heart attack, and we can tell his nerves are shot[not unlike those of the drivers transporting nitro-explosives in THE SORCERER, the remake of THE WAGES OF FEAR]. His awareness of the banality of evil makes him more attuned to the nature of man — he senses the incubations of evil before they turn into full-blown fevers — , but it also fills him with despair and loathing, thereby clouding his judgment. At one point, he is almost run over by a carriage as he obsesses over the near-inevitability of another life-and-death struggle with the Devil. It’s like a champion being called out of retirement to fight a newcomer. It’s like Jim Jeffries returned to the ring to face off against the ghastly black beast Jack Johnson, the hero of Cuck-Ken Burn or CucKen Burns. As the story moves from Iraq to Georgetown, the camera zooms in on an affluent house rented by a famous actress and her daughter. The ‘rented-ness’ suggests rootlessness. The actress, played by Ellen Burstyn, is obviously successful and wealthy, as she has a coterie of servants and aids. All seems well in her life, but it gradually dawns on us that much of her life is a lie and a betrayal. It looks like a happy family, but the woman is separated from her husband who doesn’t even call her daughter on her birthday. And even though the mother and daughter seem to love one another, the mother is more like a friend than a real parent. Loving as she is, she is remiss in her parental authority and duties. [She is too casual and permissive with her daughter, like the father of Jenny in LOVE STORY, and we know how Jenny ended up in that movie.] Also, the girl is doted like a princess while the servants are sometimes treated callously and insensitively by the mother, rather amusing since she, perhaps partly modeled on Jane Fonda, seems to be one of those bleeding-heart ‘progressive’ types. She talks the talk of equality but walks the walk of royalty. She is working on a political movie — ‘kinda like the Walt Disney version of the Ho Chi Minh story’ as she describes it — , but much about it seems phony. She doesn’t believe in the hokey script that, she admits, is shot with plot holes. And the director is a cynical alcoholic and something of a self-righteous bully. He doesn’t seem to believe in the material either and treats it like hack work. In the location shooting, we see the woman — her name is Chris MacNeil — giving a political speech among fired up students — who are actors putting on an act or maybe students recruited to mouth slogans — , and the emotions reach fever pitch. But then, it’s just people acting on a movie set. It’s fake, a lie, an illusion of spontaneity created through rehearsal and retakes. The ‘political’ movie being made seems like just another cheap attempt to cash in on the youth market. Also, the students and the woman sound self-righteous and holier-than-thou as they shout platitudes, and, course, pride is a sin, even or especially if it is manifested in the form of moral narcissism. One gets the sense that the radical students are ‘full of themselves’. The woman’s role in the scene comes across as contradictory. She seems to be with the students and against the students. She sympathize with whatever they are protesting against but argues that it will do no good to shut down classes since real change must come from within the system. She sounds like someone who wants to have it both ways. And yet, what she says could apply to the story as a whole, if only in the sense that if we must confront evil, it must begin with the evil within each of our souls. It’s too easy to accuse others of evil while pretending to be innocent lambs — indeed, this is the ugliness of something like Black Lives Matter movement whereas ghastly, violent, and disgusting blacks pretend to be saints while hollering about white folks as the source of all problems. We are all tainted with the Original Sin, at least in the sense that our human nature, as shaped by millions of years of evolution, made us innately capable of deception, betrayal, cheating, murdering, raping, robbing, and other nasty stuff; indeed our very survival depended on the mastery of such unsavoriness; a tiger without fangs and claws is a starving tiger, a cobra without venom is a starving snake. One of the biggest problems of Jews and blacks is that they possess so much wickedness in their hearts but act as if they’re perfect lambs and dastardly dump all the blame on everyone else, as if only the white folks, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, and Chinese are capable of evil. Chris MacNeil is not a bad person, but she is far from a saint. Though a caring mother, she’s too easy on her kid who seems to have gotten pretty much everything she wanted — except what really counts, like having both father and mother devoted to one another and to their child. Her worst quality is the accusatory tone that emerges whenever she’s angry. Even though doctors try their utmost to help her daughter, she flies into a rage and screams at them as if it’s their fault. At one point, she also acts that way with Father Karras. Though her frustration is understandable, she acts like others should have all the answers to solve her problems. Though an adult woman, she throws tantrums like a little princess. She flies off the handle and screams at the operator when the latter is unable to connect the phone call to her husband on Regan’s 12th birthday. Though a famous liberal movie actress associated with all the correct ‘causes’, she expects the world to serve her needs. She generally doesn’t treat people around her badly, but she’s often callous and unfeeling. Her film director friend Burke, an alcoholic — who is British and may also be Jewish — , seems witty and charming but is also a nasty boor. He masks his bullying nature with righteous rhetoric. He accuses the servant Karl of being a Nazi criminal, and given Karl’s violent reaction, perhaps there’s a kernel of truth to the charge. If Burke is part-Jewish, one can understand the hostility, but he seems to get a kick out of needling people. Whatever Karl may or may not have done during WWII, Burke’s venom mostly seems sadistic. He sounds like an anti-Nazi Jewish Nazi. And given Britain’s long history of its own ‘historical crimes’ against other peoples, do Anglos really have a right to judge the Germans who entered the game of empire only much later? We don’t know much about Karl, but there is an irksome sense that he’s hiding something, possibly something terrible. Then, there’s Father Dyer, a friend of Father Karras and a kind of bridge between the Church and the trendy social set. Though likable and charming, there’s something false and superficial about him. The need for clergymen to rub shoulders with people of influence is understandable, but Dyer fits too smoothly like a glove at Chris MacNeil’s party. For a priest committed to serving the Lord and humanity, he’s a natural schmoozer among the celebrities and the affluent. If he weren’t a man of the cloth, his demeanor would hardly be objectionable, but such worldliness is unbecoming in a man of God. He sings and putzes around the piano and cracks jokes like a comedian. Later when he meets up with his friend Karras, we learn he stole a bottle of Chivas Regal. Though Dyer says he took it from the college president who shouldn’t be drinking, maybe he lifted it from the party. His rationalizations sound harmless, and yet, stealing is stealing, a sin, and to rationalize a sin is also a sin. Dyer is not a bad man by any means, but his role as priest seems professional than personal. He’s rather the like the Frank Ford character in PAPER CHASE who treats Law as a tradition & profession than a higher calling, as with the case with Hart who reveres Professor Kingsfield[who turns out to be like an intellectual Archie Bunker to Hart’s Meathead]. Dyer comes across as too eager-to-please with the famous and privileged. On the other hand, he seems better adjusted to the Church than Father Karras is. Paradoxically, even though Karras is the more sincere & dedicated priest, it’s his seriousness that drives a wedge between himself and the Church. He’s acutely aware and distressed by the problems of the world — the poverty, disease, ugliness, putridness, lies, and etc. — and, as priest, wants to do good by his fellow man, but he’s burdened by the realization that there isn’t much he, or even the Church, can do to save anyone, let alone the world. The Fallen-ness pervades every corner of the world regardless of what he or the Church does. Karras feels that being a priest is, at best, about offering false reassurance than real cures. It’s like being a doctor who cannot save the patient but can just hold his hand and offer consolation. Father Dyer is more accepting of things are they are: the Church can only do so much, and the world will always be filled with problems, so why not meet some nice people and attend parties once in awhile and even lift a bottle of Chivas Regal from folks who can afford to lose a bottle or two? Thus, a pinch of cynicism makes the imperfect system more bearable. Also, Dyer, in being more forgiving of himself, is also more forgiving of others. This is as much a virtue as a vice. True believers expect more from the system and will always be disappointed, rather like Martin Luther who turned against the Catholic Church for its compromises. If you lack purity of devotion, you can better accept a world of compromises, lies, and hypocrisies. But if you’re a true believer, every blemish may trigger either an onset of crisis of faith or doubling down on the dogma. In the Middle Ages, the purists could purge and punish those deemed deviant and wicked, like what Strelnikov does in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO; they could thus feel empowered. But in the modern West, the purists have no such authority and must simply bear the decay growing all around, like Travis Bickle does in TAXI DRIVER, that is until he finally explodes and takes decisive action — like in THE EXORCIST, the message seems to be, "If you can’t save the world, at least save a single person." It is then not surprising that some of the most ardent leftists become the most ardent rightists or vice versa. Dyer is less serious but more at peace with the Church. Karras is more serious but more at odds with the Church. For Dyer, the Church is a job, a vocation, and a way of diplomacy. He lives like a lubricant. If Dyer were homo, he would use K-Y jelly. Karras, if homo, would want it stiff and straight with all the pain. For Karras, the Church is supposed to provide the answer, but he finds himself losing faith because the Church cannot save the world and because he, as the psychiatric counselor to the priests, cannot provide them with the answers they need. Karras feels that he sounds cursory and unconvincing, like OMM in THX 1138 who mutters the same salutations over and over: "You are a true believer, blessings of the State, blessings of the masses. Work hard, increase production, prevent accidents and be happy". And his life feels like a charade since, he, a man losing faith, is supposed to buoy up the faith of others. It’s like a drowning man in the role of life-saver. Also, he feels caught between a rock and a hard place. His choice of priesthood obviously made his traditionalist Greek mother proud, but a priest, living a life defined by vow of poverty, cannot afford much. So, when his mother gets sick and is put in a third-rate hospital and then dies alone in her apartment, Karras is filled with doubt and guilt. Like his uncle says, maybe he could have been a rich psychiatrist outside the Church and could have afforded nice things for his mother. His duty to God prevented him from providing for his mother as a good son should, especially from the viewpoint of a traditional Greek family. On the other hand, if he’d chosen the career path and made good money, he couldn’t have been the good man devoted to God. It’s like the world is ordained to be a case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t. There are many other examples in the movie of the difficulty of discerning what is good and what is evil in the world. [In this sense, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES is the more interesting movie because good and evil are treated as a duality than a dichotomy. Angel is in the devil, and devil is in the angel.] Also, it is part of human nature to grow oblivious to grim reality, and so, people become almost unawares to the evil around them. Consider the international scandal about how a child in China was hit by a car, but most passers-by did nothing to help the kid. Or consider the amount of animal cruelty in China. Chinese society and history have been so cruel for so long that a kind of banality of cruelty has crept into the Chinese DNA. It’s the civilization that used to ‘bind’ women’s feet for many centuries. Of course, there are evils in the West that we are blind to as well. In some cases, the horror is well-hidden. For instance, when people think of pork, they think of bacon or a slab of ribs. They don’t connect those images with the horrible hogocaust where innocent pigs are killed by the millions to satiate the hampires, ham-vampires, of the world. But not all the evils of society are hidden. We know that many parts of America are dangerous because of Negro violence, but we’ve become so accustomed to this fact that we just accept as a fact of modern life, something we can do nothing about. [To be sure, for white folks without direct experience of Negroes, the reality of black savagery is hidden from them by the media that either under-report black crime or promote the image of the Magic Negro. Worse, the entertainment media may hype black savagery as devilishly fun, cool, and badass, thus worthy of mindless worship. If Islam demands worship of Allah and if Homomania demands worship of sodomites, Negromania demands worship of blacks.] There is something naturally vile about the Negro that makes too many blacks act like Trayvon Martin, Mike Tyson, Michael Brown, and other thugs. But we are forced to remain silent about the natural nastiness of blacks because of the history of white social repression of blacks. Now, it is irrefutable that the Atlantic Slave Trade was a great evil. True, black Africans captured and sold the Negro slaves, but whites did their part in it. In the end, one evil begat yet another evil. The evil of slavery let to ‘white guilt’, and then ‘white guilt’ led to the evil of white silence on the truth about black savagery. Fearful and guilt-ridden whites — or whites inculcated with ‘white guilt’ by the Jew-run media and academia — choose to believe the lie that black awfulness is the product of slavery and oppression when, in fact, the core nature of black nastiness evolved during the 100,000s years of existence in sub-Saharan Africa. To be sure, what we call black ‘evil’ is more like a vileness than true evil. Though there are evil-minded blacks, many blacks just act the way they do because of their nature. It’s like badgers and wolverines are nasty because of the way they are. Besides, the absence of Negroes doesn’t guarantee truth and justice. Some of the most politically correct and pro-Negro places on Earth have little or no Negroes. Indeed, lack of Negro vileness in one’s community can lead to another kind of evil: the evil of willful ignorance and holier-than-thou naivete. While ignorance itself isn’t evil, willful ignorance is a kind of evil, a kind of anti-faith on the matter of truth. To be sure, the willful ignorance about the true nature of the Negro in nations like Sweden and Vermont owes to the Jewish-domination of the media. Though there are many decent Jews, Jews pose the greatest evil threat against the white race. If Gypsies are content to pickpocket money & trinkets from whites, Jews wanna rob whites of their entire souls and bodies. Jews seek to carve out the hearts and lobotomize the minds of all white gentiles. They are the modern Shylocks of society. Anyway, we must be vigilant against evil but also be aware of how vigilance can lead to yet more evils. We can make the mistake of seeing ALL Jews as wicked when only the majority are. Also, making alliances is often a form of evil, even if a necessary evil, because one must ally with dark forces to fight yet darker forces. After communists had killed millions of Christian Slavs and murdered/raped priests and nuns in the Spanish Civil War, the Catholic Church naturally sided with Fascists and even tolerated National Socialism as the bulwark against Godless communism. But Nazism turned out to be even more deranged than Stalinism. US sided with deranged Mao of Red China against the USSR during the Cold War, which goes to show that sometimes alliances are made with bigger evil against the bigger power. [Indeed, power is the weight of evil. Thus, an extreme evil with little power has less weight than moderate evil with lots of power. Indeed, consider how Jews consider Putin’s Russia to be a greater evil because Russia is a major power. Putin is infinitely more moderate than the Neo-Nazi extremists in Ukraine, but Jews side with the Neo-Nazis against Russia because Russia has more power. So, if the US sided with dark forces against darker forces during WWII, the current US sides with darker forces with less power against less dark forces with greater power. But then, who is the US to judge when, as a nation dominated by Jewish supremacists oligarchs, it has become the main purveyor of evil in the world since the end of the Cold War?] In the 60s and 70s, USSR was a far saner place than Red China, but Nixon decided to side with China since USSR was the much bigger power. Throughout history, even spiritual institutions and figures have had to form alliances or seek the protection of temporal powers, and for this reason, spirituality was bound to divide into ‘organized religion’[associated with the corrupting demands of power] and purism of personal faith. But then, purism is no guarantee of higher truth for it rejects too many facets of the real world and fosters a sense of holier-than-thou insularity, and indeed, some of the most dangerous figures rose not from the ranks of organized religion but from the hearts of fanaticism. And all forms of purism, in their conviction of higher truth, seek to organize a new army and fight the good fight, thus laying the groundwork for just another organized institution burdened with new compromises. Purism also has a way of attracting its own demons. The celibacy demanded of Catholic priests has been like ball-binding. Physically, it’s not as gross as the traditional practice of Chinese foot-binding, but one can imagine what it must be like for young men — and even older men for that matter — to JUST SAY NO to sex. To the extent that Catholic priests are supposed to be the cleaning crew of Christian Faith trusted with purification rites and rituals, one can theoretically understand the need for celibacy among priests. It’s like the surgeon must be as sterilized before opening up someone’s body. As the cleanser of the illness of the patient, he must be careful not to infect the organs he is trying to cure. Similarly, since the priest is supposed to offer spiritual cleansing of worldly sins among the faithful, he himself must be purified of the temptations of the flesh. As theory, it makes good sense, and if in practice, a man can control his balls from producing any more sperm, it might be doable. But it doesn’t work that way. Despite the effort of the priest, the body continues to produce the sperm, and the sperm seeks release — just like women go through menstrual cycles. The Catholic Church believes that wine and wafers turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus in the stomachs of those partaking in Communion but fails to acknowledge the problem of spermic congestion within the testicles of priests. Thus, the Church has failed to attract many healthy men and has instead recruited a lot of repressed homos or, worse, devious homos who cynically enter the Church to change it from the inside into ‘gay’ haven. The Church’s insistence on purity has made it less pure and even attracts forces of Evil. THE EXORCIST, at least as directed by Friedkin, seems to be aware of these contradictions even though the story, at least on the surface, pushes the Catholicist hardline that purity of goodness can confront and overcome the darkest Evil. To be sure, it’s a weird work because the book was written by a Catholic but directed by a maverick Jewish liberal who was none too politically correct. Indeed, it’s interesting how Friedkin the Jewish liberal made a string of films that upset a lot of liberals. THE FRENCH CONNECTION was decried as ‘fascist’ by some. CRUISING was attacked as ‘anti-gay’ and ‘paranoid’, and TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. has some nasty black characters and a corrupt ‘civil liberties’ lawyer — the guy who gets shot in the crotch — who’s into the drug/counterfeit business. Similarly, Don Siegel, a liberal Jew, offended some people with DIRTY HARRY. It’s interesting how so much of early 70s American cinema came from right-wing or tribalist sources, even if most of them were directed by liberals. Consider THE GODFATHER’s source in Mario Puzo. Puzo was no card-carrying conservative, but his novel was an unapologetic celebration of Sicilian-American tribalism. John Milius worked on scripts ranging from DIRTY HARRY to JEREMIAH JOHNSON and was the conceptual source of APOCALYPSE NOW. Blatty’s Catholicism in THE EXORCIST seems as far-out as Mel Gibson’s in PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Paul Schrader was seen by some as a ‘racist’ and ‘extreme right-winger’, and he supplied the script of TAXI DRIVER. Though Ken Kesey was no conservative, his libertarian streak was an affront to liberalism in movies like SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION and ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. Perhaps, liberal directors were drawn to these ‘right-wing’, libertarian, maverick, or tribal sources because they had more meat than the save-the-world do-goody tripe produced by liberal writers. Indeed, even as Robert Altman mocked the country music capital in NASHVILLE, he was also admiring of its warmth, charm, and sense of community. It’s a satire that ultimately falls in love with the thing it is satirizing. And in THE LAST DETAIL, the macho navy guys seem more authentic than the hippie/counterculture people that they meet. And even though PAPER CHASE ends with disillusion, it is about the carrying the torch of tradition as exemplified by Professor Kingsfield. And the most compelling scene in FIVE EASY PIECES is when Jack Nicholson’s character tries to come to terms with father. The film is also devoid of Liberal illusions about people. The working class buddy of Nicholson’s character is hardly a saintly prole. The lesbian hippie hitchhikers turn out to be pain in the ass. The liberal psycho-analyst is full of psychobabble. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE critiqued youth rebellion and the Rationalist State, and STRAW DOGS explored the sexual and territorial aspects of human nature. Even the so-called counterculture M*A*S*H wallowed in all sorts of humor that would be condemned as ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ today. [To be sure, much of the charge of ‘sexism’ by feminists is essentially a war by ugly girls on sexy girls. Sexy girls want to look good to attract men’s attention, but ugly girls would have us believe that sexy girls are ‘forced’ to dress and act that way at the behest of male chauvinist pigs, or even by patriarchy, when in fact, patriarchy is about the control of female sexuality. Since ugly girls don’t want to admit their envy of sexy girls, they pretend to be protecting the sexy girls from exploitation by evil men in the name of Sisterhood. The rise of ugly sex symbols such as Lena Dunham spilled the beans on the true angst of feminism. The rage wasn’t so much about sexy-women-as-victims-of-male-chauvinism but ugly-girls-feeling-envious-of-girls-who-attract-men’s-attention. Back when society was less permissive and deviant, the sexy women had a decisive advantage over the ugly ones. Merely with a suggestive smile or sway of the hips, the sexy girl could attract the attention of men. Ugly girls could not compete in this climate. But in our porn-gone-mainstream world, ugly girls can act like total skanky whores and thereby attract male attention since young males are so raging in hormones that many of them will screw just about anything that blares out "my pooter wants you". It’s like farm boys will even hump sheep, so why wouldn’t young men hump a pig like Dunham?] I suspect Friedkin was well-aware of all these contradictions when he made THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST. Though it would be a stretch to say that either film is truly auto-subversive, there is a sense of the co-mingling of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as a wedding party in hell. Popeye Doyle, in his fanaticism to get the Bad Guy, does questionable things and even ends up killing a fellow detective, his second killing of a cop. He becomes ‘possessed’. Similarly, Father Karras, in his fight against the Devil, becomes sort-of-devilish himself as he finally grabs the girl and starts pummeling her with his fists[as if he’s Rocky Graziano with someone watching over him], only to become Devil-possessed himself, a spell he is able to break only by leaping out the window and falling down a flight of stairs — kinda like reverse stairway to heaven. In doing so, one could say he sacrifices his own life for the girl, but one could also say it’s a form of suicide, which is a mortal sin according to Christianity. Is there a clear dividing line between sacrificing one’s life for someone else and suicide? Though THE EXORCIST makes us root for the priests against the Devil, there’s a sense that Good and Evil have a mutual death wish in the other’s embrace. It’s like the Good has to seek out Evil to kill it even at the risk of killing itself, and vice versa. Good and Evil cannot remain apart since without Evil, there is no Good, and without Good, there is no Evil. But Good and Evil can never co-exist and must be enemies sworn to destroy one another. Of course, in the real world, good and evil are scattered everywhere, but spiritually it is difficult to compromise one with the other since spiritualism is inherently an idealism and/or utopianism that strives for perfection. In this sense, there’s a kind of parallel between what happens with Regan and what happened with Jesus. They serve as magnets of the world’s evils. Of course, Jesus didn’t need an exorcist since He Himself was the exorcist of the world’s sins. Through His suffering He sought to absorb the sins of mankind, and through His death He sought to save the souls of mankind. Though Regan remains clueless, her body and soul attracts the satanic filth of the world, and her exorcism serves as an inspiration for moviegoers around the world. Of course, the death & Resurrection of Jesus didn’t do anything to end evil in the world, and the make-believe fantasy about Devil-in-Regan was just that, a fantasy. Such narratives offer escapism, like super-hero comic books. For a distraught child, bullies pick on him at school, his parents may treat him badly or ignore him, his neighborhood could be a den of crooks and meanies, and he could be saddled with health problems. But through the fantasy of comic book super-heroes, he can feel better by losing himself in a fantasy universe where good and evil are magnetized as stark opposites. Thus, the super power of goodness is concentrated in the Hero and the super power of evil is concentrated in the Villain. Thus, if the Hero beats the Villain, there’s a sense of triumph of goodness and restoration of justice in the world. Superheroes are especially appealing to young white kids since sports has so long been dominated by nasty blacks. There’s also social therapy in the whiteness of the villains. In reality, the toughest thugs and criminals are black. Though thugs aren’t loved, they are admired for their badass power, and this explains the popularity of gangsta rap among many middle class white kids. They may not like black crime, but they are enthralled by displays of masterful and villainous black power. And blacks kick white butt in professional sports, thereby pussifying white male psychology. But as the top villains in super-hero stories are white, one can believe that Power is white, even if evil. The sight of white villains in DARK KNIGHT RISES destroying the football field and making hapless Negro athletes "run like a mothafuc*a" must have been satisfying to a whole bunch of white guys. Good or bad, white power terrifies the Negroes. The Superhero movie has become the staple of current Hollywood culture, and no film has delved so thoughtfully into its psychology as M. Night Shyamalan’s UNBREAKABLE, especially in the ironic way he uses the race issue to ferret out the hidden meanings in the myth. [If the conventional narrative of the super-hero myth is about longing for a messianic figure to defeat evil, the Samuel Jackson as Mr. Glass longs for a super-hero to highlight the grand-evil. While the narrative is set up so that the Good Guy does prevail over the Bad Guy, who is none other than Mr. Glass hisself, the real triumph belongs to Mr. Glass. For starters, Mr. Glass as the Bad Guy fooled the Good Guy to the very end, with the Good Guy discovering the truth only because the Bad Guy revealed himself. Also, the Bad Guy wanted more than power and notoriety. He wanted own a sense of tragedy. We see him as driven to evil as cosmic revenge against his frailty and weakness. In his confession, we learn he wasn’t about evil-for-evil’s-sake. He wanted to prove his worth as a wit and visionary, even if in the role of villain. The Good Guy may be stronger, but the Bad Guy is smarter. Also, being smarter, Mr. Glass is both Good Guy and Bad Guy. He uses his wits to help the Good Guy catch the Good Guy. In a way, all artists are like Mr. Glass since they must empathize with both the Good and the Bad. Evil is equalizer of power. To gain power by positive achievement, one must be intelligent, disciplined, healthy, strong, talented, and/or beautiful. But most people are not cut out for fame or great things. Unable to be great, they can try to be good, but good is boring and doesn’t lead to power. It can, at best, lead to a measure of prosperity and security. In contrast, even a total nobody can feel the power through evil. Lee Harvey Oswald and others like him changed history by assassinating important figures. A serial killer can have the power of life-and-death over his victims. This is why Chigurh of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is so terrifying. By resorting to evil, even the biggest loser can be a little Hitler, little Stalin, little Idi Amin, or little Madeline Albright. Though powerful men can be evil, evil is the easiest path to power for powerless nobodies. This is why gangster movies have lasting appeal. Even nobodies become somebodies in gangland fantasies. But evil against mere humanity is putrid. This is why we feel nothing but loathing for serial-killers. For evil to gain epic scope, it has to go up against greatness. An evil person captured by the police is just another lowlife killer. Consider the despicable abductor in THE ROOM. But the evildoer who is brought down by the super-hero can claim to be a grand villain. So, in a way, the super-hero of UNBREAKABLE is the myth of the good conceived to highlight and magnify the ego of the bad. No matter how good or bad, the true worth of someone or something can only be etched in contrast to a great challenge. If Joe Frazier only beat up old ladies, he would be remembered as a thug. It’s his epic battles with the best boxers of the era that made him a titan.] Reality is, of course, no super-hero tale. There is no concentration of good versus concentration of evil, though a town full of Negroes comes close to the latter. Good and evil are strewn and scattered all around, and politics is more a matter of power than right or wrong. Indeed, Jews use the democratic system to pit ‘super candidates’ like Obama and Romney against one another when the real power is with the Jews themselves who pull the puppet-and-purse-strings. Strings in politics is money, and Jews have lots of money. Jews have also a web of connections that allow them to coordinate their pulling of strings. It’s like the Sierra Club used to be against mass immigration as a hazard to environmentalism. But once a billionaire Jew dangled lots of money before the Sierra Club, its stance on mass immigration changed almost immediately. That’s how the strings are pulled by Jewish puppet-masters, but then, anyone who calls out on this will be smeared as an ‘anti-Semite’. How can Jews so easily manipulate public opinion? It’s because they hold the strings in the mass media. They own the media and choose the sock-puppets of Jewish power. The tentacles of Jewish power reach into every corner of power in America. It is especially prevalent in elite institutions and big industries, but Jewish power has also penetrated populist organizations that, given their core convictions and values, should be counter-Jewish since most Jews are Liberal and anti-white. As it stands, even populist Christian Right organizations are permeated with Zioinst influence and therefore spend an inordinate time & energy serving Jewish interests. Even the white nationalist organization American Renaissance is pretty mum about the role of Jews in the white downfall. Though maybe 1% of Jews have a favorable view of American Renaissance, it maintains a friendly stance toward the Jewish community. Indeed, one of the great advantages of Jewish power is its adaptability and profitableness. Though Hollywood Jews surely didn’t agree with the message of THE EXORCIST, they figured they on raking in the profits. As long as the money comes to the Jews, the real power is with them. It’s like Jewish retailers have reaped mega-profits from the Christmas season business. Jews may despise Christmas, but at least the money flows to them. While the ‘right-wing’ dummy masses get the fantasy of power and righteousness, the real power flows to the Jews in the form of box office receipts. Also, as long as a movie isn’t overtly anti-Jewish, why worry? While THE EXORCIST is pro-Catholic, it says nothing bad about Jews, and it even has a likable Jewish detective hanging around the margins. PASSION OF THE CHRIST upset the Jewish community because it had some nasty Jews, but if it had featured only Romans as the ‘bad guys’, Hollywood Jews would surely have had no problem with it. It’s like Jews bitch about black rappers saying ‘antisemitic’ things but have no qualms about blacks using violent language and thuggery against other groups, especially white gentiles. Though Jews tend to fret about right-wing stuff that appeals to whites, they still peddle that stuff to rake in massive profits AS LONG AS it doesn’t vilify Jews and their domestic allies such as homos and Negroes, and this explains why most ‘right-wing’ Hollywood movies target foreign enemies like Muslims, Russians, Chinese, Albanians, Latin American drug dealers, or neo-Nazi Nordics. The rule is that Liberal Hollywood movies can vilify American conservatives, but ‘conservative’ Hollywood film must only vilify foreign enemies, especially those disliked by Jews; thus, even most of ‘right-wing’ Hollywood films serve Jewish interests. Zack Snyder’s 300, for instance, can be seen as Neocon war porn. Though it is Jews who are the cancerous tumor to white America, dumb white Conservatives think US is on the verge of being invaded by Russkies, Chechens, North Koreans, Palestinians, ‘Muzzies’, and the like. American Conservatives — most of them anyway — are dumb and easily manipulated like the audience for Jerry Springer whose shtick is to pit white goy against white goy and have white goyim cheer on the ‘white trash’ gladiators. Jews boil down every conservative argument as being about ‘evil white male interest’, but white male conservatives wet their pants in fright of accidentally criticizing Jewish power, thereby being accused of ‘antisemitism’ and being banished from respectable society forever. According to Jews, every conservative or libertarian argument is bogus and is really about ‘white privilege’. Now, if Jews argue this way, white conservatives should argue that every Liberal or Progressive argument is really a specious ploy of Jewish supremacists. But of course, since Jews control the media, the terminology, and the terms of the debate, Jews can vilify American Conservatism as being ‘too white and male’, but conservatives cannot counter-vilify Liberalism as ‘too Jewish and Homo’. But, things have gotten so bad that conservatives must grow a pair and fire back. For this to happen, they must coordinate a full frontal assault. In war, if one bunch of troops attack on their own, they will be easily destroyed and rendered ineffectual. Similarly, if isolated conservatives speak out against Jewish power as individuals, they’ll be shot down one by one. But if a whole bunch of white conservatives speak out against Jewish power in unity, Jews will have to reckon with a new powerful dynamics in politics, the awakened and arisen beast of white unity. Similarly, if a whole array of forces attack in battle, the other side will reel from and be deluged by overwhelming power. Jason Richwine alone couldn’t do much. And a few isolated defenses of him from conservative quarters couldn’t amount to much either. But suppose a whole bunch of conservatives had stood up for Richwine and called out for Jennifer Rubin’s head. Things might have been different. Jews would have peed in their pants at this sudden surge of white power. Whites need the surge against the Jewish purge. Mao said political power grows out of the barrel of the gun, but the real key to success is the coordination of the charge. Napoleon didn’t shoot one cannon at a time. He coordinated the cannons to shoot massive volleys in rapid succession. American conservatism lacks coordination, largely out of fear of Jews. As things are getting desperate for white power, white conservatives must grow defiant and shoot back at Jews with relentless volleys that never stop. When Jews fire at you, fire back and keep firing and firing and firing, just like sum such as Tim Wise, David Sirota, and Harold Meyerson never let up on their anti-white barrage. Hate the hideous Jews as much as they hate you, and you know in your heart — if you’re honest — that the likes of Matt Yglesias and even so-called neocon Jennifer Rubin feel nothing but contempt for you. They wanna rule over you and control you like you’re cattle. And it’s about time white conservatives stop obliging the Jews since Jews have done nothing for conservatives while conservatives bent over backwards to please Wall Street Jews, Las Vegas Jews, and Zionist Israeli Jews. The rule is JATE, or Jews Are The Enemy. Anyway, despite its unabashed Catholicism, THE EXORCIST is somewhat auto-subversive in its pornographics. The early 70s was a heady time when the Zeitgeist was fervently debating the legality of hardcore porn movies. ACLU and most liberal Jews were for the legalization of hardcore porn films while Catholic conservatives were adamantly opposed. Jews won on the basis of First Amendment, and pornography filled movie screens all over big cities, especially as this was before the advent of the VCR. The legalization of porn made it more difficult for religious conservatives to maintain ‘decent’ lifestyles. When porn had been difficult to make or access, it was easier to resist it since it was out-of-reach for most people. But once porn became easily accessible through the price of a movie ticket, even religious conservatives found themselves going ‘boing’, like Jimmy Swaggert in the 1980s. Some things, if made available, appeals only to those who believe in it and want it. But certain other things, if made available, tempts even those who may be morally or culturally opposed to it. It’s like sugary stuff is appealing even to those who believe in maintaining a healthy diet. For someone like Paul Schrader, porn was especially disturbing since his strict religious upbringing led him to regard all movies, even G-rated ones, as the work of the Devil. If even BAMBI was heady stuff for Schrader, one wonders what went through his mind — and other bodily organs — when he watched the first porn. THE EXORCIST is interesting as a work of anti-porn pornography. Maybe Blatty was feeling similar inner tensions. If Schrader eventually let go of Faith and searched for his own existential truth, Blatty seems to have clung to or returned to Faith but only by turning it into a kind of counter-porn pornography. There is a scene where the possessed Regan takes a Crucifix and inserts it into her vagina and then says, "Fuc* me, Fuc* me". It’s ugly and gross, hardly a sexual turn-on, but there’s a quasi-pornographic quality to the sheer excess. If porn tries to turn people onto sex, THE EXORCIST tries to turn people off to sex by depicting sexuality in the form of a deranged pubescent girl puking all over the place, farting through her mouth, and speaking in the ugliest voice imaginable. It’s like rubbing the dog’s nose in its own feces. Some anti-rape groups teach women to puke and piss — and maybe even shit — in order to turn off the would-be rapist, and THE EXORCIST works with a similar principle. It suggests that pubescence infects young girls with whore fever. Thus, young women must be guarded from temptations and led down a virtuous path of true love and matrimony. [Indeed, consider what happened to Emma Sulkowicz who was weaned on permissive pop culture of open sexuality. If Regan levitated over her bed, Sulkowicz dragged her bed all over the campus like a possessed witch. And if Regan’s mother was shocked by her daughter’s degenerate behavior, Sulkowicz’s mother praised Sulkowicz’s quasi-porn movie about rape. We live in strange times when feminist puritanism and pornographic excess co-exist side by side. A shameless young woman makes a porn as ‘art project’ that supposedly teaches us something about ‘rape culture’.] Of course, such moralism is thought to be ‘deviant’ by today’s Liberal mainstream standards, which is why so many film critics were shocked and even offended that TWILIGHT SAGA revolved around courtship before marriage and sex, though, to be sure, Bella’s passion for Edward is disturbingly amoral since she will love him EVEN IF he did feed on humans; her love for his beauty blinds her to his nature. THE EXORCIST is the anti-LOLITA. This twelve year old pukes and shits all over. But the grossness of THE EXORCIST is different from the grossness of rape-prevention techniques in one crucial way. A woman who pukes or pees when attacked by a rapist is trying to turn him off, but the possessed Regan acts gross to be wantonly sexual. She says ‘Fuc* me’ while puking, belching, and ‘farting’ at the same time. In the ODYSSEY, the Sirens use lovely music to lure men to shipwreck. And there are certain flowers that lure insects with their color and fragrance. Indeed, if Evil is clever, shouldn’t it seduce and tempt priests with something alluring, thus luring them into a trap. This is what happens in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. The Devil fools Jesus twice in the film. In one scene, Jesus thinks the fruits have been placed before him by God, but they are the blood-drenched apples of the Devil. Later, Satan lures Jesus with the promise of happy family life, but Jesus breaks out of that spell as well. In contrast, the Devil in THE EXORCIST seems to be rather witless as he goes out of his way to be ugly and hideous. Only once does he try to fool Damien by pretending to be Damien’s mother. Otherwise, the Devil acts like Jabba the Hutt or Sam Kinison with a massive hangover puking all over the place. An Evil so blatant can certainly be powerful, but it reveals itself for what it is and has lost the element of surprise. [It would have been interesting if the mother contacted the media instead of the Church. One wonders what the devil-possessed Regan would have said to reporters. Maybe Regan could have done battle with the Star Child of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.] It’s like Mike Tyson could be formidable thug in the streets, but everyone saw him for what he was: a no good punk. He was someone to avoid. In contrast, someone like Obama is far more dangerous because he plays the Nice Negro with a smile, thus fooling white people that racial peace and harmony are possible with Negroes. Hitler too was far less dangerous in the mode of a ranting nut. He was far more dangerous when he began to play the game of politics and diplomacy, thus fooling people in his rise to power. Similarly, ‘conservative’ Jews may be more dangerous than nasty Liberal ones like Tim Wise who can’t resist spewing their anti-white venom. But, it’s the ‘conservative’ Jews, the neocons, who fool white conservatives with the ridiculous notion that the Jewish community could be won over to the conservative side IF conservatives just grovel a bit more to Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Israel. Whores like Charles Murray and Walter Russell Mead fall for this con-trick, but then, GOP is a den full of whores? Despite its puritanical anti-porn message, THE EXORCIST had one thing in common with porn. It almost got the X-rating and pushed the boundaries of cinematic sexuality and violence, therefore, wittingly or unwittingly, aiding and abetting the devilishly libertine/permissive forces in popular culture. To what extent Friedkin was aware of this, we can only guess, but he was no dummy. He probably snickered as a sneaky Jew slipping pornographism through the facade of puritanism. Of course, William Blatty was also something of a dubious figure. Despite the overt moralism of his story, it has sensationalism written all over it, and one can’t help feeling that Blatty was no less ‘greedy’ for success & money with his pulp spirituality than Mario Puzo was with his gangster family saga. THE GODFATHER pretends to be a sober portrait of a mafia family, but it’s essentially an exercise of "give em what they want", and THE EXORCIST was a case of "you can have the cake and eat it too." It was wafer and wine as cake and cola. It was about Faith prevailing over filth, but it was like bikini-clad mud-wrestling. It was holy unholiness, and most critics, detractors and defenders alike, caught onto this right away. John Simon and Pauline Kael condemned it on these terms, while Stanley Kauffmann and Roger Ebert, while admitting its sensationalism, praised it for its electrifying effects. Other than gore and putridity, some critics were put off by the movie’s pretensions of being something more than gross-out horror. Rarely had such ‘trashy’ material been made with such production values and artistry, partly inspired by the European cinema of Bergman, Dreyer, and Bresson. Perversely, the movie had devilish fun fighting the Devil, turning spiritual conflict into a roller coaster ride. But there was also the solemnity, as when Merrin and Karras ritualistically proceed up the stairs to face their antagonist. Of course, it’s rather stupid for the Devil to act so obviously disgusting when Evil is more effective as harm-behind-the-charm. If one really wants do harm and gain control over others, the better way is that of the devious general in PATHS OF GLORY or Ziegler in EYES WIDE SHUT. It’s better to act like the 666 guy in THE OMEN movies, which, though awful, are interesting as strategic advancement of evil. Consider how the 666 kid creates all the trouble, but everyone tries to protect him, perceived as an innocent child, from the very harm that he causes. In a way, it’s like the relation between Jews and American conservatives. Jews do the most harm to conservatives, but conservatives try to save the Jews from this harm caused by Jews and directed at conservatives. So, Jews put Obama in the White House, but Conservative try to protect Jews from the ‘stealth Muslim’ and ‘socialist’ Obama. Jews must be laughing at white Conservative dummies. Anyway, why does the Devil act so obviously loutish in THE EXORCIST. He, via Regan, is so hideous and disgusting that he couldn’t sell a used car to a blind man. Perhaps, the movie was conveying the point that Evil at its core is ugly, vile, putrid, disgusting, hideous, and gross. It is Evil unmasked. It’s like military propaganda may lure young men with images of dashing heroism, glory, and high adventure, but the reality of war is sickening beyond belief. When the American Civil War began, many Americans thought of honor and principles. Even women arrived at the first battles with picnic baskets to watch the event like it was some kind of a sports match. But when the firing began, everyone began to shit, even literally. THE EXORCIST shows us Hardcore Evil without the facade. Behind the falsely noble image of the mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse[in GREEN MILE] is the real Negro who would love to hump white women and even rape white men in prison. Behind the false image of the hapless Jew as eternal Holocaust victim is the hideous Jew who connives and conspires to gain control over the world. Behind the mask of communism’s illusion of workers’ paradise were the gulag, mass executions, and statist slavery. Behind Nazism’s cult of beauty and mission of defending Civilization were psychopaths like Hitler and Himmler, opportunists like Goering and Goebbels, and, of course, the death camps and the machinery of statist slavery that devoured millions of lives. But then, every good could only be achieved with the bad. For there to be America as city on a hill, the native wildlife and American Indians had to be destroyed. For WWII to be won by the Allies, the ‘good guys’ had to commit ‘necessary evils’. For Karras to finally defeat the Devil’s possession of Regan, he must lose self-control, pummel Regan with his fists like a madman, and finally take possession of the Devil himself before hurling himself out the window. Since Good and Evil are so intricately intertwined, we can only win skirmishes but never the war. Indeed, Good and Evil almost never fight wars as it’s rarely true one side that is purely good goes against another side that is pure evil. In most wars, both sides think they’re in the right and the other side is wrong. Even Catholics and Protestants who worshiped the same God slaughtered one another without mercy. There are rare times when the world seems locked in a life-and-death struggle between epic good vs epic evil, and World War II was one such conflict, especially as Nazism, at least in its imperialist and radical racist fever stage, was so utterly vile, but Stalin was no saint and America too had been created through imperialism and race-ism, albeit one not as virulent as the National Socialist kind. Also, even though Jews were the great victims of the Holocaust, anti-Jewish sentiments were understandable since so many Jews had acted vilely and murderously in the USSR where they, as communists, killed millions of Christian Slavs. Through finance capitalism and cultural subversion, Jews undermined the racial and cultural integrity of Europe. Jews always bitch and whine about antisemitism, but if the Christian/gentile West was so bad for Jews, why didn’t they just pack up and move back to the Middle East and rejoin their Semitic brethren, be they fellow Jews or Arabs? Christians didn’t force Jews to remain in Europe, and if anything, Christians encouraged Jews to just get the hell out. It was the Jews who continued to mill around Europe instead of going back to the Middle East whence they sprung. Even so, Hitler’s maniacal nature did make WWII seem like the a holy war between Good and Evil, though, to be sure, plenty of good men fought for evil Nazi Germany and plenty of bad men fought on the side of Allies. Then, it was unsurprising that the end of the war was almost immediately followed by the epic struggle between the Free West and the Communist world. But again, there were decent men and women in the communist world and some real kooky anti-communists in the West. But then, there were also liberals in the West who were blind to the true nature of communism, even apologizing for its failures and crimes. Unfortunately, many such ‘fellow travelers’ were, in many respects, intelligent and conscientious men. No ideology is pure evil. There were some good things about communism[as well as real achievements], just as there were many fine features in National Socialism, which, shorn of its radical racism, could have been one of the great ideologies of the 20th century. Hitler could have been the Kemal Ataturk or Lee Kuan Yew of Germany instead of its Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. Had he waged war on Russia without the poison of radical racism, he could have been Germany’s Alexander the Great or Napoleon. But the combination of radical racism and toxic personality drove him to madness. There is good and evil to be found everywhere and in all times, but they are unevenly scattered. It’s like there’s corruption everywhere, but one society could have more corrupt individuals than another society. Today, the main mass conflict between good and evil is between white folks and Jews. Though there are plenty of bad white folks and plenty of good Jews, it’s an undeniable fact that the great majority of Jews are committed to a globalist policy of Jewish supremacism, especially in the West, the center of world industry, technology, and finance. Jews know that controlling the West is key to controlling the rest. And the rise of Russia, China, and India is useful to Jews in fooling whites in the West that the main threat to them comes from ‘foreigners’ when, in fact, the greatest danger to the white race are the Jews. While Russians, Chinese, and Indians — as well as Brazilians and Iranians — needed to be watched closely, the real power driving the white race to mass destruction is that of Jewish supremacists who promote PC terminology to castrate and/or lobotomize the part of white soul that seeks survival, security, and pride. Thus, Jews play on ‘racist’ memes over and over and over, as if white people are ‘possessed’ by some evil spirit that must forever be exorcized. In this light, I wonder if William Friedkin conceived of THE EXORCIST not so much as a tale of Christian triumph as of Jewish power. In the movie, the mother Chris MacNeil tries to help her daughter by consulting doctors and psychiatrists. As a modern woman, she goes for the rationalist approach. Doctors check her body, but they can’t find anything wrong with her. They do cat-scans on her brains, but there’s no sign of lesions. Then, a psychiatrist takes over and gets punched in the groin and falls like the detective down a flight of stairs in PSYCHO. Regan obviously has mental issues — why else would a twelve year old girl assault the crotch of a shrink? — , but the psychiatrist can’t make head or tails out of her condition either. So, if the rational sciences cannot get to the root of Regan’s ailment, what is to be done? This is when the mother decides to call in the Catholic priests to exorcize her daughter. Similarly, Jews have been trying to understand why white goyim have felt and acted as they’ve done, especially in relation to Jews. They’ve been using medicine and psychology to study and understand the nature of white goy ‘paranoia’ and ‘irrational antisemitism’, but all such rationalist methods failed to permanently cure the problem. Once the treatment ends, white gentiles could very well return to being ‘antisemitic’. Of course, we know why white goyim have been ‘paranoid’ and ‘antisemitic’ through the years. It’s because Jews, with their higher IQ, have been gaining decisive power over white goyim in white nations. Most people don’t like to be ruled by ‘alien minorities’. If Israel were 2% Mexican and if Mexican-Israelis had the kind of power in Israel that Jews have in America, Israeli Jews would surely take drastic measures to limit Mexican-Israeli power. Also, many Jews looked different[due to their Semitic origins], thus standing as a race apart. If Jews were smart and attractive[by European standards], white goyim would have minded less being bossed around by Jews. But when hairy, hook-nosed, and nebbish Jews gained power over white goyim, whites felt owned by an alien and hostile people. Just as bigger and stronger blacks don’t like it when a ‘faggotyass white boy’ be telling them what to do, white goyim didn’t want to be pushed around by people who looked like Woody Allen and Alan Deroshowitz. Also, Jews, far from being kind and gentle, have had a long history of being nasty, pushy, contemptuous, aggressive, and devious. This owed to Jewish ethno-religion that regarded goyim as less worthy in the eyes of God but also to Jewish business culture that rewarded pushy, devious, and sociopathic personalities. Indeed, Jews have long celebrated the art of outwitting the dimwit goyim. The Jewish narrative would have us believe that humor has been central to the Jewish experience since Jew needed laughter as as a form of therapy amidst all the suffering, but Jewish humor often served as a vehicle of contempt for the dumb goyim. It’s like Ziegler in EYES WIDE SHUT has a sense of humor, but it reeks of, "I’m smarter and can run circles around you." Jewish narrative contextualizes everything in terms of Jewish victim-hood, but much of Jewishness has been about hatred, derision, and contempt for non-Jews. The true nature of the Jewish soul can be seen in figures such as Jerry Springer, Woody Allen, Albert Brooks, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Jewish pornographers, and dirty Jewish Hollywood studio bosses who made countless shikse goyesses swallow literally thousands of gallons of Jewish cum. The likes of Harold Meyerson, Jennifer Rubin, Tim Wise, and David Sirota are filled with paranoia, venom, hatred, superiority complex, and vengefulness, yet these dirty Jews act like they’re so sane and rational, qualified morally and professionally to ‘probe’ and ‘diagnose’ the sick souls of white goyim still racked with ‘dark’ impulses. It’s like the scumbag Stephen J. Gould spun lies to push radical anti-racism and resorted to all sorts of bullying tactics in collusion with the Jewish-controlled media, but his reputation is still protected while honest academics like Jason Richwine cannot even get a gig at a Conservative institution! New York Times drily and obligatorily reported on the revelation of Gould’s falsehoods but without condemnation and judgment, and the false prophet is still quoted by many pundits and activists as the fount of wisdom. When legend becomes fact, print the legend. Anyway, the ‘rationalist’ approach to root out ‘antisemitism’ and white goy ‘paranoia’ failed time and time again, and so Jews resorted to the ‘spiritual’ witch-doctoring method of exorcism. Since Jews don’t believe in Christianity, how could they effectively exorcize white goyim? Through the power of popular culture and education based on scare-tactics. Much of modern education is a form of hysterical ‘conscious-raising’, a modern form of witchcraft designed to hunt witches. Instead of helping students to think and analyze matters on their own, their minds are filled with a vision of a demon-possessed world where these evils called ‘white privilege’, ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘homophobia’ haunt peoples and places everywhere. Students are not encouraged to question the meaning or veracity of these terms. They must accept their meanings at face value. Thus, if someone uses ‘gay’ as a slur, he is being HOMOPHOBIC. If someone objectively and correctly says that black crime is especially problematic because blacks are physically stronger and more aggressive, the observation is not to be discussed but condemned and silenced. If Paula Deen muttered ‘nigger’ thirty years ago after being robbed by a jaffer, she must be hounded until she is totally disgraced. If you are not for ‘gay marriage’, you must be sick in the head with ‘homophobia’. If you point out that fecal penetration performed by homos is gross, YOU are the mentally sick one. If you notice and remark that Jews have great power in the media or that Jews are NOT victims in the US, you will get the Mark Sanchez treatment. And if you dare anything negative or critical about MLK, you must be shunned as this evil creature called a ‘racist’. It’s no wonder that supposedly rational, skeptical, and secular students at Oberlin flipped out because someone reported a KKK sighting. Thus, political correctness pushed by Jews and neo-puritanical white ‘progressive’ wasps is really a form of exorcism. And of course, many movies and TV shows are inherently manipulative on subliminal and subconscious levels. SCHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYANS are forms of exorcism performed on white goyim. They combine truths with half-truths and outright lies, but the visceral and emotional impacts are so powerful that the audience members traumatized into ‘belief’, just like Jesus freaks frighten little children into faith in God. It’s a Jewish version of Dante’s Inferno. SCHINDLER’S LIST says noble is the goy who save Jewish lives, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN says blessed are the goyim who fight and die to save Jews. [Though SPR is ostensibly about American soldiers risking life and limb to save an All-American boy, the larger context is really about how ‘good’ goyim must lose life and limb to save Jews. But if WWII was really about saving Jews from radical Nazi evil, recent wars have been about SERVING, not saving, Jews. We live in a world of Serving Master Schwarz.] Therefore, even though the beginning of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is as hellish as THE EXORCIST, we are ultimately led to feel it was worth it since the only way for whites to be ‘good’ is by losing life and limb to kill ‘bad’ whites[and lately ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘bad’ Russians]. And Steven Spielberg feels the same way about the American Civil War, which for many Jews is analogous to WWII. The Civil War narrative says ‘good’ whites had to fight and die to kill and defeat the ‘evil’ whites to free the Noble Blacks, and the WWII narrative says ‘good’ whites had to fight and defeat ‘evil’ whites to save the Holy Jews. In other words, blacks are all good and Jews are all good, indeed innately so. They are born with holy souls and need to prove nothing. But whites have both goodness and evil in their souls, and the evil side constantly threatens to destroy the good side, and so, the white soul must be constantly be exorcized of evil. Of course, slavery in the American South was an injustice[especially to the future generations of whites who’d be burdened with the black problem], and only a lunatic would make an excuse for the Holocaust, but the moral dynamics was never as simple as Jews would have us believe. Though blacks should have been freed in the South, it was also evil to integrate whites with the stronger, nastier, more aggressive, and less intelligent blacks. It would have led to black males humiliating and pussifying white males and dominating white females. Far from racial equality, the result can only lead to black biological domination over whites. And though Hitler’s crimes were inexcusable, it was hardly irrational to dislike or even hate Jews infected with so much hatred, contempt, and ugliness themselves. Though extreme antisemitism that blames Jews for everything or defames everything about Jews as wicked is indeed irrational, no less sick is extreme philosemitism that is utterly and willfully blind to all the vileness and nastiness that emanates from Jewish life, thought, and power. There’s no reason to hate the Jew just to hate the Jew, but there is every right to hate the Jew who hates you. It’s like there was no reason to hate Japanese just to hate the Japanese before or after WWII, but there was every reason to hate the Japanese when Pearl Harbor was attacked, and there was every reason to be wary of the Japanese in the 1980s when they were making arrogant statements about how they were so much better than Americans. If Japanese don’t hate you, don’t hate the Japanese. But if the Japanese hate you, hate them back. The same logic applies to the Jews. If Jews don’t hate you, don’t hate them. But if Jews hate you, hate them back. Such an attitude is only rational, but in our irrational philosemitic order, even conservatives who are despised by Jews go out on a limb to worship and love Jews. Indeed, Jews are not even interested in the term ‘liberal’ anymore. Some people think Liberals feel uneasy about the term because it fell out of favor with the failures of the Democratic Party, but in truth, Jews have been working to replace with ‘liberal’ with ‘progressive’ as ‘liberal’ gives the lie to their true nature. To be liberal means to be open-minded, tolerant, liberty-oriented, and individualist. And when Jews needed to protect their civil liberties in the 50s and 60s, they were indeed all for liberalism. But now that Jews have near-total lock on elite power in top institutions of media, academia, and government, they find that liberalism — in its true meaning — has a way of protecting the ideas and speech of ‘homophobes’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘racists’, and ‘anti-Semites’. Of course, Zionism isn’t ‘racism’ according to Jews since Jews, being so holy as eternal Holocaust victims, can commit ethnic cleansing and apartheid in the name of preventing another holocaust against them. Thus, everything Jews tell white people not to do, Jews can do themselves. But when Jews to act illiberal and push political correctness under the banner of ‘liberal’, they feel kinda hypocritical and phony; so, the new preferred term is ‘progressive’, implying that any measure, even if illiberal and censorious, is justified in furthering PROGRESS. So, pushy Jews are now pushing for ‘progress’ than championing liberty. [It’d be most accurate to call Jews the ‘pushies’.] But since Jews like to be associated with liberty as well, they promote raw sewage violence and sexuality in pop culture that lends the impression that America is a free society. So, you can be a scantily dressed whore spewing all manner of filth like demon-possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST, but you better not say anything that speaks truth to Jewish power. You could, of course, sing or shout about killing your father and mother, killing millions of ‘white racists’, and joke about burning down Christian churches, but you better not say anything that might offend vain homos. In a way, both the exorcism in Friedkin’s movie and exschwarzism, the Jewish way of exorcism, are problematic in targeting what is natural and healthy. It’s natural for a twelve year old girl to go through the troublesome but necessary stage of pubescence. A female cannot remain a girl forever. She must grow up to be a woman, and she must make mistakes as trial-and-error is what growing up is all about. But the sexual panic of the Catholic Church led to weird practices like celibacy of priests whose testicles became overloaded with sperm and to ridiculous policies like Hollywood movies not using the word ‘pregnant’. Sexuality can flame out of control, and we certainly don’t want a nation of stupid whores and skanks. Today, a lot of women in music, TV, and movies act like possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST. They dirty and gross than sexy. Christina Aguilera didn’t look sexy with STRIPPED but just hideous and ugly. She acted like some stupid beast that crawled out of the sewage than a temptress like Rita Hayworth in GILDA or Stevie Nicks in the music video "I Can’t Wait". And who can stomach the antics of Lady Gaga? To be sure, demon-possessed Regan could be said to look and sound more like Janis Joplin, but there was something natural and earthy about Janis — at least when she was half-sober — that made for powerful music bruised with the stuff of life. In the end, I doubt if THE EXORCIST made anyone want to become a Catholic priest in the way that THE GODFATHER made goombahs want to be mobsters. Besides, the likes of Ozzy Osbourne, Led Zeppelin, Slade, Iggy Pop, and other outlandish acts had already normalized the horror-istic imagery of the occultism and satanism. It became campy, a kind of shtick, and of course, most people who went to see THE EXORCIST mostly went for thrills, and thus weren’t much different from those who attended Ozzy or Kiss concerts. Nevertheless, THE EXORCIST cannot be dismissed merely as a thrill ride because it abounds in so much artistry and effective drama. It’s wonderfully acted and directed, and it would made a solid film even without the more outlandish horror elements. It still would have been an insightful and moving story about a career mother and a free-spirited daughter going through puberty, a young priest racked with guilt & doubt, and an elder priest summoning the last reserves of power for a last hurrah. Karras is strong in body but fragile in faith; Merrin is strong in faith but frail in body. They make an interesting pair. The non-supernatural scenes work as well or even better than in most movie dramas touching on similar subjects, and thus, THE EXORCIST is really two movies in one. Because it’s so grounded in realism and proceeds with such care, the decisive lurch into supernatural mode feels all the more jarring. The horror is almost an affront to the sober elements of the story. It’s as if SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY — the ‘art film’ by Penelope Gilliatt and John Schlesinger — turned into ROSEMARY’S BABY. Friedkin understood that, in order for the shock to be total, the horror has to visit what seems like the real world. Horror visiting a horror genre world, as in most vampire movies, may be scary but would lack the element of shock since horror would be exactly what we’d expect. Of course, ROSEMARY’S BABY was also excoriated by some upon its release for its weird combination of elements drawn from ‘art film’, melodrama, satire, and horror. Some critics didn’t know what to make of it, especially as Roman Polanski’s international fame began through the ‘art film’ circuit with the short TWO MEN AND A WARDROBE and the first feature KNIFE IN THE WATER. As it turned out, Polanski possessed in equal measure the sensibilities of the European ‘auteur’ and B-movie trash peddler, but then, perhaps, this duality owed something to his Jewish Zeligishness as Jews have long been a people of shifting faces and sensibilities. If European elites developed a lofty sensibility and European masses developed a lowly sensibility, Jews developed a Loki-like sensibility of mercurially moving back and forth between both modes. This may be why figures like Pauline Kael felt so comfortable being both high-brow and low-brow without breaking a sweat. There was no barrier between the two attitudes. Not surprisingly then, European directors who proved to be most adaptable to American film-making were the Jews. Fritz Lang, Billy Wilder, Josef Sternberg, Fred Zinnemann, Otto Preminger, Milos Forman, and many others were as adept in picking up Americanisms as in picking up or, for that matter, dropping, Europeanisms. Because the Jew’s main identity is Jewish, he feels no special allegiance to or identification with Germanness, Russian-ness, Polish-ness, Frenchness, Hungarian-ness, or American-ness for that matter. When a gentile Hungarian or Japanese comes to America, he thinks of himself as a Hungarian or Japanese in foreign country. But when a foreign Jew comes to America, he feels he’s gone from one foreign nation to another. Paradoxically, because Jews feel exiled from everywhere, they feel at home everywhere. It’s like what Bob Dylan as Alias says in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID: "I can go anywhere. I can live anywhere too." Dylan grew up in Hibbing Minnesota but never regarded him as a Minnesotan as gentile Minnesotans might. Jews now do have their own homeland called Israel that was created through massive ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies against the Palestinian people — and at considerable cost to the US tax payers and even life and limb if we take into account the Wars for Israel — , and Jews are proud to own the holiest real estate on Earth, but it isn’t enough for Jewish hunger for world dominance. Thus, while Israel is the spiritual and historical homeland of Jews, the big cities of America and EU are the true headquarters of Jewish power. Anyway, the dubious morality of THE EXORCIST is the result of hysterical sexual panic about the natural process of puberty. According to Christian mythology, Jesus lived and died a virgin, as did His Disciples. Also, the spiritual teachings of Christianity favor the meek, the gentle, the innocent, and the childlike over the greedy, pushy, ambitious, power-hungry, aggressive, and discontent. Since children are associated with innocence, Christianity wants adults to be pure of heart like sheep. Of course, children are not all that innocent and can be very nasty and destructive, but kids are at least ‘innocent’ in their lack of understanding for they know not what they do. So, even their mischief is often on the level of dogs and cats. Children, like animals, have no real understanding of right or wrong. Even their sinfulness has an air of innocence. They don’t know why they do what they do, which is why kids can sometimes act cruelly without understanding the full implications of words and deeds. Innocence is the easiest thing to corrupt. It’s like white linen is the easiest to soil. The innocent heart cannot tell good from evil, which is why Adam and Eve were helpless before the spell of the Serpent. It’s why dogs can be made to just about anything. Pure of heart, they feel that whatever pleases the master must be good. Like any dog can be trained to serve an evil regime with pure devotion, any child can easily be swayed to support Nazism, communism, gay agenda, Jewish supremacism, bogus Magic Negro myth, and other wicked nonsense. But because children fold so easily ‘turned’, their corruption isn’t really corruption. True corruption involves people who understand the foul ramifications of what they’re doing but they do it anyways for personal gain. Thus, no one blames children for having been Young Pioneers or Hitler Youth in the USSR or Nazi Germany. Kids just went along because they didn’t know any better. This is why ‘progressives’ are trying to push politically correct dogma into the minds of kids at the youngest possible age. Homo agenda seeks to brainwash kids about the wonders of homosexuality beginning in Third Grade, even earlier. MLK worship is drummed into kids from cradle so that kids will grow up thinking of Martin L. King Kong, the woman-beater and drunken foul-mouthed lout, as their god. Anyway, THE EXORCIST is intrinsically an anti-Jewish movie because its hero priests do battle with the sort of culturally degenerate things[of which the movie is really a part] pushed by Jewish power at the time, and indeed, had its director not been the Jewish Friedkin, it might have been excoriated much more. In the early 70s, Jews were leading the fight against Catholic power. Even though Catholic power was overwhelmingly ethnic and rooted in Democratic politics, a decisive rift emerged in the late 60s as Democratic/Liberal policies[that fueled race riots, black crime, and youth hedonism/rebellion] came to negatively affect white ethnic communities. Though Catholic influence had long been culturally conservative in America, the large segment of American Catholics traditionally leaned to the Democratic Party, not least because the GOP was associated with Protestant Wasp elites, rich people, and rural folks suspicious of big city ‘immigrant’ communities. To be sure, the Catholic turn to the right had preceded the 60s because of the rise of communism — spread most fervently by radical International Jews — as the rival universal faith. In the first half of the 20th century, Catholics became divided between right and left. The universalism and egalitarianism of Catholicism inclined many Catholics towards socialism — if not Godless communism — , but the traditionalism and conservatism of Catholic Church made many Catholics side with the ‘far right’ of Fascism and National Socialism, if only for protection from communists and anarchists whose stated goal was all-out war on the Church as happened in the USSR where Jewish communists indulged in the destruction of 50,000 churches and the mass killings of priests. And in the Spanish Civil War, the Left — especially the anarchists — reveled in burning priests alive and raping and killing nuns, though, to be sure, atrocities were committed by the Right as well. Prior to WWII, many Catholics leaned to the Right — at least in international diplomacy — since communism was the main threat to Christianity and since the Liberal community seemed to be apologizing for communism even if there was no outright endorsement. And though Fascism and National Socialism were regarded as the ‘far right’, their appeal to the Catholic Church had a certain ‘leftist’ or ‘socialist’ character to it. Unlike soulless capitalism centered around profits and ‘greed’, Fascists and National Socialists spoke of community interests and a holistic compromise between the elites and the proletariat. But the outcome of WWII made Fascists and National Socialists out to have been the Bad Guys, and the Catholic Church had to make peace with the new reality. Though the Catholic Church had been allied with the Fascists during the Mussolini era, the victorious Allies dared not destroy it, and the Catholic Church opportunistically threw its support behind the Allies. The Pope did what Hirohito did in Japan after surrender. And the Allies figured that in the next great international rivalry — the Free West vs the Communist East — , the Catholics could serve as a useful ally, and the power of Catholicism especially came to bite communist power in Poland where the Church came to embody the spirit of anti-communist resistance and martyrdom. Because so many Jews were on the Left and so many Catholics loathed communism — though there were segments of the Left and the Church that saw eye to eye in their opposition to rampant capitalism, and some Catholics were indeed closet-communists hiding behind the cloth — , their alliance was an uneasy one in American politics. What had once united Jews and Catholics in the Democratic Party was their membership in Ethnic America in opposition to the Republican Wasp elites. But underneath this alliance was a lot of bad blood. Leftist and Zionist Jews saw Catholics as traditional anti-Semites and virulent cultural conservatives standing in the way of Jewish subversion of majority white Christian culture, and Catholics saw Jews as stealth-communists, money-changers, nasty radicals, and/or pornographers. In the end, Jews defeated the Catholics because Jews were for expanding hedonism whereas Catholics sought to constrict it. In a free and prosperous society, as both the elites and masses have more leisure time and are tempted by hedonistic and ‘creative’ possibilities, they favor the side that offers them more libertine expression against the forces of censoriousness. So, even if many of the freedoms that Jews were pushing tended to be vice-laden and ‘sinful’, they made people feel more fun and free. Jews were telling Americans, "we have something more to show and say" whereas Catholics were saying, "we want you to show and see less." Just like communists lost out to hedonistic libertine-ism, so did the Catholic Church. Worse, the ball-binding principles of the Catholic Church made the Church increasingly unappealing to healthy young men growing up in a society known for its freedoms and pleasures. By the early 70s, the division between Liberal Jews and American Catholics had grown very serious. Jews were the main force behind the push for pornography, and soon, places like New York became filled with porn movie houses like the ones in TAXI DRIVER. In the 70s, I remember reading through the movie section in newspapers and seeing so many ads for porno theaters. Cities have grown cleaner since those days, but of course, not because of the demise of porn but because of its entering into homes, first via the VCR — which also facilitated the rise of made-for-home-viewing ‘movies’ shot on video than ones shot on film for theatrical releases — and then by the internet. For cities to become ‘cleaner’, homes had to become ‘filthier’. [Today, the culture of filth has spread so much that the craziness in THE EXORCIST doesn’t shock anymore. When just about every other nubile pop star acts like a satanic skanky whore, demon-possessed Regan seems almost tame. Sexual dementia and homomania, once considered indecent and gross, are now celebrated as the New Normal, and fathers raise their daughters only to offer them as child sacrifices to Mammon or Pazuzu. When I worked at a video rental store in the 90s, older co-workers and customers often discussed the change in movie culture, not just in foreign and Hollywood cinema but in porn. Supposedly the ‘golden age of porn’ was from the early 70s to early 80s, but it had been ‘destroyed’ by the VCR. It’s interesting that our society yammers so much about how great it’s been for homos to come out of the closet while simultaneously yammering about how great it’s been for big cities to clean up their acts and sweep aside open sewage pornographism that had been so prevalent and exhibitionistic in the 70s and early 80s. One wonders about a society that celebrates the clearing away of pornographism from the public square but then celebrates something like the ‘gay pride’ parade and Lady Gaga out in the open. Perhaps, the new ‘gay pride’ parade has been ‘cleaned up’ and made ‘fun for the whole family’. Maybe it’s like the ending of CASINO, where the voice-over narrations says that Las Vegas went from Sin City for degenerate gamblers & hoodlums to Disneyland for accountants and families, what with fancy circuses and pirate shows. If you can’t beat sin — especially if it’s so profitable — , ‘clean’ it up and repackage it into mainstream. There may be an element of this in the TWILIGHT series as well, a case of have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too for the Mormonic-minded folks: vampire horror as family-friendly fairytale. [Never mind that even the good vampires in TWILIGHT never turn against the orthodox vampires who go around killing people.] Even so, can any society really maintain the fiction that something like the gay agenda is of great moral value? When something as patently ludicrous as ‘same sex marriage’ or ‘gay marriage’ is turned into the shibboleth of our time? Many Americans seem to be dazzled with homos because so many homos happen to be powerful, privileged, and fancy, and as an extra bonus, are allowed to wear the badge of holy victim-hood. But eyes are so often deceiving. During the heyday of the Roman empire, the masses aspired to be like the elites because the elites were rich, powerful, and glamorous. When the elites became rotten and decadent, rottenness and decadence became associated with power, privilege, and superiority; therefore, the masses also embraced rottenness and decadence. People think associatively, i.e. if something ‘bad’ is associated with something ‘good’, the ‘bad’ is mistaken for ‘good’. It’s like if famous and/or popular people dress stupidly, many people follow. Instead of seeing stupidity for what it is, which is pure-and-simple stupidity, they associate stupidity with popularity and fame, and so, they too emulate the stupidity with special enthusiasm. Anyway, in the early 70s, the relations between Catholics and Jews became especially rancorous, and THE EXORCIST reflects some aspects of this culture war, even if indirectly. William Blatty’s view of evil was distinctly at odds with the Liberal Jewish view of evil, and THE EXORCIST must partly be seen as a Catholic assault on degenerate Jewish influence, if only implicitly. And yet, in its quasi-pornographic sensationalism, THE EXORCIST is also a Jewish assault on Catholicism. [The relation between Catholic Blatty and Jewish Friedkin was sort of like that between Catholic conservative Anthony Burgess and Jewish Stanley Kubrick. Both Friedkin and Kubrick sensationalized and prioritized effect & style over message and meaning. They ‘amoralized’ what were essentially moral works. Though we root for the good priests in THE EXORCIST, the main appeal is the thrills provided by the Devil-possessed Regan. And Alex in the film version of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is so charismatic as a rock-star-thug that the ethical issues surrounding the scientific ‘exorcism’ of his wicked heart become secondary. This is different from Francis Ford Coppola’s treatment of Mario Puzo’s THE GODFATHER. If anything, the movie is more solemn and moralistic than the novel that is all too admiring of the close-knit crime family. As Coppola tells it, it is about a man losing his soul. In Puzo’s vision, it’s essentially about Michael going from Boy Scout to a real man. But THE EXORCIST and THE GODFATHER PART 2 have one thing in common in linking the problems of the New World with that of the Old World. The American conceit believes in a clean break from the repressions, reactions, and corruptions of the Old World. But the Corleones cannot be understood apart from their roots in Sicily. And the discovery of an evil artifact in Iraq, possibly the site of the oldest civilization ever, is somehow linked with the problems of contemporary modern America. And it is the Catholic Church with ancient roots that prevails over this latest manifestation of evil. This is why Jews and homos are so eager to penetrate and corrupt the Church itself. Indeed, suppose the Devil in THE EXORCIST had infiltrated the Church and replaced the Crucifix with the Satan. Then, the institution most committed to fighting Evil would be the pusher of Evil. Jews and Homos know that Christianity, like all religions, is a moral credo, institution, and tradition standing in the way of decadence and degeneration pushed by hedonist-modernity. So, if the Church itself is corrupted from within, there can be no more effective resistance to neo-satanism. Jews and Homos want Sam Smith the British fruitkin to be the new face of Christianity.] THE EXORCIST is a very impure work, not least because William Blatty is not your typical white ethnic Catholic but a Lebanese Catholic, perhaps a Semitic Catholic, a Steve-Jobs-like Catholic. Though Father Karras is presented as a Greek-American, Blatty’s origins are Near-Eastern than European. At one point in the movie, Father Karras informs Father Merrin that the Devil seems to have three personality types whereupon Merrin rebuts him and says there is ONLY ONE. The Devil is the Devil no matter how many masks he may wear. In a similar way, we must understand that the Jew is the Jew. Jew may wear the mask of ‘liberal’, ‘communist’, ‘Zionist’, ‘neo-conservative’, ‘libertarian’, ‘anarchist’, ‘American’, ‘Russian’, ‘Polish’, ‘Greek’, or ‘Semitic’, but there is really only one Jew, and that is The Jew, and everything the Jew does comes down to Jewish power. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every Jew thinks this way as there are plenty of less intelligent Jews who haven’t a clue about the globalist Jewish agenda. But smart Jews know what it’s all about. They may pretend to be ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ and pretend to bicker among themselves, but it all comes down to Jewish power, and on this note, liberal Jews and conservative Jews are on the same boat. It’s like a boxer has a left fist and right fist, but they are used together to defeat the enemy. Liberal Jews and conservative Jews are, first and foremost, secret partners for Jewish power and tribally prefer one another over their ideological gentile allies. Thus, conservative Jews are Jews first and conservatives second, i.e. they are twisting ‘conservative principles’ for Jewish power; and liberal Jews are Jews first and liberals second, i.e. they are toying with ‘liberal principles’ for Jewish power. Power-of-ethnicity comes first with the Jews. Jews talk a lot about principles, but notice the outrageous inconsistency. They are for the Constitution one minute and then mocking it the next minute. So, Jews say Bush II was a very bad guy because the Patriot Act violated constitutional principles, but the very same Jews seek to curtail the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution because they are obstacles to total Jewish power. And Jews can get away with such inconsistencies because they control the media and academia, thus the terms & terminology of the discourse. They can highlight issues that favor them and suppress issues that challenge them. Thus, the bogus notion of ‘marriage equality’ is invoked to push ‘gay marriage’, but ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same family marriage’ never gets a hearing. So, Jews will say the Rule of Law is of paramount importance and invoke it to champion the separation of Church and State, but they scoff at those who invoke the Rule of Law to stem the tide of ILLEGAL immigration. Indeed, the Jew-run media arrogantly tell us that it is ‘demeaning’ to refer to those who came here illegally as ‘illegal aliens’. Jews say the same thing about European immigration policy, but the very same Jews are perfectly happy with and supportive of Israel’s policy of keeping out non-Jewish illegal immigrants. Thus, it is necessaryf for us to see Jew as The Jew. For Jews, principles are always secondary to power. Of course, plenty of non-Jews act the same way, all-too-willing to bend and twist principles to get things their way. The very Evangelicals who call for universal fairness under the Constitution demand that nonsense like Creationism or Intelligent Design be taught in public school biology classes. But Jews are especially dangerous since they have so much power in elite institutions, and they are especially insufferable because they are among the most morally narcissistic and supremacist people on Earth, always pontificating about how they are for the Truth, Rationality, and Universality when, in fact, no people are as brilliantly cunning, devious, two-faced, and opportunistic. Why are Jews so formidable? Part of the reason is their higher IQ, but IQ alone cannot explain the way of the Jew. Suppose the average Ashkenazi intelligence was 115 but suppose most Jews had the personalities of Anglos or Japanese. Then, Jews would be less pushy and aggressive on the individual level. Ability alone cannot explain power such as that of Jews. Rather, the key to power is ability in association with a certain personality and cultural outlook. No matter how powerful a computer is, it will function according to its programming. Suppose there’s an Anglo with an IQ of 180 and a Jew with an IQ of 180. The Jew will likely achieve more because he is programmed with a more ‘extreme’ personality that is more relentless, pushy, ambitious, and shameless. Same thing goes for physical prowess. Suppose there are two equally tough guys, but suppose one guy is naturally more aggressive in temperament whereas the other guy is more laid-back and easy-going. The former will make the better and meaner fighter. He has the killer instinct. Another reason for great Jewish power is the combination of pluralism and monomania. If a person is purely into pluralism, he likely has no mental or emotional gravitational center. Wherever he goes, he will just meld into the larger community. He may be open-minded and open to everything, but he himself would have no autonomous core. And if he’s an libertarian focused on individualism, he would just be pleasure machine than a person. A person belongs to a family, a culture, a community, a nation, a tradition. He is more than his rational mind ‘pursuing happiness’. If rationality and pleasure are the key to humanness, humans might as well be replaced with ‘perfectly’ programmed sentient robots that only care for pleasure and feel no emotional ties to culture, nation, or tradition. Sentience without sentiment is not human. Hal computer would close to the ideal ‘human’ according to libertarianism. People need to be reminded that no individual was created by individualism or by himself. He was created by father & mother — the line of his people — and raised in a family that is part of a larger community and culture. Though individualism is necessary in allowing each person to develop his or her own mind, radical individualism that negates the validity of tradition, history, and larger community is not only useless but dangerous. If pluralism on its own lacks a center, monomania on its own has a center but cannot grow into anything bigger than itself; it’s like a frozen seed locked in the darkness of earth, unresponsive to moisture, nutrients, and sunlight. It is hermetically sealed, even ‘afraid’ of things that will be good for its growth. There were periods in Jewish history when certain orthodox elements of Jews were like this. There were also extreme Christians during the Middle Ages who closed off all realities unrelated to Christian orthodoxy. In the 20th century, extreme forms of communism sealed themselves from outside influences in the name of protecting the noble workers from the poison effects of capitalism. Today, some Muslim societies remain hermetically sealed. If some people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, others are afraid of washing the baby with even clean bathwater. The character of ZELIG is an extreme pluralist with no center. When with Negroes, he turns into a Negro. When with Nazis, he turns Nazi. He’s an extreme assimilationist to whatever happens to surround him. If he’s placed in France, he turns French. If he’s placed among Christians, he turns Christian. Then, there are the other kinds of Jews like the Hasidim who think, drink, eat, and excrete Jewishness 24/7. Yet, most Jews were never so extreme one way or the other. As Jews were often ‘rootless’ & ‘nomadic’ and worked as merchants & middlemen, they developed a pluralistic attitude to the world, and this outlook gave them an advantage over goyim who tended to be locked within their narrow world-view. Thus, if most goyim were thinking of one thing — their own little world — , Jews were thinking of how to coordinate trade among various worlds. If a Polish person thought of Poland and if a Swede thought of Sweden, Jews in Poland and Sweden were thinking of how to build links across both nations, as well as others, to maximize Jewish profits and power. But if Jews had only worked as merchants and middlemen, they would have gradually melted and assimilated into the larger community. As it happened, there was another side of Jewishness that was monomaniacal, not least because their Holy Book reminded them of the one and only true God with whom Jews had a Covenant. Thus, Jews had a powerful sense of gravitational center. Jews became equally adept at pluralism and monomania. In the modern world, Jewish pluralism took on the features of intense curiosity for everything ranging from science to arts to popular culture to anthropology to literary criticism to political science. But if Jews were only pluralistic, they would have been merely fixated on OTHER cultures, peoples, and ideas. It was their monomaniacal side that formulated everything they’d absorbed into universalist truths such as Marxism, Freudianism, Chomskyism, Dylanism, Randism, Friedmanism, and etc. Thus, the Jewish Paradox makes Jews want to know more about everything BUT to ultimately formulate the data and knowledge into a deceptively simple formula that explains ‘everything’. Of course, something similar was at the heart of Anglo power as well. More than most Europeans, the British traditionally had a very distinct sense of uniqueness and identity, not least because Britain is an island nation isolated from rest of Europe. But more than any other European nation/people, the Brits sailed the seas and amassed tremendous amounts of facts and figures about other nations. Indeed, both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were British scientists whose theory of how evolution worked derived from massive and diverse data collected from all over the world. And it was in the British Museum built by Anglos that Karl Marx the Jew did his research for his magnum opus DAS KAPITAL. Like the Jews, Anglos were both intensely pluralistic in their wide-ranging curiosity, studies, and trade AND intensely conscious of the uniqueness of their British identity as the centerpiece of pride and power. Even thoough Jews took full advantage of the British Empire to learn about the world and make their own great fortunes, Anglos got all the moral blame for British imperialism. Part of the reason is obvious enough: Though Brits and Jews were equally invested in imperialism, Brits led the conquest with the guns whereas Jews generally followed as merchants with stores. The more nakedly brutal aspects of British Imperialism were carried out by the British military. There was a time when Anglos took great pride in their wars of conquest. Back then, the soldiers and conquerors reveled in glory as the culture was more martial-oriented. In contrast to the noble and courageous soldier, the merchant was regarded as a rather opportunistic figure. Thus, Jewish merchants who followed the Anglo soldiers in the imperialist conquests were seen as less manly and even somewhat venal. But imperialism eventually came to be associated with oppression and ‘racism’, therefore the people who did the actual conquering got all the blame whereas those who followed behind to ply trade got less or no blame. But if Jews were such saints, why did they tag along British conquerors and profit from business under the protective umbrella of British Empire? Indeed, even the creation of modern Israel wouldn’t have been possible without British imperialist wresting the Holy Land from the Ottoman Turks. Though Israel was created by Jewish soldiers, they followed in the heels of British soldiers who’d taken control of Palestine. Because of the ‘white guilt’ of imperialism, Brits can no longer be both pluralistic and monomaniacal as they’d once been. In the past, the Brits conquered and explored more of the world than any other people did, and yet, no people were as conscious and proud of their unique identity — racial, cultural, and national — than the Brits were. Since white history = ‘racist’ evil according to political correctness as promoted by Jews and sucker Liberal Wasps, Brits no longer emphasize their identity as a race, culture, nation, and history. Thus, they are purely into the pluralistic mode of having British folks go to other lands to marry non-British and of having non-white non-British folks come to Britain to have babies with British women. So many British women are mudsharks who open their poons to black Africans and Afro-Caribbeans. The British people have surrendered to jaffers from black nations and Muslims from Pakistan. In contrast, Jews still maintain the balance of pluralism[especially as Jews are at the forefront of globalism] and the monomania of identity, especially in defending Israel as a Jewish state and working tirelessly to guarantee the permanent victory of Jewish Supremacism in the world. Of course, leftist ideology isn’t necessary harmful to the rich elites, especially in our post-Marxist age when progressivism is usually determined more by lifestyles and cultural attitudes than by class dynamics. According to Marxism, the rich had to be deposed by the poor, but according to neo-progressivism, one can be rich, well-connected, and super-privileged but still own and near-monopolize the torch of ‘equality’ via symbolism and twisted logic. Thus, if you’re a billionaire Jew and make an alliance with homos, you are on the side of ‘equality’ since you’re for ‘marriage equality’. Such stuff surely makes Karl Marx and even Antonio Gramsci roll in their graves. Some call neo-progressivism ‘Cultural Marxism’, but it’s really a form of neo-aristocratism loaded with bogus ‘egalitarian’ rhetoric that mostly favors powerful Jews, rich homos, globalist elites in places in Mumbai and Shanghai, and token mulattos over everyone else. But even Marxism was less dangerous to the power of Western elites than race-ism was. We tend to equate race-ism with the European imperialist Right, and it’s true enough that European conquerors resorted to race-ist arguments, ranging from rational to radical, to preserve their domination over the natives. But race-ism is a double-edged sword. One could use race-ism to conquer and subjugate, but one could also use race-ism as weapon to rebel against and overthrow alien invaders. In the Richard Attenborough movie GANDHI, a well-meaning British minister joins with the Asian-Indians in the struggle for justice for the ‘wogs’ living under British Imperial rule. But Gandhi tells him, despite their friendship, that this struggle is really about Indians, and it must be led by Indians, and whites have no part in it. In other words, the struggle must be Indian race-ist. Of course, I’m defining ‘race-ism’ as race + ism = belief in races, racial differences, and/or centrality of racial identity and consciousness. Thus, in the race-ist Indian struggle for independence, all whites had to leave Indian lands. It was about India for Indians, and even a well-meaning white Christian minister wasn’t welcome. He was a personal friend of Gandhi, but he couldn’t be at the core of the movement. He could support it as an outsider but not as an insider. When the Third World peoples began to rebel against white rule around the world, the nature of the struggle was nationalist & race-ist, i.e. they believed that white foreigners should go home and that their lands should be ruled by their own kind. Thus, identity was everything. Even among communists like the North Vietnamese, the core of the struggle was race-ist & nationalist than ideological and abstract. If Ho Chi Minh and his compatriots only cared about Marxism, they could have joined a communist struggle in some other part of the world than in Vietnam. Despite their faith in Marxist economic theory, mainly as blueprint for a New Order independent of Western imperialist domination — they’d come to associate capitalism with Western domination because the main European imperialist powers and ‘neo-imperialist’ America were capitalist — , they were primarily race-is and /nationalist patriots who believed that Vietnam should be ruled by the Vietnamese than by the French, the Americans, or even great communist powers. Indeed, race-ism and nationalism even came to divide the communist world apart. China and Russia came to see one another as rivals, even as enemies. Warsaw Pact nations increasingly came to see the USSR as Big Brother than Big Comrade. And, nationalism and race-ism were at the center of such movements as Solidarity in Poland. Poles were saying that Poland should be ruled by Poles, not by Soviets or Jews. And of course, nationalism and race-ism were also instrumental in the breakup of the Soviet Union. Non-Russians in Soviet republics hardly trusted the Russians, and Russians themselves became anxious about the rapid expansion of Muslim populations the Central Asian republics. The race-ist and nationalist character of Third World struggles was bad for white imperialist rule. The message was loud and clear: "White man, go back home. This is OUR land and should be ruled by us." Thus, the British were kicked out of India and all of black Africa. Though the Ian Smith government of Rhodesia — that became Zimbabwe — was accused of ‘racism’, the struggle against white rule was also race-ist. It was about black Africa for blacks. The French were kicked out of Vietnam and Algeria. Thus, race-ism and nationalism played the most effective and powerful role in the liberation struggles of the Third World. But many failed to see this character since Third World struggles were associated with the ‘leftist’ struggle against WHITE ‘racism’. In truth, Third World struggles were about indigenous nationalist race-ism against foreign imperialist race-ism. They were more about ethnicity, nationality, and race than about economic theory or universal justice. Vietnamese didn’t care what was happening in black Africa, and black Africans didn’t really care about what was happening in Vietnam. If anything, French imperialists employed black African mercenaries to carry out rape and terror in Vietnam. Imperialism, as a form of forced internationalism, was often interracist. The British used Asians in the conquest of Africa, the French used Africans in the conquest of Asia. Since the Third World was ruled by Western Imperialists, non-whites around the world paid lip-service to the Brotherhood of Man shtick, but each people were really looking out for their own interests and liberation. And the fact that most communist Third World nations abandoned communism and adopted alternative economic strategies proves that their primary interest had been racial/national independence than iron faith in a set of abstract principles. As Deng Xiaoping said, "what does it matter whether it’s a black cat or a white cat as long as it catches mice?" What mattered, however, was the power had to be yellow. Economic theories and ideologies come and go, but the yellowness of China is a genetic fact. Thus, modern China was always as race-ist and nationalist whether it was communist or socialist or mixed-economy or capitalist. Part of the reason why whites came to favor ideology over biology — universalist progressivism over race-ism — is due to ‘white guilt’ and well-meaning idealism. But another reason was the fear of the rising tide of non-white race-ism and nationalism. Imagine a community where a white minority rules over a colored majority, be it black, yellow, brown, red, or whatever. Suppose white rule is premised on white race-ism. In time, the colored folks will counter white race-ist power with their own race-ism. It will be white imperialist race-ism vs colored anti-imperialist race-ism. White race-ism argues, "whites should rule this land", whereas Colored race-ism argues, "whites need to go back home, and we colored folks should rule our own land." As whites would be outnumbered, their hold on power may well be tenuous, and eventually, colored race-ism will prevail, whereupon whites will have to pack up and leave all their possessions and retreat to their original white homelands. But suppose the white rulers fear the rising tide of color and embrace universal progressivism that says whites shouldn’t have any special race-ist privileges or dominion over non-whites. To that extent, whites will have to make serious concessions, and some segments of the white population will lose out. But the advantage for the white elites will be that their power can now be justified on ideological grounds. If white race-ism is wrong and must go, then the corollary is that colored race-ism is also wrong and also must go. Thus, as long as white rulers have the correct ideological credentials, they can claim the right to keep their privileges even though, of course, the power will have to be shared with the colored elites. This is why Jews in Russia favored Marxism that was anti-nationalist and anti-race-ist. If the Tsar and then the Provisional government had been overthrown on nationalist grounds, the implication would have been Russia should be ruled by the Russian people, meaning that Jews and non-Russians should only play a secondary role in the new order. But if the prevailing ideology of new Russia was class-based than race-or-nationality-based, then even Jews, as long as they had the proper ideological credentials, could gain elite control of the nation. Arguably, the core conflict between Stalin[who called for ‘socialism in one country’] and the Jewish Trotsky[who argued for ‘international revolution’] was about the power of Jews. If communism were to become ‘nationalistic’, Jews like Trotsky could be seen as ‘aliens’ and lose out, and indeed it was the rise of national communism that eventually doomed Jewish hold on power in the USSR. Stalin, being a non-Russian Georgian, himself, was rather ambivalent about Russian nationalism, but he figured it was to his advantage to channel the Russian spirit of Ivan the Terrible and play the role of new tsar than play the international card favored foreign Marxist influences dominated by Western European Jews. Trotsky’s dream was for Germany conversion to communism, whereby German communist Jewish elites and Russian communist Jewish elites could form a common bond. It’s like, following the fall of the Soviet Union, the main goal of American Jews was to forge an alliance with Jews in Moscow. It is then no wonder that Lenin, Trotsky, and Jewish Bolsheviks engineered things so that Russia would lose the war to Germany in WWI. The Tsar had already been deposed, and a Provisional government had been established on the basis of Russian patriotism and nationalism — and argued for continuing the fight against Germany, which, as it turned out, was on its last legs — , and Russian victory in WWI would have been a great boon to the nationalists and Slavic race-ists. But Bolsheviks manipulated events so that Russia would lose and be humiliated and demoralized as a nation and ‘race’. The new ideology would be universal brotherhood premised on class equality, thus ensuring non-Russian radicals to gain dominance in Russia since Russian national pride would have been crushed by the defeat to Germany. Jews in the US are pulling the same trick. Jews push universalism and egalitarianism not because they love universality or equality per se — they certainly don’t have universalism in Israel, and Jews aren’t in the least troubled by their vast and unequal over-representation in elite institutions — but because such principles protect Jews from white gentiles who might think in terms of ‘white gentile lands for white gentiles’, just like Indians argued ‘India for Indians’ and Vietnamese argued ‘Vietnam for Vietnamese’. In Latin America, though Marxism came to be associated with non-white rebellion against white Spanish elites, it also became a means for whites to keep the power. Though white Latino Marxists did wage war on white Latino capitalists[and sought to drive out the white ‘gringo’ Yanqui ‘imperialists’], Marxism could also ensure the continuance of white power. As most Latin American nations are majority non-white, a race-based or race-ist rebellion would imply that whites of European imperialist lineage should lose the power that should revert to mestizos, mulattos, or native peoples who make up the bulk of the population. But if the rebellion is ideological or class-based, then whites could keep the power as long as they stand on correct ideological grounds. Thus, whites have continued to rule Cuba even under communism. Though most Cubans are considerably darker — either black or mulatto or pardo — than the Cuban elites, the ruling class has remained mostly white since the governing principle of Cuba has been Marxism. One could be lily-white in the elite ranks of Cuban government as long as he spouts the cliches about the ‘brotherhood of man’ and the evils of ‘Yanqui imperialismo and racismo’. Though ‘racism’ is condemned in reference to discrimination against blacks in the past, the condemnation also serves to justify the overwhelming whiteness of the ruling class. If blacks and mulattos in Cuba were to complain, "The rulers are too white", they would be ‘racist’ since they’d be judging the Castros and their buddies on the basis of color than content of their ideology. If ‘racism’ is evil and ideology is good, what does it matter if the rulers of Cuba are white as long as they spout the correct platitudes? And, of course, we know that despite all the rhetoric about ‘equality’ and a ‘classless society’, Marxist societies were unequal in terms of power, privilege, special access, connections, and the like. And inequality isn’t just a matter of wealth but of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn’t own a lot of personal property, but their power virtually made them owners of the entire nations. Stalin didn’t have a house as big as that of Bill Gates, but he could have millions of people tortured and killed whereas Gates has no power to kill a single person. Of course, Castro, being a clever rascal, appealed to both race-ism/nationalism and class-ism/ideologism. When it came to the US, Castro played the nationalist/race-ist card, i.e. "We Cubans must stand up to the evil gringo yanqui imperialists and drive them out." But when it came to domestic affairs, Castro emphasized the classist and ideological card. While he attacked the rich, he forbade any politics of color that might rile up blacks and mulattos against whites. After all, he and virtually all of his top associates were white. For whites to keep ruling over Cuba, ideology had to be favored over biology. Blacks and mulattos should support the new white rulers, the champions of equality and justice. Thus, if there were to be massive uprisings all over Latin America, Marxism would be less dangerous than race-ism against white Latinos. While Marxist violence may hurt and bring down many rich whites, leftist-leaning white Latinos with the correct credentials can still rule in the new order. Since Marxist orders are usually led by the intellectual class, the educated are favored over the uneducated. Since Latin whites are more educated than Latin non-whites, whites would dominate the Marxist leadership, just like the more educated Jews came to dominate the Soviet Union. Anyway, Jewish power derives from the paradoxical fusion of their wide-ranging pluralism and concentrated monomania. Jews have ‘been around’ more, but they’ve crystallized their wide-ranging experiences and observations into a single idea, ideology, or formula. In PAPER CHASE, one character has phenomenal memory, and he can remember better than anyone else, but he’s incapable of formulating the data into a coherent thought. Some cultural attitudes restrain individuals from being open-minded to things outside their sphere of familiarity. But some people, especially the Jews have both great memory[of experiences and observations from far-flung worlds] and great ability to formulate observations into a unified theories. This isn’t unique to the Jews, but Jews have been most adept at it, so much so that many of the Big Minds of the 20th century have been Jewish. Indeed, the essence of computing involves both immense storage of data AND instant processing of data into useful formula. It’s no surprise that Jews dominate computer technology. White gentile and Asian geeks may be equally adept with gathering and storing and even analyzing data, but when it comes to INTERPRETATION, Jews win hands down. Analysis is to see the data for what it is. Interpretation is to see patterns and possibilities that may not be apparent from conventional readings of data. Jews have a habit of seeing further and more, not least because they are full of chutzpah and zaniness. In this regard, personality matters because different personalities use the same level of intelligence differently. Even if a Jew and a northern European have the same IQ, the Jewish personality will be pushier, more elastic, more energized, more dogged. Compare Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Though Spielberg probably has higher IQ than Lucas, suppose they both had the same IQ. Spielberg simply has a more restless personality than Lucas. Spielberg has been admired for various kinds of achievements in cinema, whereas Lucas just settled down to STAR WARS. Though Lucas started out with greater promise with THX 1138 and AMERICAN GRAFFITI, his one-track mind settled down to the one thing that always worked for him. INDIANA JONES worked for him too, but Spielberg did the directing. In the end, Lucas felt more at home with technology of Industrial Light and Magic than with creativity, and of course, most of the work done with CGI was done by computer geeks than by Lucas himself. Anyway, returning to THE EXORCIST, one could argue that it wasn’t necessarily shameful for the Catholic Church to have endorsed such a disgusting movie. After all, one could argue that religion itself is a genre of horror, or horror is a genre of religion. Besides, all religions and myths — religions in their time — are filled with horror. Think of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, the slaying of Abel by Cain who is stalked by God, the horror of the Flood in the Noah’s Ark story, the Sodomites who wanna bugger an angel in the story of Lot whose wife turns into the Pillar of Salt, the horrors that befall Job though he didn’t do anything wrong — which, paradoxically, may have been what he did wrong for no man should be morally more perfect than God — , and the torture and death of Jesus. And there’s horrors galore in Hinduism, Greek mythology, Germanic lore, Japanese and Russian folk tales, American Indian legends, and African witchcraft though, to be sure, the most horrifying thing about Negroes is Negroes themselves; I mean what other people have been called ‘spooks’? [It’s possible that horror as a separate genre developed with the rise of social order, rule of law, and stability. In a just world of security governed by justice and shorn of superstitions, horribleness is no longer a part of people’s lives. Also, Rule of Law means punishment for enraged behavior, so people will think twice about carrying out violent acts. Rule of Law forbids expressions of honor culture and vendetta. Greek drama often featured characters doing horrible things as part and parcel of natural human experience. Greeks believed honor and pride could justify acts of terror. And Greeks believed that spirts and gods were everywhere. But the rise of Christian God, science & reason, and Rule of Law brought order to society. Belief in one God ruled out all the other gods and spirits. World became less superstitious and dark. Reason favored analysis & problem-solving of crises than emotional lashing out. And Rule of Law meant that honor and pride could not be invoked to justify horrific violence of vengeance. In the old way, horror had been part of than separate from normal life. But in the new Order, acts of horror had been banished from public and personal life. Horrible thoughts have been medically diagnosed as mental problems. Thus de-legitimized as part of human experience, it could only be expressed as a separate genre. Under the Old Way, a man might kill his wife or kids in the name of honor. He might kill in the name of gods. It would be horrible, but horror was integral element of life. In honor culture, horror is in the very air we breathe. A son or daughter could expect to be killed by his/her father if he or she disgraced the family. In law culture, the threat of state terror banishes horrible acts as means of exacting revenge or defending honor. Thus, horror becomes distilled and turns into a separate genre in its own right.] Perhaps the appeal of the horror genre in our secular age is that people still crave for some kind of religious/spiritual view of the world. As supernatural forces dominate the horror genre, they allow for the suspension of disbelief and mediation with dark forces. Though horror is obsessed more with satanic/demonic than with angelic/divine forces, the implication is that if evil spirits exist in the world — beyond the power of logic, rationalism, and science to confront and defeat them — , then the only defense against them is through the divine/holy spirit. Thus, because Evil in THE EXORCIST that cannot be cured, let alone eradicated, by modern science, the only solution is the power of the Divine, as channeled through the two priests. Same logic propels JACOB’S LADDER. The process of dying is a kind of descent into hell, therefore one needs faith in salvation to cross the shaky bridge over the flames of hell to enter heaven. Though Friedkin’s movie THE SORCERER was named thus only to capitalize on THE EXORCIST despite its having nothing to do with supernatural spirits, the long trek on trucks loaded with nitroglycerin through savage terrain produces a sense of terror and fosters a wish for faith. Like father’s Merrin’s heart, we never know if and when one or both of the trucks are gonna blow up. Though the macho men make their way across the jungle with skill, stamina, and lots of luck, we can’t help feeling the presence of a supernatural-like X factor that will ultimately decide their fates. It also permeated throughout the original, THE WAGES OF FEAR by Henri-Georges Clouzot, where even the hero who fulfilled the mission is fated to die. It’s as if the journey was cursed from the beginning, and the gods must somehow destroy even the man who apparently beat all the odds. It’s like there is ultimately no escape for the hero of LA JETEE. The woman who awaits the trucker’s return seems to channel this curse as she either faints or falls dead while dancing just when his hubristic truck goes over the cliff. You can beat chance but you can’t beat fate; the Grim Reaper was sitting behind him all along, and if the trek didn’t him, something else going to. Even modern rational people feel such inkling at times. After surviving something that seemed like sure death, they can’t help feeling that something was watching over them. It’s like the Samuel Jackson character in PULP FICTION who believes there’s no rational or logical explanation as to why or how all the bullets shot at him from point blank range missed. And in FEARLESS, the survivor from an airplane crash feels infallible, as if protected by superhuman will. And maybe the survival of Jews from WWII has made Jews feel especially ‘superstitious’. Though Jews yammer endlessly about how they’re on the side of science, modernity, rationalism, and etc. they tend to be extremely neurotic, hysterical, and paranoid about forces all around them. It’s like Woody Allen’s character in ANNIE HALL hearing "D’you eat?" as "Jew eat?" Jews see Nazi phantoms all around, just like some Catholics see Jesus on toasts or Virgin Mary on the turtle shells. They see the world as inhabited by ‘rabid’ and ‘virulent’ antisemitic demonic forces in gentiles’ souls, in governments, in nations, in Christians, in Muslims, etc. Jews project this paranoia onto gentiles who are accused of seeing Jewish demon spirits everywhere. As for saner Jews who are weary of Jewish hysteria and urge that Jews must own up to their own dark history as well, they are accused of being ‘self-hating Jews’. But then, Jews have no problem with self-hating whites. Jews know that WWII could have gone the other way. If Anglo-Brits and Anglo-Americans had sided with their racial cousins the Germans, Jewish power would have been over. So, Jews have been working hard to drive wedges among white ethnic groups and, more crucially, between white males and white females because future white folks and white power will come from the sexual union of white males and white females. Today, Jews want white Americans to hate white Russians, not least because nationalist feelings can be openly expressed in Russia and because Russian gentiles took key measures to defend their own culture and power against globalist Jewish-Zionist influence. The last thing Jews want is for white Americans to become friendly with and sympathetic to white Russians who suffered horribly under Jewish communist rule and Jewish globalist robbery soon after the demise of communism. To be sure, Jewish power could have been greatly diminished without the full escalation of conflict in WWII. If Hitler had kept his alliance with Stalin, and if German whites and Russian whites had become friends, Jewish power would have been over in all of continental Europe from west to east, with Stalin realizing that it’s better to work with National Socialist Hitler than with communist Jews in the Soviet government whose main allegiance was to Jewish identity and power. Without WWII — which really began with the German invasion of Russia — , Jewish power would have remained in UK and US, but even there and in time, Anglo-Brits and Anglo-Americans would surely have made peace with German-Russian dominated Europe and done business. It was Germany’s invasion of Russia that really saved the Jews, though it also unleashed the greatest horror — the Holocaust — upon the Jewish population in Eastern Europe. Though the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened — at least on the scale it did — if Germans hadn’t invaded Russia, Nazi Germany wouldn’t have lost power had it not invaded Russia. And with the defeat of Nazi Germany came the revelations about the mass killing of Jews, and that gave Jews a huge moral advantage in the postwar world because Jews came to own the media and academia. Thus, WWII both destroyed and saved Jews. History works in strange ways, and this is why Jews aren’t very rational about things. As Burt Young character says in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, "Life is funnier than shit." History is too. Thus, so-called ‘rationalist’ Jews really operate in the mode of hysteria, paranoia, witch-hunting, and etc. Even when Jews bitch about witch hunting — the kind associated with Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunting — , they do so in witch-hunting mode of their own, i.e. anyone who doesn’t agree with the Narrative of the Hollywood Ten’s sainthood is a heretic to be shunned in Hollywood, elite academia, and higher echelons of media. Anyway, religion probably got its start as a horror tale, and horror used to be the norm of existence, i.e. it was all around in the form of deadly animals, thunder and lightning, forest fires, floods, etc. And indeed, many religions and cults were horror-centric; consider Babylonian, Cameroonian, and Aztec religions that practiced human sacrifice, sometimes on a monstrous scale. In Greek mythology, before there was the Olympians, there had been the cruder Titans. Religion developed as a means to tame monsters into gods, just like the domestication of animals required wild beasts to be tamed into beasts-of-burden. To be sure, not all peoples did this, at least to the same extent. Some cultures continued to believe in the horrific gods, and some cultures tamed gods halfway, which was the case with the Greeks and Persians, as their gods were both wise/beautiful and arbitrary/abusive. In his primitive state, man was surrounded by the awesome power of nature. There was no way primitive man could imagine mankind taming this mighty and monstrous power. It simply had to be feared and avoided, like prey animals avoid predators. As man developed stabler social orders, abject fear of gods turned into rough hope that the gods could somehow be satiated and appeased through ritual sacrifice and offerings. When man developed civilizations, he mastered the art of turning nature into farmland. Wilderness could be cleared away for cities, dangerous animals could be domesticated into useful animals like horses, cows, and dogs. Man could turn disorder into order on a large scale. Thus, man’s imagination ran concomitant to his material achievements. He began to think that supernatural forces and spirits could be ‘tamed’ too, even if only subconsciously. Consciously, man didn’t think or hope that he could tame the powerful gods and spirits. But subconsciously, his achievement in taming nature into order nudged at the possibility of taming the unruly deities into orderly rulers. Thus, even the horrible gods of the Babylonians and Aztecs were gods of order in some ways. They may have demanded human sacrifice, but there developed an orderly ritualistic/cyclical way of appeasement. It’s like the system of taxation is more tolerable because it’s carried out in an orderly manner in accordance to the law than by wanton plunder. Systemization of violence into routine makes it more bearable, even seen as a good. Of course, disobedience will lead to actual violence, as happened in Ukraine when Stalin sent in the commissars and goons to ‘tax’ much of the grains and cattle. Anyway, the human mind-set turned away from the arbitrary to the orderly, even if the order continued with the violence. After all, chimpanzees just go ape-shit and lynch their enemies whereas Aztecs had very elaborately observed means of carrying out their sacrifices. For some reason, people find orderly violence more bearable than brute violence. Even soldiers who know they will be killed after capture prefer an orderly death to brutal battlefield death. Manner affects how we deal with matter. For ritual human sacrifices, a temple had to be built and sacrificial victims had to be prepared and ‘processed’ in orderly fashion. It couldn’t be a wild hog-killing, as with the primitive savages seen in MONDO CANE. Also, as civilized man began to create forms of artificial power that challenged and even overcame the authority of natural power, he began to realign gods as forces of order & design than of chaos & chance. Gods were neither entirely natural nor entirely ideal in the imagination of the civilized man. Even the gods of order stood somewhere between nature and civilization. Instead of being the very forces of nature, they were seen as the controllers of the forces of nature. Godly power went from instinctive to intentional. Thus, when primitive folks saw and heard lighting and thunder, they thought gods were flipping out and being angry. But when civilized folks observed such, they thought certain gods were manipulating the forces of nature for reasons other than mindless rage. Natural phenomena were not simply tantrums of unruly gods but acts of rational gods with foresight and intention. The Greek gods were thought to reside in some mythical place, a castle in the sky/mountains, and they controlled nature like civilized man controlled agriculture, dams, canals, and fortresses. But, godly power should never be mistaken for human power. In the story of the Tower of Babel, civilized mankind commits the folly of thinking that human genius and creativity are the equal of Godly power. The builders of the Tower believe that human ingenuity and control of nature can equal, even surpass, the power of gods or God. But where God or gods differ from mankind is that He or they possess the power of BOTH nature and order. Thus, God orders nature to lay waste to the Tower. The Tower story is sort of a reverse of the Noah story. In the Flood story, the world is doomed to be submerged under water, so Noah is ordered to bring together all the animals of the Earth in pairs of male and female. In the Tower story, all of mankind seem to be united as one, but they are scattered with the smashing of the Tower. In the Flood story, all the world is laid to be laid to waste, but God orders Noah to build a vessel that shall save the animal species of the world, as well as his family that shall survive and be fruitful and multiply. In the Tower story, God doesn’t lay waste to the world but destroys the unity of mankind, and the family of man is scattered all around the world. Partly, God does this out of the need to divide-and-rule. He fears the unity of mankind because it may challenge the power of God. It’s like how Jews fear the unity of gentiles, so they create diversity whereupon various gentiles distrust one another and fail to unite against the Jews. The paradox at the heart of globalism is that its unification of the world into the New World Order produces division than unity. The world is brought together through generic deracinating influences of Facebook, ‘free trade’, travel, and immigration, but all these add fuel to the fire of division and dissension, especially in the West and the Middle East. [On the one hand, Jews want to rob all peoples of their identity and heritage, thereby rendering them less resistant to globalism. But this genericism had a melding than unifying effect. As peoples mix-and-match all over the world, their identities will become more confused; therefore, globalized people will lack of focal point of identity with which to challenge the Jews. Palestinians resist the Jews because they still FEEL STRONGLY as Palestinians. But globalized mixed-races, not even knowing what they themselves are, will lack a strong identity with which to counter Jewish power. But no amount of race-mixing will lead to social harmony, as we can very well see in Brazil and rest of Latin America, North Africa, and Central Asia. Thus, gentile unity against Jews will be impossible. The most effective resistance to Jewish power is unity of gentiles in homogeneous nations. This is why Jews hate white Europe and East Asia most.] Jews unify the systems of trade and control around the world in order to gain power over the world, but Jews divide cultures and tribes with the policy of multi-culturalism to ensure that goyim will hate goyim and never unite against the Jew. Whatever his flaws, David Duke understands one truth: What Jews are doing to white Americans has parallels to what they did to the Palestinians. Therefore, the logical thing is for white Americans to think in terms of "We are all Palestinians", but notice how Jews have manipulated white Americans into hating Arabs, Palestinians, and ‘Muzzies’ while simultaneously allying with Muslims as ‘victims’ of ‘xenophobia’ and ‘Islamophobia’ against whites in America and Europe. Similarly, Jews love it when white Americans bitch about illegal immigration and when Hispanics bitch about gringo ‘racismo’. This way, both groups are at each other’s throats instead of directing their ire at the group most responsible for globalism, namely the Jews. And notice how Jewish academics in colleges instruct yellow Asian students to hate ‘white privilege’ — and, of course, yellow dogs duly roll over and play fetch for their Jewish professors, all the while Jewish Hollywood pumps out ‘yellow peril’ movies to make Americans fear the Dragon of Rising China[and even North Korea, one of the poorest nations on Earth]. And Jews fear the unity of white Europeans and white Americans, so Jews in Europe spread the image of white Americans as a bunch of fat stupid cowboys while Jews in America spread the image of white Europeans — especially the French and Germans — as arrogant, antisemitic, pompous, and/or ‘socialist’. And Jews fear amity between white Americans and white Russians; therefore, Russians are routinely depicted as the New Nazis, not least because Russia won’t entirely bend over to the international homo lobby and Jewish supremacist power. Though Jews have done most damage to white folks, duped & unsuspecting white folks are more likely to bitch about Palestinians, Chechens, Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, the French, and etc. So, just as God feared the unity of mankind in the erection of the Tower of Babel, Jews fear the unity of goyim. In WORLD WAR Z, zombies pile up like a tower over the Masada-like walls built by Israelis. Though the zombies are brutal creatures, they have one thing that makes Jews shit bricks. They are of a single ‘mind’. Jewish power is premised on the fact that they can play on the mutual hostilities among the goyim. But if all goyim were to become zombie-like with a single mind-set, they could ‘mindlessly’ unite and come after the Jews. So, even though Jews want us to be mindlessly programmed by political correctness, they also want us to be mindfully divided by mutual hostilities — Jews want white Americans to see Russians, Iranians, Chinese, etc. as the Other. And in order to maintain their system of divide-and-rule, Jews play on the fears and sympathies of the goyim. Jews have turned the Holocaust into Holocaustianity, the new religion of the West, and therefore, white goyim are filled with so much gooey sympathy for Jews and want to save the Jews from ‘neo-Nazi’ Palestinians and Iranians. Thus, white goyim have been made to hate Muslims. Jews not only play on white goy sympathy but white goy fear of Muslim terrorism, but few mention the fact that Muslim attacks were in reaction to Western subservience to Zionist foreign policy of fomenting warfare and strife in the Middle East to serve Jewish interests. Jews play it both ways in Yojimbo-like fashion. In Europe, Jews tell Muslim immigrants that white Europeans are a bunch of closet-Nazis hellbent on doing to Muslims what they’d once done to Jews, and therefore, Muslim immigrants should ally with Jews against the patriotic European Right. In America, Jews tell blacks and Hispanics that too many whites are unreconstructed crypto-Nazi ‘racists’ who will kill all blacks and Mexicans at the drop of the hat if not for the fact that wonderful Jews use their wealth and power to protect ‘poor helpless minorities’ from the vile hatred of the Angry White Male. Indeed, notice how the Jew media have made ‘angry white male’ a dominant meme in our political discourse. So, if a white person opposes ‘open borders’, he is ‘angry’, or deranged and foaming at the mouth. And notice ‘Angry White MAN’ than ‘Angry White PERSON’, as if to suggest that only white males are capable of being so deranged, meaning that white women, who are presumably somewhat better, should side with ‘rational’ and ‘decent’ folks such as Jews, blacks, illegal aliens, castrated white Liberal males, and cuckservative maggots. Never mind that many white women are opposed to ‘open borders’ as well. The entire blame falls on ‘angry white males’. This is how Nasty Jewish Elites play the game. Of course, if we were to call them ‘nasty Jewish elitse’, they’d bitch about ‘antisemitism’. This is how dirty and hideous Jews play the game, yet folks like Ann Coulter and Charles Murray suck up to Jews 24/7 in the hope that the suck-up will turn Jews into rock-ribbed Republicans. Anyway, as it turned out, two traditions developed that turned out to be the most profoundly spiritual, and this owed to their ruminations about God or gods. There is the Jewish tradition that inspired Christianity and Islam, and there is the Hindu tradition that gave birth to Buddhism. The Jewish tradition is profoundly problematic in positing that the most powerful God — indeed the Only God — is also the most moral force in the universe, thereby, making Him, in a way, the ‘weakest’ force in the universe. Primitive folks thought in terms of might = right, therefore their gods were ‘right’ because they had the might. But then, among some civilized folks there arose the idea of rightness as being independent of mightiness. Jews, surrounded by much greater powers yet refusing to submit to them, especially became acutely aware of the discrepancy between might and right. Since Jews couldn’t win by might, they defined their worth in terms of right, if only as a crutch. The rise of the cult of rightness led to the ideal of the righteous king or god than merely of the ‘mighteous’ king or god. Thus, the king or god had the right to might if he was righteous. But then, another development happened in human thought. Righteousness came to developed as an ideal independent of rulers. For a long time, ancient Jews didn’t have kings — at least according to the Bible — because they were held together by a sense of righteousness preached and preserved by the Prophets and rabbis. So, even though a king can be righteous, righteousness can exist without kings. Kings are political beings who should be righteousness, but they don’t monopolize righteousness. This is an idea that never quite developed among the ancient Egyptians whose kings were seen as manifestations of gods. Though the most advanced civilizations had a priestly caste that existed apart from political power, the caste was essentially slavish to the rulers who held the monopoly on righteousness, and this was especially true in political orders where the king or emperor was thought be godly, like with the Pharaoh in Cecil B. DeMille’s THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Consider the Shinto priests of Japan whose concept of spirituality was never independent of serving the Emperor. But this wasn’t the case with the Jews where the priestly class primarily served God than the Jewish kings. Also, the main moral issue wasn’t whether or not a king was righteous, as such consideration would imply that righteousness is mainly the domain of kings. Think of EXCALIBUR where King Arthur is reminded of the wisdom, "You and the land are one." So, the Arthurian universe — at least according to John Boorman’s movie as I’ve haven’t read the books — is where righteousness is inseparable from the rulers. Rulers aren’t necessarily righteous, but an orderly world requires rulers who are righteous. Uther was not righteous, and so his kingdom was short-lived. Arthur is a righteous king, and so, he is able to build Camelot and preside over a peaceful and prosperous people, that is until Morgana, his vengeful & wicked half-sister, conspires to bring it all down. Though Merlin the magician, who is wily as he is wise, advises Arthur, the center of righteousness is with the king and his actions. The magician/sorcerer can help, but he is not a god, and his existence has meaning only in relation to the peoples he guides. So, if primal Utherian power rests on ‘might is right’, the advanced or Arthurian idea of power says ‘might must be right’. Jews took this further in making righteousness somewhat independent of mightiness. Thus, one of the most righteous people in the Old Testament is Job. In contrast, the kings, Saul, David, and Solomon, as powerful[even great] as they are, come in for criticism and condemnation. And Samson, a kind of mighty Jewish Hercules, is something of a fool, especially as played by Victor Mature. It is no wonder then that the most righteous figure spawned by the Jewish tradition is Jesus Christ. Of course, the mightiest and most righteous figure in the Bible is God Himself, the one and only Deity in the universe. But there is a conundrum for God who, mighty as He is, is worshiped for His righteousness. The problem is that morality binds and restricts power. For example, a righteous emperor is only supposed to act righteously. His actions are supposed to be in accordance with the Law, thus predictable within the framework of justice. [In a way, this is why we relish the Greek gods being less-than-perfect. Moral perfection is boring and weakening. It means the gods, with all their great powers, must obey the moral laws of mankind. If gods are always good and obey moral laws, then they are predictable. We’d be able to calculate and measure their every move. There would no element of spontaneity, surprise, individuality. So, even though vain and erratic behavior among gods is unbecoming, it also maintains their independence of will and power. It’s like Amon Goeth in SCHINDLER’S LIST discovers that an adherence to higher value restricts his godlike will to kill.] Also, in order to ensure that the righteous ruler won’t abuse his power, others must also have power to check his power. In a way, the Jewish concept of God is a self-binding paradox. According to official dogma, God = might = right. But if righteousness among the Jews wasn’t invested solely with kings but availed to any person who led a righteous life, the implication was that rightness was independent of mightiness. Thus, the implication is that the rightness of God is not synonymous with the mightiness of God. The rightness of God is a quality independent of his mightiness. Thus, instead of the power of God being the same thing as the goodness of God, the goodness of God constricts the power of God. But then, what is the point of being the most powerful Being in the universe if one cannot use most of that power? It’s like having all the money in the world but being allowed to use it only on ‘good work’. Power has an innate tendency for self-aggrandizement. It wants to shout like Muhammad Ali: "I’m the greatest!" But, if one is bound by the good, one’s power must only be good. Perhaps, this is one reason for the zealotry of moral righteousness among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. As worshipers/followers of the most powerful, indeed one and only, God in the whole universe, they are feverish with the Will to Power. But their God is supposed to be good and conscientious, so there’s a lot of pent-up energies in this power that isn’t allowed to roam freely like the Vikings or Mongol hordes. Since this pent-up will-to-power builds up and up and grows explosive, Jews/Christians/Muslims become all riled up over some moral issue. Since only righteous morality justifies Jewish-Christian-Muslim power, the faithful tend to go bonkers in holier-than-thou outrage — a kind of Moral Supremacism — , and this is true even of Western secularists whose psycho-social roots are Judeo-Christian. And we can see this paradox in America, the mightiest nation on Earth. It has all this pent-up power and sometimes feels a need for some kind of release, which is why Americans sometimes cannot resist some ‘moral crusade’ as justification to unleash its awesomeness as the ‘lone superpower’. Following 9/11, Americans were into the mode of "let’s remake the Middle East and make it safe for democracy", and on the eve of the Iraq War, 80% of Americans thought it was justified to take out Saddam Hussein. [Given the fiasco of the Iraq War, you’d think the media would sober up and reports the news more responsibly. Instead, the media just turned against Bush and become mindless propagandists to Obama. Instead of dropping the propaganda mode for real news and criticism, the media remain in cheer-leader mode for another side.] Or take the ‘gay marriage’ movement. It’s like Americans are so starved for righteous displays of power that they jumped on this ‘cause’ as means to both express their moral sanctimony — on the basis that fecal penetration among men is of equal moral and biological value with real sexuality — and to feel superior to the rest of the world that has yet to submit to the homo agenda or will do under US guidance, leadership, and pressure. Supporting the homo agenda also makes Americans feel fancier and of higher-status since rich Jews and affluent urban Liberals are the main allies of homos. In other words, rub shoulders with the most powerful and privileged people in America — Jews and homos — while hoisting the cross of ‘equality’ in the name of ‘equal rights’. Though it’s an utterly trashy idea, one can understand why Americans rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition would be so starved for some ‘holy’ cause that combines moral righteousness with will-to-power. Though advanced as lending support to an ‘oppressed’ group, the real appeal of the ‘gay marriage’ is the awesomeness of Jewish and homo elites who dominate the respectable media and academia. Power has sex appeal, or as Henry Kissinger in NIXON says to Chairman Mao, "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." Politicians are mostly whores, and it’s no wonder that all Democratic senators but three signed onto the ‘gay marriage’. I’m sure that some of them despise the idea in their hearts, but they wanna be re-elected, and contributions come from rich Jews and homos, who also control the media and public opinion. Also, most Democratic voters are idiots who get their ‘values’ from Oprah and Ellen Degeneris or Degenerate. They are lemming sheeple who just go with the flow. Of course, conservatives are sheeple too, and it’s only a matter of time before Republican politician whores also sign onto ‘gay marriage’ as power is indeed the ultimate aphrodisiac. Especially since the GOP is so slavish to Jews, and since Jews are at the forefront of pushing the homo agenda, Republican ‘conservative’ whores will be sucking up to homos, and even Evangelicals will be saying Jesus died so that homos can get ‘married’. In a way, this is a perverse twist to the idea of binding the might of God to the right of justice. Originally, such conditions on power were a great moral advancement. It implied that rightness is independent of mightiness and that mightiness must heed rightness. [Think of the movie BECKET where the hero chooses righteousness over loyalty to King and personal friend, complicated by the fact that the king happens to be a closet-fruiter. Of course, today’s would-be Beckets are total servants of the Judeo-Homo queens.] If not God, might came serve the rightness or justice for the people. Thus, power flowed from the rulers to the ordinary folks. Also, morality emphasized individual conscience over collective authority, as expressed in THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC by Carl Dreyer. But post-modern morality is a form of corruption. Arguing for tolerance for homos is one thing — like arguing for tolerance for incestuous or otherwise sexually deviant or perverse people — , but to push the idea that homosexuality has equal biological and moral value as real sexuality is a form of mindlessness that requires mass hysteria to garner support. Since mass media and political correctness are disseminated via cult of personality, pop fascism of Hollywood, ultra-narcissism of vapid celebrities, and righteous hysteria slogans instilled into mind by armchair radical professors, it is not surprising that so many Americans have become dupes who bark like dogs than think like humans. Indeed, just look at the ‘liberal’ hysteria over George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. It’s all sloganeering, symbolism, self-righteousness, self-aggrandizement, arrogance, mania, delirium, and childishness. Even when people are right, they tend to be insufferable if they act self-righteous, holier-than-thou, and I-told-you-so. But when they act like in such manner even when they are wrong[factually or morally], we have a real problem. Jews had once been aghast at such psycho-politics of hysteria as it had been identified with the radical right of Fascism and National Socialism. But now that Jews hold the levers of power in media and academia, they prefer hysterical herds and mobs and collective conformism of righteousness — the SJW or Social Justice Warrior mentality — than individual conscience and critical thinking. Therefore, we need to Know The Jew. The Jew’s main modus operandi is about power, never about principles. Never trust Jews. If something is conducive to Jewish power, Jews see it as a good... for the time being. If a Nazism could be formulated to favor Jews, Jews will be for Nazism. [In a way, Zionism is just that.] Indeed, so much of recent politics is so much like Nazi Germany with mass rallies and cult of personality around Obama the Jews’ boy, the mass hysteria and banner waving of homomania, rabid defaming of some guy — George Zimmerman — who used his gun to defend himself, and vilification of anyone or any group that won’t bend over to the Jew-homo agenda. Zionists act like semi-Nazis in Israel against the Palestinians, but most American Jews don’t seem to mind. Jews also don’t seem to mind that Israel has been a very dear ally of South Africa during the apartheid years. And American Jews even cooperated with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to overthrow the Russian-backed government. If it’s good for the Jews, it should be good for the world, so say the Jews. And so many gentile dupes fall for this and mindlessly praise and worship the Jews. Of course, Jews especially favor the homos because they understand the conundrum of homo power. Though homos have traditionally been treated with suspicion[even with hostility] until few decades ago, closet-homos had practiced considerable power surreptitiously and conspiratorially through the ages. [A discriminated race could always be identified, but homos could always pretend to be straight. Therefore, the power elites even in an anti-homo society had its share of closet-homo operatives.] Even when homos were officially censured, your average homo was likely richer and more powerful than your average straight person. One reason was homo penchant for arts, creativity, vanity and privilege, which placed them in closer proximity of the rich and famous who valued the skills and flattery of homos. Also, due to disapproval of homos, especially in rural and small towns, many homos gravitated to the city where they could meld in as ‘urban individuals’ and far more power than in any small town community. Paradoxically, the social repression of homo made them more powerful by instilling in them the art of secrecy, conspiracy, and two-faced-ness. Thus, even as social mores were overwhelmingly anti-homo, homos climbed the social and political ladder, and many of them became good friends with elite straight people. Thus, homos came to be both more oppressed and more powerful than most Americans. Jews understand this reality because, over many centuries, they were both perceived/persecuted as outsiders AND rewarded/promoted as talented financiers/middlemen. Jews too became simultaneously more powerful and more oppressed than most goyim in Europe. Even so, when the main elites were straight and normal gentile folks, Jews and homos knew they had to know their place and not rock the boat. But in the post-modern world, Jews and homos have come to constitute the main elites, and they refuse to tolerate any idea, view, or opinion that is critical and especially accusatory of Jewish power or homo privilege. Though now the most powerful people on Earth, they push the narrative that they are the most vulnerable and in need our special help in order to prevent another holocaust, despite the fact that Jews are hellbent on destroying our survival as a race and culture! It’s so nutty that our age seems more post-real than post-modern. We are living in the Onion-verse. One wonders how long such ludicrousness could go on. Maybe if US remains rich enough and most people remain addicted to mindless mass media and are taught by politically correct academia, it will continue as things are, especially since there is no counter-Jewish opposition from the chickenshit Right and since so much of Rightist ‘intellectualism’ derives from cunning neocon Zionists and moronic Christian Evangelicals. When the rich and powerful Jew and homo elites pretty much control the politics of dissent, freedom has been rendered useless, especially as conservatives don’t have much of a culture of dissent. [Before anyone says, "I think such and such", he should delve into an understanding of "Certain powers-that-be made me think in such and such way." With most people, 99% of "I think..." is really a case of "the Powers made me think..." After all, most people who say "I believe in ‘gay marriage’" have been made to think that way by the Jewish-and-Homo powers-that-be.] True dissenters in America who are willing to speak truth to power should focus on Jewish power and homo power, but they are still under the delusion that colleges like Oberlin are being attacked by the KKK. Of course, Jews and homos want it this way. In order to distract Americans from the fact of Jewish and homo power, Jews and homos have spread KKK-mania, Muslim ‘terrorist’ hysteria, yellow peril fever, neo-Cold War tantrums against Russia, the constant threat from Iran, and, of course, the Angry White Male. Even Occupy Wall Street with its "1% vs 99%" serves the Jews and homos for it reduces the elites into a numerical abstraction. Thus, Occupiers think this mythical 1% is ruling America when it’s the Jews, homos, and mostly Liberal wasps who collaborate with Jews and homos. Pandering to Jews and homos serves elite interests. If you’re rich and worried about public perception of being a ‘rich capitalist pig’, why not wave the banner of Jews and homos, two people designated with Eternal Victim status and thus be associated with ‘victimhood’. So, even a billionaire like Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who made his billions and destroyed many bookstores by dumping books on the market, can earn immunity from criticism since he totally supports the homo agenda. Want to be a billionaire who is not only left alone but praised by ‘dissenters’? Just wave the ‘gay flag’ and suck up to AIPAC and tell the world that you’re so worried that Israeli Jews may suffer another holocaust at the hands of Palestinians. It’s a post-real world indeed where official news might as well be Onion news, and vice versa. Jews and homos may have a Culture of Critique, but they woefully lack a culture of self-critique, and so, the Evil Villain pushed by Jewish and homo power will always be the Angry White Straight Male. And yet, most conservatives are more worried about the odd Muslim terrorist than about all the real havoc caused by Jews and homos. Indeed, the main reason why Muslim immigration exists is because Jews and homos control Western government policy. With the Right being so stupid, no wonder it’s been losing the ‘culture war’ against the ‘Left’. But with powerful and rich Jews and privileged homos in control of ‘progressivism’, what has become of leftism? When Gay Day has replaced Mayday, leftism too is effectively dead. Most ‘progressive’ outlets are now more obsessed about catering to rich homos than to the needs of most Americans under the duress of globalism. Even so, such madness and hysteria are understandable because of America’s Judeo-Christian tradition of Might wedded to Right. America was founded and developed with the ambition to become both the richest most powerful nation AND the most righteous & sympathetic to the ‘oppressed’ & ‘wretched’. Looking back, British Rule over the American colonies had been rather generous and enlightened, but the ‘Founding Fathers’ vastly exaggerated the ‘oppressive’ elements. British had raised taxes on the colonies because of the huge expenditures of the French and Indian War. Colonies, though having called on the Mother Country to do most of the fighting, didn’t want to pay taxes for the services rendered. [US will surely find some excused to renege on its debts to foreign nations like China and Saudi Arabia.] Of course, crisis of taxes also brought down the French Monarchy. The French spent an astronomical sum to aid the American colonies against the British and ended up with empty coffers, leading to higher taxes that led to rage and rebellion, especially as bad weather spread economic desperation throughout the land. Even though progressive taxation bites the rich more, its long-term effect has been to protect the rich from the mob. As long as the mob don’t have to pay much in taxes, it is less likely to revolt against the elites. Thus, even though the upper crust of Americans pay the bulk of taxes, they get to preside over a more restive populace. The American masses aren’t likely to revolt against taxation, the Tea Party movement notwithstanding, since they pay less in taxes — or none at all — than the rich and superrich do[but then the rich and super-rich are compensated by globalism that expands their opportunity to increase their profits to stratospheric levels.]. American people are more likely to lose their minds if ‘free’ government programs and services are drastically cut. Of course, Democrats bitch about how the GOP is about to take ‘rights’ away from the people, but Democrats are sometimes more effective in curbing spending. Just as Nixon could go to China because of his anti-communist credentials — something no Democrat politician would ever dare do — , Democrats can cut social spending with less resistance because of their credentials, if only symbolic, of being pro-black and pro-worker. Thus, paradoxically, the political victory could actually do more damage to your side. Think of how Clinton came into office and threw tons of Negroes into prison, pushed ‘free trade’, and reduced welfare without much resistance from blacks or Liberals. Since he was the first ‘black president’, he could do things that no Republican president could. And under Obama, a whole bunch of black politicians have been prosecuted for corruption, something that would have been unlikely under white presidency. If the bottom 50% of Americans[who don’t pay taxes and are dependent on government] were to revolt, it won’t be about unjust taxation but about insufficient taxation of the rich. [American Revolution was not about the have-nots attacking the haves but about the haves refusing to pay taxes. It was a have-revolution, or ‘havelution’, than a have-not-revolution, or ‘havenotultion’. Due to bountifulness of land, even the have-nots could be promised something in America, and so, many have-nots joined with the haves against the British. They figured independence would mean more land and freedom, on which the have-nots could become haves.] As lower IQ blacks and Hispanics are nearly 50% of all newborns, the future doesn’t look too good for America. Also, if Mexican birthrates drop, the main problem will be immigration from black Africa where an average Negress has seven to ten pickaninnies. It’s a myth that slavery and Jim Crow created savage blacks in America. Just how did a few centuries of white rule overturn 100,000s of yrs of black evolution in hot Africa teeming with lions, hyenas, hippos, crocodiles, and malarial mosquitos that weeded out the weakling Negroes and selected mostly the wild, muscular, and aggressive ones who be hollering like baboons and running like wildebeests. Suppose short and scrawny southern Chinese had been brought over as slaves to America and had been treated even worse than blacks were. Would most white Americans be afraid of 5 ft 2 inch scrawy Chinese guys bitching about past oppression? No, the problem of Black America is that blacks are a problematic people who’d evolved into powerfully muscled and aggressive chimpout folks during 100,000s of their existence in hot and dangerous sub-Saharan Africa. Besides, if slavery caused black aggressiveness, blacks had been practicing slavery for 10,000s of yrs in Africa before they were brought to America. So, it must have been black African slavery that made blacks so crazy. White folks are deluded with a fallacy. Suppose you meet some Indian savage who trapped this dangerous cougar and sold it to you. Suppose you bring it home and treat it badly for awhile. Then, you feel bad about it and let it run free. Suppose the cougar acts nasty and bites your ass and claws your chest. You think it’s angry because you treated it badly, and there would be some truth to that. But it’d be foolish to think it’s acting like that MAINLY because of its history of mistreatment at your hands. It is, after all, a cougar, a naturally wild and dangerous and aggressive beast that likes to hunt, fight, and kill. So, even if you do try to make amends with the creature, it’s still gonna act like a dangerous animal since 100,000s of yrs of evolution made the cougar into a dangerous and aggressive predator. Same with the Negroes. Yes, part of bad Negro behavior owes to history, but biology via evolution made the black man stronger, more aggressive, wilder, and funkier than the white man. This Jafro-istic side of the Negro is embedded in his DNA. But the fallacious minded ‘Liberal’ folks think blacks act as they do because of the history and hope that social programs and apologies will elevate Negroes into constructive citizens. In fact, the Negro’s nature is geared to be ‘badass’, ‘punkass’, and ‘funky ass’. Amusingly enough, even though white Liberals insist that all races are the same, they seem to be especially fascinated with black musicality, muscularity, athleticism, and shake-booty-big-penis-sexualism for their sheer instinctive wild-ism, i.e. as if such energies burst naturally from the noble savage black soul, but then, Liberals, for all their claims of being ‘liberated’ and ‘open-minded’, are repressed and trapped with their inability to resolve the contradictions between their permissive faith in nature and their ironclad dogma in the ‘social constructs’. On the one hand, Liberals believe that we should say and do as we please in accordance to our wild, spontaneous, and crazy nature. But so much of what flows from human natures vary from individual to individual and from race to race, and some are positive while others are wild and crazy. Since human nature is supposed to be good, all the negative things must be the fault of society and history. So, if blacks naturally do stuff that is wild and fun, they must be just following their true nature. But if blacks act like crazy apes and hurt people, it must be the result of history of slavery and Jimmy Crow. By the way, it’s funny how Jimmy Crow is often mentioned next to the Holocaust. But how many blacks died during Jimmy Crow? It was an unfair fact of life for blacks, but it was not about mass killing. It seems to me that the Holocaust is more comparable to mass communist killings ordered by Jews or mass ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Palestinians by Zionist supremacists, but notice how Jews have associated Jimmy Crow with the Holocaust so as to make white gentiles associate ‘white guilt’ over slavery with ‘gentile guilt’ over the Holocaust. These hideous Jews have no shame. Anyway, of course, seemingly positive and fun side of black nature cannot separated from their negative side. Just like Wagner’s music expressed both the ennobling spirt and dark passion of German culture, black music expresses both the exciting jive-ass side and the punkass animalistic side of the Jafro. There is a connection between the wild pathos of Blues with the thug attitudes of Rap. Anyway, we were discussing the taming of God’s power under the rise of civilization and how this process also became corrupted. The increasing abstraction of God made Him ever more powerful. In the Genesis, God is somewhat human-like, even expressing fear of the builders of Babel. But as the story develops, He becomes a grander figure, more conceptualized in His Being. Yet, paradoxically, the more powerful He becomes, the less direct power He seems to exert over human lives. It’s like the great leader has less tangible power over you than the petty bureaucrat, teacher, or your parents does over you. Napoleon was the most powerful man in the French empire, but a French child was at the mercy of his parents. God begins as a parental figure in the beginning of the Genesis, peeking into the lives of Adam and Eve and Cain and others. He’s talking directly to the early figures of the Bible. But as He becomes a grander and grows exponentially in cosmic power, He has less direct power or interest in the lives of humans. But there’s also a moral aspect to the paradox of His power that grows less [directly]powerful as it grows more [cosmically]powerful. As God grows more powerful, the spiritual universe of the Bible becomes more moralistic, and increasingly, there’s a sense that God Himself must play by the rules He sets down. [Since pagan gods like Zeus and Odin did not create the world and don’t control everything in it, the world cannot be expected to be imbued with their wisdom or essence. But since God did create everything in the universe that obeys His laws and design, His moral law must apply to everything in every corner of the universe. And that means He too must be bound by this essence. God is the culmination of man’s dictatorial nature of total Will to Power. Every great dictator began as a mere leader of men among other leaders of men. He shared power with others, and society was seen as having existence, value, and meaning apart from him. But as the leader turns into dictator and then super-dictator, he is driven by monomania. He wants to be the sole power. He creates a cult that would have people believe that HE is the essence of the nation/empire in space and time. Everyone of the nation/empire is to believe that his world has no meaning apart from the Great Dictator. And the cult is to keep his greatness alive forever. All of past history is understood in terms of having existed to culminate in the birth and rise of this great ruler, and all future generations are to honor his memory. It’s like what the Nazis used to say: "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler." We see such megalomania is TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick whose neo-Heideggerian philosophy apparently informs him that the cosmos came into existence ultimately to produce Malick as Star Child, the genius with the power to create a one-man Renaissance. Christians divided history into before-Christ and since-Christ, as if the birth of Jesus is the focal point of all time and space. Jews would have us see all of white history as having led to and culminated in the evil of Holocaust and all of white future to be defined by need to apologize and seek redemption for the Holocaust. Jews made themselves into new Jesus.] And even when God apparently doesn’t act moral, as in the Book of Job, He finally compensates by providing Job with a new family, new wealth, and new happiness. Thus, as God grows more powerful, He also grows more obligated to play by His own rules, or at least compensate for violating them. [One could argue that there’s a suggestive sense in Christianity that God, for His sins, had to compensate all the wrongs done to humanity by sacrificing His Son. But since God cannot admit wrong, the myth blames humanity for having killed Jesus and seek salvation by honoring Him.] Indeed, the idea of Heaven allows God to get away with all His broken promises. The Bible says that those who are virtuous and faithful shall be blessed, but all through history, many good folks lived cursed lives in a world where wicked folks often reaped the greatest rewards. Since God’s promise failed in the real world, the compensation was offered in the Next World, but for this bargain to be fulfilled, people had to be instilled with faith in the Afterlife. To be sure, even without the promise of Afterlife, some people keep with faith in God as a means to maintain semblance of sanity in crazy times. Think of the story of Nien Cheng the authoress of LIFE AND DEATH IN SHANGHAI. Surely, even a lifelong atheist can understand how faith in God helped her maintain her balance in the worst of times. During the Cultural Revolution, she lost everything, was regularly tortured and beaten. Her daughter became a Red Guard but, even so, wouldn’t condemn her mother, and she was tortured and murdered. Her mother was left to rot in a prison cell for years, and she probably thought she would die there. The world had gone mad. A monster ruled over China, and his minions waged total war on arts, culture, and sanity, and destroyed millions of lives. People like Richard Dawkins mock religious people, but if the world around you goes mad and politically correct brainwashed young people torment you 24/7, how can one cling to sanity? I agree with Dawkins that we should try to be factual and rational as possible in a sane world, but what if the world goes insane, and surely, Dawkins knows from history that people can go nuts with just about any ideology, movement, or fashion as well as from fanatical devotion to religion. In a world overtaken by madness where everyone around you barks and foams at the mouth like a rabid dog, the only refuge left may be faith in God. I highly doubt if Nien Cheng could have maintained her sanity by thinking about natural selection or chromosomes or the eye color of fruit flies and etc. Her book was a best-seller but has since disappeared into the sinkhole probably because so much what Jews and homos are pushing with political correctness and the cult of personality of Obama. Even if millions haven’t been killed in the US, a kind of straitjacket mentality has taken over the elite institutions, governments, cultural industries, legal justice system, and etc. For example, it’s no longer enough to tolerate homos and allow them the freedom of fecal penetration. We must celebrate homosexuality as the greatest thing since slice bread or toasted buns. If a homo stranger kisses you, you better like it because you’re suffering from a phobia if you don’t. If a guy kisses a woman without her approval, it’s sexual harassment. But if a homo plants his fruity lips on your cheeks or lips, you better praise him, or YOU are attacked as the aggressor. This is the world created by Jewish power. If a Jew tells you to suck his cock or kiss his ass, you better do it or risk being labeled as an ‘anti-Semite’. Indeed, look at all the whore politicians acting like dogs before Benjamin Netanhayu. Jews and homos own the souls of Americans no less than Mao owned the souls of Chinese youth during the Cultural Revolution. And the Jew-run media routinely run gay-issue stories with the rainbow ‘gay flag’ prominently on display and with good-looking homos chosen for the stories. Meanwhile, it features the Westboro Church as the face of those who oppose the ‘gay’ agenda. Since Westboro Church defames US soldiers at funerals, being ‘anti-gay’ is also associated with anti-patriotism while all those rosy images of homosexual soldiers equates two guys who do fecal penetration with national honor and pride. Anyway, man’s taming of the gods or God could become demented and sick. Instead of taming godly power to expand universal justice, it can be tamed to serve the vanity of privilege, greed, and/or decadence. And this is evident in how Jewish and homo elites have usurped the mantle of spirituality and ‘equality’ to serve their own interests. So, Zionists and Jews can criticize, judge, condemn, harass, and bully any group — and even manipulate the US government and military to starve and attack nations disliked by Jews — , but no one better ever question or challenge Jewish power. And among all the sexual deviant groups, homos are the only ones deemed ‘holy’ enough to change the rules, even moral rules as essential as those of matrimony. Polygamy and incest marriage are banned, but ‘gay marriage’ gets a pass. At least polygamy and incest had certain advantages in history. Indeed, the animal world is essentially ‘polygamous’ in that males duke it out to the top position, and the top male mates with most of the females. Thus, the genes of the toughest and healthiest male is passed down the generations, and this may be one reason why blacks are tougher than other races. Though different African tribes had different customs, many tribes had a system where the chieftain, often the toughest warrior, humped most of the women; thus, the genes of the toughest warrior male was passed down to the next generation. Incest also served its purpose in human history. When a small band of people became estranged from others, they could multiply only through incest or near-incest, and thus, incest sometimes saved human communities from possible extinction, which is why so much folklore around the world begin with incestuous gods/goddesses and heroes/heroines. Consider Greek and Germanic folklore. But has any life been produced by a guy sticking his penis into the shit-stained fecal hole of another guy? Has a single life been created by two women rubbing their vaginal holes together? Just name one human or animal produced that way, and maybe I’ll change my mind. So, why do homos get to change the rules of marriage but polygamous and incestuous people do not? Homos got elite power and are the main allies of the all-powerful Jews. When postmodern Christianity is okay, even delighted, with having homos marry within their church walls, then God has been ‘tamed’ and brought-to-heel in the worst possible way, and SHAME on Jews for having turned into such a repugnant people. They’d survived for thousands of years under the spiritual guidance of a Deity who provided them with the sacred rules of biology and morality, but now, Jews are at the forefront of persuading, pressuring, and prodding all Christian Churches to call on God to bless the fecal penetration between men as the basis for holy matrimony. What a sick world. No respect, no honor, no sense. Perhaps, Jews hate white Christians more than they love ‘gay marriage’. Maybe pushing ‘gay marriage’, as with the case of Jewish porn-promotion, is a means to undermine and subvert the moral and biological unity of the white race. A vile people, these modern Jews. While tolerance for homos is perfectly reasonable, the notion that homosexuality is somehow healthy or wonderful, something to be proud of, and something to be celebrated by all Americans is about as sick as anything one can imagine. But, Americans are blind to the sickness for the same reason that so many people in Rome were blind to the cultural decay of Rome. As Rome in its glory days was the richest and most powerful place on Earth, Romans came to associate every Roman vice with grandeur and glory. They were blind to the fact that such excesses of decadence would eventually rot the core of Roman civilization. Today, so many Americans conflate homos and Jews with success, money, and power that they think anything associated with Jews and homos must be great, especially since Jews and homos not only hog the power and privilege but also the mantle of ‘holy victim-hood’ as well, a kind of perverse fusion of privileged materialistic excess and preening moral narcissism. But, it’s all based on lies, hysteria, orgasmo-hedonism, and dementia. A society whose core idea of morality is ‘gay marriage’ is in serious trouble. True, US has the best scientists and doctors and businessmen and etc, and such people will keep things going for awhile, but no civilization ever survived for long on material success alone, especially is success became increasingly the reserve of those at the top. [The ‘middle class’ was what most Americans aspired to after World War II. Today, the ‘middle class’ has become almost a dirty word. To many, it sounds like ‘mediocre class’. People now think in terms of Win or Lose, with nothing in between. The idea of ‘middle class’ gets in the way of either winning or losing. It implies most people should be between winning-it-all and losing-and-falling. Worse, the anti-middle mentality infects both the Conservatives and ‘progressives’. Libertarian-minded Conservatives childishly dream of becoming like Ayn-Randian tycoons or sucking up to such people, like Paul Ryan does. And ‘progressives’ types want to live with the arts, culture, hip restaurants, haute urban privilege, and etc. Since such a good life is beyond the means of most millennial ‘progressives’ who graduate from college, they turn to ‘socialism’. But it’s not about concerns for the working class or poor folks who are hurting. It is really about their envy of haute urban gentry who seem to hog all the good stuff; they want it for themselves. Despite their ‘leftism’, people who major in arts and humanities really aspire for privilege even if their tastes and interests may be less obviously materialistic than those who got for yuppie-ism of the finance or high-tech sector. But it soon dawns on ‘progressives’ upon leaving college that even their ideal vision of life depends on material success. The life of a fancy intellectual, art connoisseur, or even fun-house hipster is closed to you if you don’t have money and connections. Some social-justice-warrior or SJW types are growing bitter and angry. Their rage turns to thuggery, but since thuggery-as-thuggery is despised — unless one is a black rapper — , they mask their thuggery behind rhetoric of ‘social justice’ just like May 68 radicals and Red Guards did in the 1960s.] And American Liberalism can’t get any sicker. And Conservatism cannot save the say since most conservatives are shameless and disgusting whores of Jewish supremacism. Just look how Walter Russell Mead and Charles Murray suck up to Jews nonstop. They might as well star in a ‘gay’ porn movie where they suck a Jew’s cock for two hrs while Andrew Sullivan gets his ass rammed by some homo-Negro aka homogro. The critical moment in the ‘taming’ of God arrived with the story of Jesus who, according to Christian theology, died for the sin of man. Of course, one could read the Crucifixion of Jesus as something more: The unmentionable atonement of God for all His sins of arbitrary cruelty to man. But given the taboos about blaming God, even God’s atonement had to be told in terms of His generosity to heal the souls of sinful man. Of course, the sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t mean that man’s sins are cleansed. It only means that the possibility of the cleansing has been made been availed to mankind. Jesus served as the template, the ‘role model’, the exemplar. It is up to humans to find salvation through Him. It’s like an idealistic teacher devotes his life to the education of his students, an endeavor requiring considerable sacrifice of time and energy. But the ‘sacrifice’ alone doesn’t guarantee knowledge, only the opportunity of attaining knowledge than the ‘hellfire’ of ignorance and laziness. That the Son of God had to be ‘punished’ with extreme agony hints at the possibility that God had something to answer for. But of course, since God is supposed to be perfect, a Christian couldn’t say the agony of Christ was about the redemption of God for His failure of moral consistency. Anti-Christian atheists mock the whole concept of Jesus dying to redeem the sinfulness of mankind. They see it as the silliest superstition. After all, how can the death of some eccentric Jew in some corner of the Roman Empire literally or physically redeem anything? Besides, people die horribly everyday, and it has always been thus. So, what is so special about Jesus’s death? But taken psychologically, we can understand why the story of Jesus has had such an hold on so many people. Besides, the Christian template of guilt and redemption has been secularized and has been psychologically adopted by secular liberals. After all, what is the MLK cult? Often, we are told that slavery was America’s ‘original sin’. Never mind that Africans practiced slavery since the dawn of time, and American Indians also had slavery since the beginning. And never mind that whites, Latinos and Anglos, effected wars of ‘eradication’ against the native populations of Americans before the arrival of black slaves. Yet, for some reason, slavery has been tagged as the ‘original sin’ of America. This shows that people like a good moral tale, a narrative with a dramatic beginning. So, all narratives select certain stories and edit out others, and the New Testament Gospels had simply mastered this formula. [A genius move by the creators of the Gospels was the decision to have four instead of just one Gospel. Four ‘witnesses’ to events make the event seem more real and trustworthy than if there were only one. After all, you are more likely to believe an account if several people, instead of just one, claimed to have seen it. Or, a single narrative has the feel of institutional dogmatism, as if a select committee gained monopoly over the faith. In contrast, the co-existence of four Gospels suggest that Christianity is open to personal experience and revelation. In this, it feels more demotic than the Old Testament that reads more like a ‘definitive edition’ by a committee of Rabbis appointed by the powers-that-be. Old Testament has stories of ordinary people, but the narrative always has the tone of authority and officialdom. In contrast, the voices of the Gospels could be read & heard as recollections and reflections of people just like you and me. It was also a genius move to maintain some differences among the Gospels. Such ‘roughness’ and discrepancies add a documentary feel to the Gospels. After all, everyone sees even the same events differently, as illustrated in CITIZEN KANE. Also, the ‘imperfection’ of the different accounts among the Gospels imply that only God is perfect. Humans, even the noblest Disciples of Jesus, could only see, hear, and record with fallible senses.] And secular liberals use history and grand narratives like this all the time. Also, the black experience in America is often discussed in spiritual than merely historical terms. Black suffering is often discussed and narrated in terms of holy suffering, as that of Jesus under the whip of Romans. And MLK’s death is made out to be some great act of self-sacrifice. And we are told that "there is so much yet to be done", and we shall finally be cleansed of our ‘sins of racism’ when blacks have made it to the mountaintop, which is why so many white suckers voted for Obama as the return of JFK and MLK — and maybe Harvey Milk and a bit of Malcolm X too — rolled into one. So, the very Liberals who snicker at Christian theology mere practice a secular variation of it through the arts, culture, academia, and media. Today’s universities are more like secular seminaries where students are instilled more with the holy sanctimony of ‘white guilt’ than encouraged to think critically. White progressives chant the same mantras over and over like catechism, indeed as if they’re being expiated of their ‘historical sins’. Also, even if collective guilt were to have validity — it doesn’t, but let’s pretend it does — , what’s the big idea behind ‘white guilt’? Among Europeans, only the British, Anglos, Latinos, Belgians, and Jews were involved in any kind of black slave trade. Germans, late Italians, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, Chechens, Georgians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Croatians, Austrians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Belarusians, Armenians, Estonians, Danish, and most others never had a hand in the slave trade. Most European ‘sins’ were against fellow Europeans, i.e. Poles against Ukrainians Cossacks, Germans and Russians against Poles, Swedes against Poles, Russians against Finns, and etc. Should each people be burdened with all these various forms of ‘collective guilt’? Also, if ‘collective guilt’ has validity, what about collective pride? Since Brits ended slavery all over the world, why shouldn’t they feel moral pride over that accomplishment? Since so many achievements in science, medicine, philosophy, art, music, and technology emerged from France, why shouldn’t the French be collectively proud and justified for all time? So, why is ‘collective guilt’ mostly about the Holocaust and black slavery? It’s because the Jewish powers-that-be favor such narratives to secure their supremacist power by morally paralyzing white gentiles. But there’s another reason: People like narratives with beginning, middle, and end — and the promise of redemption. So, even though human violence and injustice never had a beginning and never will have an end, people want history to be formulated into moral narratives. In this sense, the appeal of the myth of Jesus is no different from the appeal of the narrative of black slavery or the Holocaust. The human mind can only deal with so much data and narratives at once. In America, the favored narrative thread about moral redemption came to revolve around blacks. So, we are told that these noble savages were plucked from their Edenic jungle paradise in Africa and brought to cold and cruel white America. And they suffered oh-so-very-much — though, in fact, no more and generally much less than other peoples around the world under non-white rule — , and they finally came together and rallied around the black jesus figure in the form of Michael King, aka Martin Luther King, who really should be Fartin Poother King Kong, now the famous Bouncer of the Mall in DC. King was assassinated in 1968, and since then, secular Liberals elevated him to something like the American jesus. It’s as though the white race can only be saved from its innate sinfulness through absolution deriving from Negro spirituality. So, even though blacks keep messing and fouling up America, white liberals insist that racial problems linger because we haven’t done enough to expiate white sinfulness embedded in ‘subconsciously racist’ white hearts. And of course, the Holocaust has taken on spiritual dimensions, a kind of "We Jews died for the sins of you white Christians", and so, most white people worship Jews and pray at the altar of Holocaustianity than before God and Jesus. But again, we can understand the emotional appeal of such narratives. Anne Frank or Virgin Anne is like the madonna of the Holocaustian faith. And the survival of Jews and the creation of Israel are like the resurrection of Jew-sus. Given that secular Liberal Jews push such quasi-religious narratives and invoke the notion of ‘historical sin’, the Jesus narrative and concepts of Sin and Redemption don’t seem so ridiculous, at least from a psychological perspective. It’s just that secularism imbues what are essentially religious/spiritual ideas and narratives with cachet of ‘reason’, ‘science’, and/or ‘social justice’. If we worship MLK as the one who died for ours sins than Jesus, it passes for ‘secular’ and ‘rational’ than as ‘religious’ and ‘reactionary’. If we worship the Holocaust than God, we can affect the air of historical inquiry and ethical commitment. Of course, God doesn’t exist whereas the Holocaust really did happen, and one could argue therein lies the difference between religious moralism and secular Liberalism. But worship is still worship, and when something is worshiped, human psychology enters into the realm of religion or at least idolatry. It is a fact that some people have an obsessive quasi-religious faith in certain peoples or things that really exist. And people can feel quasi-religious feelings for things that they know aren’t real. Consider all the people who’ve allowed certain music, book, or movie to alter, even profoundly change, their lives. Consider people who are totally immersed in the video-game world. Consider the female character in Stephen King’s MISERY who is so obsessed with a fictional character that she can’t abide by the author’s treatment of the story. Now, secular and Liberal people will claim to be rational, empirical, and skeptical. They will invoke individuality and critical thinking; they will reject the notion that they are being irrational. Of course, what goes by the name of Critical Theory in the academia has nothing to do with critical thinking. Instead, college students are uncritically drummed with the same set of iron principles about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘dead white males’, ‘Euro-centrism’, ‘imperialism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘Orientalism’,and etc, though to be sure, bitching about the ‘bourgeoisie’ has gone out of fashion, not least because most Jews, homos, and liberal wasps are part of the privileged and comfy neo-bourgeoisie. All those key PC terms are not about opening up debate on the relevant issues; their truly intended effect is to warn students and colleagues: "We can’t talk about this", "The debate is over, there’s nothing more to say, and you must agree with the Final Word on this matter", or "We can discuss this issue only within these narrow strictures." For instance, a term like ‘antisemitic’ or ‘racist’ deems that the subject is bad, evil, or wrong, and there is nothing more to be said on the subject except to show that he is bad, evil, or wrong. One isn’t allowed to discuss to veracity of ‘antisemitism’ or ‘racism’, the possibility that there are certain things about Jews or blacks that justify hostile feelings towards them. We are to take on faith that Jews are lovable and blacks are wonderful, and that only a sick evil person can harbor negative feelings about Jews or blacks. But then, it’s perfectly okay for Jews and blacks to mention a thousand reasons as to why they don’t like or even hate whites, Christians, gentiles, Europeans, and etc. While the pioneers of Critical Theory were original thinkers, their students through the ages have been a bunch of priggish fools whose claim to intelligence is that they appreciate Chantal Akerman’s JEANNE DIELMAN, the worst film ever made featuring an actress peeling potatoes and shining shoes for three and half hours before she finally gets an orgasm, feels libertad, and stabs a man to death. Yes, it’s the product of a mind of a lesbian, Marxist, feminist Jewess. Even a stupid Negress couldn’t come up with something so ridiculous. Blacks ho’s may be crazy, but you cannot bullshit them into believing JEANNE DIELMAN is bearble on any level. At any rate, Jews and Negroes are crucially different from Jesus in that they NEVER chose to suffer[and certainly not for all of humanity]. This is why the collective sacralization of Jews and Negroes makes zero moral sense. No Jew chose to suffer the Holocaust. They were victims but not martyrs. And no Negro chose to suffer in America. All that myth about Negroes dying nobly for the sin of whites, as in UNCLE TOM’S CABIN or GREEN MILE, is something created by naive white do-gooders. In the case of Stephen King, his ‘progressivism’ seems to be a cover for his wanton sadism and penchant for cruelty. Even Negro storytellers don’t come up with something as ridiculous as a Mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse. Radio Raheem gets killed in DO THE RIGHT THING because he’s a big troublesome Negro, not because he be some Magic Negro. Negroes be acting wild on the sports field and in movies made by other Negroes. It’s white folks who dream of the Noble Negro who done CHOSE to lay his life to redeems the soul of white folks. In truth, NO Negro ever died for the souls of whites, and NO Jew, other than Jesus of myth, ever died for the sin and/or salvation of white gentiles. The very idea of a Jew dying for the sake of gentiles is laughable to a Jew, and it’s one reason why Jews couldn’t stand the Jesus narrative. In their eyes, Jesus was like the biggest schmuck, willing to die for the souls of OTHERS. Jews reacted to Jesus’s decision to die for mankind like Sonny Corleone to Michael’s declaration of having joined the U.S. Marines. Sicilians don’t fight and die for strangers. "Your country ain’t your blood, remember that." So, even though the Holocaust was truly horrible event in history, there’s nothing to suggest the nobility of Jews. In contrast, Jesus — at least according to Christian mythology — chose to die for mankind. He could have been like a Negro and "run like a mothafuc*a"; He could have said what Pilate wanted to hear and got off. But He chose to speak the Truth and was willing to die for it. That willfulness on His part makes the story noble and uplifting instead of merely sad and depressing. If Jesus had begged for mercy or lied to save His own skin but got killed anyway, the Christian myth could not have been possible. It’s not so much that He died but the manner in which He died. Even so, one may well ask, how can the death of ANY MAN wash away the sins of other men? Literally and physically, it strikes us as ridiculous. Indeed, literally and physically, the very notion of ‘sin’ is unscientific. But psychologically — and we are psychological and emotional beings — , it kind of makes sense, even profound sense. After all, humans have this thing called ‘conscience’, and it is related to ‘guilt’. Generally, violence has been justified by counter-violence, so there isn’t much ‘conscience’ or ‘guilt’ in war and conflicts of interest. So, if nation A attacks nation B, all that matters is both sides try to bash one another. Neither side needs to feel any guilt. But sometimes, the conflict is lopsided or one-sided. Suppose nation B wants peace but nation A attacks. While nation B may not be a particularly good nation, it still prefers peace over war, whereas nation A chooses war. Thus, nation A could later come to feel some degree of guilt and conscience. But what about cases where one side is noble and tries to do right by the other side, but the other side mistreats, abuses, or destroys it most terribly? That could lead to uber-guilt and uber-conscience. Why is it that many people feel so guilty about mistreating a dog? Mistreating any animal is terrible, but it feels worse with a dog. It’s because a dog is so full of love and devotion to humans. Thus, violence against dogs seem extra-cruel, and some people may feel guilt for having done wrong to dogs. And if people knew the Real Hog, they would realize that hog-killing is a horrible deed worthy of guilt, but that’s another story. Take Federico Fellini film LA STRADA. Why is Zampano, played by Anthony Quinn, overcome with sadness? It’s because Gelsomina was so good and pure-of-heart. The loutish Zampano may have done wrong to other people, but he can’t shake Gelsomina out of his mind because she was so devoted to him. He laments as grief washed over him along the seashore. [In the final scene along a similar seashore in LA DOLCE VITA, the modern hero is too distracted to hear or feel anything real.] And that is the essence of the Christian psychology. So, who cares if the idea of Jesus’ dying for our sins is literally or physically ludicrous? On the psychological and emotional level, people are moved by the story of a Man of deep compassion who chose death in a world that can’t abide the virtues that He preached. He didn’t call for war and vengeance but for universal forgiveness and understanding. Jews couldn’t accept what was to them an affront to their identity and sanctity, and Romans felt threatened by values that threatened the virtues of warrior-hood and ruthless conquest. Since Jesus couldn’t persuade the world with His ideas, He had to set an example through His individuality. He demonstrated a willingness to die for His values that were about kindness, forgiveness, and compassion. Through such self-sacrifice, people could maybe realize that He didn’t just talk the talk — which any third-rate minister can do — but walk the walk. Through His death, He showed that He wasn’t out for money, power, or moral vanity. After all, how many morally vain Liberals or progressives would actually sacrifice their livelihoods, let alone lives, for their professed ideals? Through torture and death, Jesus proved He meant what He said. And through word of mouth, through Gospel both spoken and written, the mythology spread far and wide. Though Zampano and Gelsomina are fictional characters inhabiting a world far removed from us, who hasn’t been affected by the final scene of LA STRADA? Though Gelsomina lived and died for Zampano, we too can empathize and share in the emotions. In this respect, it’s as if she redeemed our souls as well because there’s an archetypal bit of Zampano in every person, the part that is egotistical, self-centered, and crude. Stories have that effect and gain analogical and symbolic meaning. Even non-Greeks can be inspired by the 300 Spartans who gave their lives in defending Hellas from the Persians. In that sense, it is as if Spartan men didn’t just fight and die for their homeland[or the future survival of Western Civilization] but for the very principle of honor and courage. We feel likewise with the hero of SHANE. On the one hand, every act is particular, unique, and limited to its time and place, but it also has larger implications because all people share same basic emotions and similar dreams. [Everyone has a stuck self and a loose self. Stuck self is what you cannot escape from. Even if you take on a new ideology or value system, you are stuck in your body. You can travel to another country, but you are still stuck in yourself. You can study and learn, but you are stuck within the limits of your intelligence. The loose self, in contrast, allows you to imagine, explore, and feel beyond yourself. Via empathy and/or imagination, you can see the world through different people, creeds, times, cultures, and etc. Every person needs to know his/her stuck self and accept it for what it is, but every person also needs to broaden his/her loose self by imagining all sorts of possibilities. Also, even though the stuck self cannot be escaped from, it can be enriched by the activity of the loose self. Unfortunately, stuff like trans-genderism and trans-racialism undermine the reality of the stuck self. People are encouraged to think that they are what-they-think-they-are. A man who claims he's a woman is a 'woman'. A white person who says he is black is 'black'. And the preponderance of Political Correctness and sheer predominance of Popular Culture are limiting the exploration and discoveries of the loose self. The loose self must be free to explore, but it must also acknowledge and respect the stuck self. Be free with the loose self and be real with the stuck self. But our society tells us to play games with the stuck self and to renege on the freedom of our loose self lest we stumble upon ideas and possibilities that upset the applecart of globalist dogma.] Thus, even an anti-communist can be inspired by a heroic communist. Despite differences in ideology, a man who gave his life for a cause died not only for a specific agenda but for the universal virtue of courage itself. Similarly, even a Marxist can be inspired by Howard Roark of THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Roark is a true believer in a dream, and he will not compromise. Thus, there is a universal appeal to all heroes, whatever their causes or beliefs may be. Indeed, even Jews can admire the Germans in the film DAS BOOT. Even if the U-Boat crew are fighting on the side of an evil ideology, they practice the virtues of honor, dedication, and bravery. We find larger meanings in specific acts because human actions have universal implications. It’s like what Colonel Lawrence[Tom Conti] says of the sacrifice of Jack Celliers[David Bowie] in MERRY CHRISTMAS, MR. LAWRENCE. Even though Cellier’s action had a specific purpose in a fixed time and place, the larger meaning can reverberate far and wide. Even a non-Christian like Captain Yonoi[Ryuichi Sakamoto] is moved and even transformed by Celliers’ noble act. [Art and criticism have a certain advantage vis-a-vis religion and popular culture. Religion and Pop Culture call for surrender. Religion asks for blind faith, and Pop Culture demands surrender to hedonism or sentimentality. In contrast, art has a way of probing, exploring, and examining the very themes that move the artist. The artist may ‘believe’, but blind belief isn’t enough for art. He must search for truth and seek understanding beyond ‘conventional wisdom’. Criticism also allows for belief and conviction but requires an analysis and explanation of the facets of belief. It isn’t enough to say, "I feel this way." The feeling has to be explained. Religion has weakened the Right because the Cult of Faith discouraged the creativity faculty of exploration and expression. Pop Culture has weakened young people’s minds by encouraging, even demanding, total surrender to immediate gratification. There is also mind-numbing Political Correctness that favors nasty self-righteous rage over rational discourse and honest argument. PC is like immediate sanctification.] If the historical Jesus really existed and was roughly like the figure of Christian mythology, then He might have had all of humanity in mind as He faced torture and death. As humans think in abstractions, an isolated event with its participants and particular problems can take on mythic and universal resonance. Thus, no individual is just an individual, no moment is just a moment, no place is just a place. It’s like when a pebble is tossed into the water, it doesn’t just create a splash where it drops but causes ripples that spread all across the surface. Human experience is like that, with certain things having ripple effects in appeal, inspiration, consciousness-raising, role-model-providing, etc. Granted, bigger objects create more ripples, especially in our global system where the entire world is connected and united via mass media. Though we are all part of the mass media network, most people don’t have any means to toss stones into the water. Only a handful of corporations have the power to toss pebbles, stones, and even huge boulders into the media ripple network, and our minds just ebb and flow with those ripples caused by the corporate media that are mostly controlled by Jews. So, while the Jew-run media turn countless accounts of black-on-white violence into tiny pebbles that hardly make a splash, they turn a rare instance of white-on-black violence into a boulder and hurl it into the media to make huge waves. Anyway, as humans are social creatures, even seemingly isolated incidents and events, if properly mythologized and proselytized, can have a widening ripple effect, and in this sense, the notion that Jesus died for our sins has genuine resonance, even if it is rationally and materially ludicrous. Even a solitary and dejected individual like Vincent Van Gogh stuck to his art — despite being misunderstood and unappreciated — because a part of him still felt connected to the larger humanity and hoped that maybe his genius will eventually have a ripple effect and change the world, as it did indeed. So, his self-sacrifice to art may have seemed foolish during his lifetime, but it wasn’t in vain. Also, there remains something of the child in us. Children feel that they’re the center of the world and that the world exists for them, therefore everyone should be feeling in accordance to what they, the children, are feeling. So, if a child is hungry and starts crying, he or she expects the entire world to understand and provide him or her with food. As children grow into adults, they realize that they are not the world and vice versa. They learn that the world doesn’t exist for them but that it exists oblivious to how they feel and what they want and demand. Instead of feeling that the world should serve them, they realize they must serve and work for the world instead of acting like a princeling who is owed everything. The paradox of Christianity is it goes out of its way to spread the mature and adult notion of serving the larger humanity, but this principle rests on the formula that, since Jesus went out of His way to serve all of us, we must serve Him, the Son of God. Because Jesus gave His entire being for us in the material world, we must give our entire being to Him in the spiritual world. Thus, Jesus becomes a figure of both boundless selflessness and infinite childlike egomania. Through the connective threads of storytelling and abstraction, Jesus continues to live, and the place where He died is more than a particular place. In some cases, the act of sacrifice has a specific meaning and purpose. In A TALE OF TWO CITIES, a flawed man chooses to redeem a life of failure & compromise by sacrificing his life to save another. There is some of that in the figure of Doc Holliday in John Ford’s MY DARLING CLEMENTINE. Their acts are specifically purposeful in relation to a particular event. In contrast, Jesus’s sacrifice wasn’t related to a particular set of people or a particular cause. His dying wouldn’t have saved the lives of some people or aided a particular political cause. He seemed to be aiming for higher truth beyond His time and place. Some have noted this quality in Obama, who tends to speak in language that sounds vaguely grandiose without meaning anything specific. But whereas Obama is just a conniving Jazzy politician trying to obfuscate meaning to play political hide-and-seek and enrich himself — as his worth will balloon to $300 million from speaking fees alone soon after leaving office — , Jesus wasn’t sounding vague to win popular approval. Deluded or not, He was certain that for Him to change, even save, the world, He must die for all mankind. Like a child, He conflated the entire world with His own being, but unlike a child, He believed He must live for the world than vice versa; but the irony is that, in having suffered and died for the world, the world did come to serve Him as the center of the universe. Anyway, how could any man die for all of humanity for all time? If someone is dangling from a bridge, you might risk your own life by trying to save the endangered person. If someone is drowning, you might try to save him at the risk of your own life. If one chooses to die in a war or in the name of truth, he would be dying for a cause or for knowledge. But Jesus didn’t just wanna save a few lives or help some people. He’d already done that with Lazarus and the diseased. He didn’t want to serve and die for a particular political cause as every political cause favors one group of people against others. No worldly cause can be wholly universal. To save one people from another people, the latter will have to be killed. And He didn’t want to serve and die for knowledge — like a courageous scientist or philosopher — as His truth went beyond the philosophic or intellectual. His truth didn’t favor the intelligent and educated over the dumb and ignorant. Galileo was persecuted, but he was mainly interested in the world of science, the domain of intellectuals and privileged folks. Jesus knew most of humanity was poor & wretched, and their souls could be saved only be another kind of truth. Soul is what every person has regardless of status or ability, and God doesn’t necessarily favor the rich, powerful, or smart. He favors the good. And yet, even this simple idea had to be formulated and preached, at least in part, as a matter of politics and philosophy. The philosophical, the physical, the moral, and the spiritual all had to converge into a single act to fulfill the truth of Jesus. He had to set an example, which is to expound on His love for humanity and die for it in a world that divided by class, race, sex, ability, morality, knowledge, and etc. His truth had to appeal to everyone, to the dumb as well as the intelligent, to the sinful as well as the virtuous, to the pagan as well as the Jews, to women as well as to men, to the poor as to the rich, to the weak as well to the powerful, and etc. Though He reached out to all people, even the dumb and poor, He had to prove Himself as an intellectual superior to all men, and there wasn’t an argument He lost. The dumb and simpleminded, no matter how good-hearted, couldn’t have done what He did, which required great insight, foresight, memory, vision, and prophecy. And the deed could be achieved only through one spectacular act. Though Crucifixion was commonplace in Roman times, the death of Jesus became spectacular through the power of storytelling of His good deeds, His courage before the powers-that-be, His suffering, His acceptance, and finally, His triumphant return. In some ways, the whole thing sounds like a stunt pulled off by some megalomaniacal kook, and there was probably an element of megalomania in Jesus, not least because He was Jewish, and lots of Jews are megalomaniacal. After all, the conception of the Jewish God as the one and only and the most powerful Being in the whole universe is surely a projection of the massive Jewish ego onto the heavens. But, there is no denying the power of Jesus story, and we can readily understand why the character of Ben-Hur is deeply moved by the death of Jesus in the William Wyler movie. Paradoxically, because Jesus didn’t die for anyone particular, He died for everyone. In the absence of special bond to any person, He loved all peoples, indeed the point of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, where Jesus is tempted with family life in exchange for His abandonment of the role of Messiah. Of course, we tend to be wary of people who shirk their personal responsibilities and then justify their behavior in the name of working for some greater good. It’s like Alice Walker neglected her duty as mother and used ‘social justice’ as a moral crutch. While some people do neglect personal obligations out of sincere commitment to larger humanity, most people who invoke such excuses tend to be self-serving narcissists. Think of all the leftist 60s types who neglected their own kids in the name of the Movement when they were only stoking their own egos as would-be Che Guevaras and Lenins. In a way, what Jesus was trying to achieve was both impossibly megalomaniacal and profoundly humble: To be the ultimate hero to save all of mankind and caring saint to provide hope for the poorest, weakest, dimmest, and meekest folks. Given the egomaniacal nature of man, surely Jesus wasn’t the first person who strove for such feat, but His example was the first that really took hold of the idea that a deed could be so great that it could serve as the template for hope and salvation of mankind for all time. It’s no wonder that the Obama campaign ran on the quasi-religious slogan of ‘Hope’, a kind of faith in historical salvation of stupidly and/or willfully naive white folks. Consider the times we’ve heard sentiments such as, "We’ve come a long way". It’s as if the election of the Nice Magic Negro has offered America a chance to wash away its ‘sins’ of ‘racism’ and the problems of black thuggery. Though White America has indeed changed much, entire swaths of the black community have become worse since the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the rise of the Black Middle Class — though largely dependent on ‘affirmative action’ and wasteful government jobs, not least because so many blacks in government encourage the black underclass to feed on government programs — , the black underclass has gotten scarier and scarier. Many observers can’t help noticing the irony of worsening black realities during times when white attitudes about blacks have grown more admiring and sympathetic. [But then, white compassion based on ‘white guilt’ just spoils blacks into moral narcissists, and white admiration of black thuggery in rap and sports only encourages blacks to act more like animals.] Why did so many blacks get worse just when so many whites got ‘better’? Liberals have long argued that it’s because of the lingering traces of ‘racism’, but black problems are no better in Liberal ‘blue’ cities than in Conservative ‘red’ ones. So, Obama was the great Mr. Hope, the magic stone that could hopefully kill two birds. Perhaps, his apotheosis would finally prove that white America has indeed ‘come a long way’, indeed to the point of placing a Negro in the White House. White Liberals voted for him en masse, and white conservatives quietly accepted his ascendancy without publicly calling him ‘nigger’ or ‘jungle bunny’; I didn’t either, not least because I was busy referring to him as a SOAM, or son of a mudshark. Also, maybe the triumph of Obama would send an inspiring message to the black community that if you act ‘clean’ like Obama, you could make it in America too and be adored by white folks too. Of course, these hopes were not rational. Obama, far from being some messianic figure, has always been a jazzy punkass self-aggrandizing, egotistical, sneaky, and devious jigger-jiver looking for angles to work with Jews and homos to fool whitey. Anyone who knows his history would have to agree. Also, what the hell is ‘white guilt’? Why should all white Americans be guilty of America’s ‘sins’ of slavery and Jimmy Crow — by the way, never mind the Jim Crowitz of Zionists against Palestinians in Israel/West Bank territories — when so many white Americans arrived after the Civil War and toiled on the farms and factories and died without enjoying this thing called ‘white privilege’? And if whites must feel guilty of past ‘sins’, why shouldn’t blacks be guilty of past sins of savagery, slavery, thuggery, and beastliness that they practiced for 100,000s of years in Africa? And how come there’s no talk of brown guilt going back to Aztec mass-killings and Latin-American crimes of ‘genocide’ and slavery? And what about yellow guilt of Asians. Just ask the Russian victims of the monstrous Mongols. So, none of this makes rational sense, but even secular Liberals need some good ‘old time religion’. Politically Correct Hope has the veneer of moral reasoning, but it’s as crazy as Evangelicalism in the South. Obama is really just a televangelist of secular Liberals. And given Obama’s deviousness as a politician, is anyone surprised by his broken promises, his favoring of billionaire Jews on Wall Street, his utter silence about the ongoing oppression of Palestinians by Zionist imperialists, his expansion of the National Security state, his spoils system favoring of political cronies and allies, and racial demagoguery, albeit peddled with the soft glow of ‘thoughtful’ rhetoric? In some ways, secular Liberals are even more pathetic than Evangelicals who are simply dumb and ignorant. Evangelicals have an excuse of being ignorant knuckleheads. But when you see the high IQ ‘intellectual’ products of elite universities talking and acting like Obama Freaks, it shakes one’s hope in rational social progress. Indeed, trust in the power of rationalism is now in such bad shape that even Liberal Jews like Cass Sunstein and Steven Pinker study the mind mainly to find ways to manipulate it emotionally. The possibility of logical or rational persuasion with the masses is now quietly regarded as a naive delusion. [Either the masses are seen as too dumb for rational thought or the Jewish elites fear critical thinking among ordinary people might lead to resistance against Jewish power and domination.] Can we blame them when even the members of the elite are so damn stupid and gullible to quasi-religious flakery? Whether it’s Terrence Malick’s interminable TREE OF LIFE[apparently his FINNEGANS WAKE] or Jane Campion’s insufferable adaptation of THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY — especially the opening with pomo feminists huddled in narcisso-fest — , a kind of ‘spiritual’ utopianism operates in the ‘progressive’ mind that doesn’t work. It’s like some kind of novocaine high. Try to stir anyone from its spell, and you’ll be met with fury and rage. It’s like taking the bottle away from an alcoholic. The dimwit opening scene of Campion’s worthless movie is the worst. The preciousness, the narcissism, the feel-goodery, the willfully naive and soap bubbly feel of bliss — to make things worse, there’s even a bald-headed black ho. It’s a childish vision of ‘peace’, ‘sisterhood’, and ‘enchantment’. [Perhaps, there is something in the Western psyche that tends toward ideals of female independence, if only as extension of the ideal of individual independence. In Greek mythology more than in others, there are examples of a society made up entirely of females, mortal or immortal. Think of the Amazons. The Gorgons. These figures may sometimes lure men, but their existence is essentially independent of men. Perhaps, the independent-mindedness of Greek culture in general extended to their women as well, thus creating visions of all-female societies. In most cultures, women were seen in relation to men. They were mothers, wives, and daughters. Women simply didn’t exist independent of men. Women’s desires were not considered as separate from men. But consider Sappho, the famous poetess of Lesbos. Consider the Sirens who lure men but only to death. Consider Calypso and Circe. Despite their longing for Odysseus, they nevertheless maintain an existence independent of men; they also inhabit islands or isolated realms. It’s an existence of both pride and loneliness. And then, you have the Virgin Goddesses whose purity is eternal than preserved for the right man. You have the Valkyries in Germanic mythology. Later, there developed the society of nuns in Christianity, a fusion of pagan vision of female independence and Judeo-concept of women subservient to moral duty. Most cultures didn’t have such separate realms for women. Of course, due to insistence on sexual barriers, most cultures had female domains as separate from male domains. But such domains were seen as subservient to the male domain. Turkish women kept in what were essentially holding pens so that the Sultan could be assured of clean pooter. It was the concubine model than the goddess or enchantress model. In the Old Testament, women are always part of the domain controlled by men. The odd exception, the independent enchantress, is not Jewish but a Philistine, namely Delilah. Her great beauty makes the object of desire for all men regardless of tribe, and therein lies her independence for she can twist her fingers around the fate of all men. The story of Samson warns men against such women. There may be slight elements of this archetype in Japanese culture as well. Women as independent figure tends to exist in a world of animality or subtlety, less so in a world of responsibility and morality. The barbarian world of Germanic mythology is a world of loose morals. Might is right. In such a world, deeply moral concepts of duty and principle do not exist. Rather, winners win and losers lose. Thus, women, in choosing winner-males over loser-males, do possess an independence of sorts. But subtlety and fineness could also make for the creation of female insularity, if not independence. This exists to some extent in Heian Japan. In this restrictive world, women could hardly be said to be free or independent in the modern sense. But a refined culture appreciates qualities beyond the moral, responsible, and utilitarian. In TALE OF GENJI for instance, ladies of the court exist in their own cloistered spaces. These are not mere concubines or possessions of men held in a pen. Their realm is really their own and is admired as such by the men who appreciated refinement. It is restricted, but it’s a perfumed world of dreams and poetry. Japanese could imagine such a world because of their aesthetic subtlety. So, even as Japanese women{at least privileged ones}lacked social freedom, they had a dream world of their own. It is represented in the ghost woman in UGETSU MONOGATARI, the snow goddess in the second segment of KWAIDAN, and in the cloistered world of women in MAKIOKA SISTERS — even in the homoerotic world of GOHATTO. Japanese also understood the tension between woman as desirable but independent goddess AND woman as dutiful partner of flesh-and-blood. For UGETSU’s male character to have one, he must renege on the other. The female figure in KWAIDAN can be a snow goddess with power over men or dutiful woman devoted to serving her man, but she cannot be both. The snow goddess is a strange combination of animality and subtlety. She represents the primal force of nature, but she is also a transfiguration of nature into poetry. Finer the aesthetic of a culture, more and sovereign the domain of womanhood. This was evident with the Ancient Egyptians who, according to Camille Paglia, invented the first truly civilizational idea of beauty. In contrast, the world of morality and responsibility tend to be wary of the narcissistic cult of beauty. Beauty demands independence, which then tends toward solipsism & fantasy, like the Beach Boys song "In My Room". Morality and responsibility are about obligations, unity, and duty. Men have obligations to their mothers, wives, and daughters, and women have obligations to their fathers, husbands, and sons. Communism’s concept of feminism was different from the Western counterpart that insisted on increasing independence from men. Communism removed barriers between men and women to bring them together in the spirit of comradeship. It was not about female independence but about men and women united in work and justice.] But such mind-set of decadent Western feminism can be sustained only in a cocooned world of privileged fantasy, which is why so many hope-a-doped out idealists and ‘progressives’ are drawn to college campuses walled off from the rest of the world. Academia claims to study the real world but does so from a certain remove. Anyway, whatever one may feel about Jesus, He surely wasn’t merely a slick operator like televangelists or Obama. He meant what He said and faced the consequences. He preached love, peace, and forgiveness in an imperfect world that could only regard such virtues as threats to a system secured & bound by tradition, authority, wealth, and power. He didn’t call for a war against the Jews, the Romans, or anyone, but His sermons nevertheless offended or at least threatened the authorities of all sides. In an unjust world, the just man must be willing to face pain and death, and Jesus accepted this fate. To be sure, one can argue that Jesus was hated for different reasons. Jews were less offended by His actions than by His blasphemous idea that maybe He was the Son of God. Romans weren’t offended by His ideas but grew worried about His actions as He began to develop a loyal following. Even so, when so many peoples and tribes were at one another’s throats, Jesus’s message was relatively that of peace, understanding, and forgiveness. In a wicked world, wickedness is the norm embraced by most people as good and necessary whereas goodness is denounced as evil and condemned and targeted for destruction. And the Christian theology tells us that Jesus was the Good Man destroyed by the Bad world. He didn’t wage war, plunder riches, or seek political power. But He was seen as dangerous by both Jews and Romans — and probably other groups as well — because all ideas have political, economic, and cultural implications. Even if pacifism is preached in a non-political way, it presents a moral challenge to the political system maintained by threat of violence. In a way, the hatred toward Jesus was understandable because ultra-goodness is not only impossible but could bring forth more badness in the world. For example, if someone with the best of intentions calls for the abolition of all national borders, his utopianism if implemented could only result in more problems And Jesus surely understood this, which is why He didn’t hang His hopes on Kingdom on Earth. To create Kingdom on Earth, good people would have to use bloody force to quell the bad people, but in having done so, the good will have blood on their hands. Think of the American invasion of Iraq. Even those who had the best intentions, such as yours truly, became disillusioned by the consequences. If the good must act wicked and violent in order to defeat wickedness, then it means good ends can only be derived by wicked means. Even if the good reject violence and persuade their followers to wholeheartedly embrace pacifism, they’ve done bad in the world because their followers will be abused, raped, robbed, and murdered without defenses. Westerners have routinely invoked Jesus to justify violence as means to make the world a better place. They say Jesus sacrificed His life for the betterment of man, and so, crusaders or revolutionaries have the moral right to use violence to save/redeem humanity. This is aggressive Christianism and even came to define the heart of communism, but consider the terrible consequences. There is another group of people who invoke Jesus to argue for peace and pacifism. They say that Jesus didn’t wage war on the world but chose to suffer and die at its hands. In thus having set a noble example — "Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do" — , He planted the seeds of conscience & guilt in the hearts of mankind. Of course, such pacifism is as foolish as communism. If communism failed by using ultra-badness to defeat badness, pacifism naively gives badness a free pass to steam-roll over everything. Who thinks the Allies would have done better not to resist and fight back against Nazi Germany? One may point to the success of Gandhi and MLK — display of noble spirit will inspire even the bad toward goodness and redemption — , but these are really false narratives of wishful thinkers. While Gandhi did use the rhetoric of peace, the fact is he mobilized hundreds of millions of Asian-Indians behind him. Despite peace as a front, there was an element of threat in such mass mobilization, i.e. if the British won’t listen to Gandhi, the masses might just lose patience and resort to OTHER means. As for MLK, the federal government and the military were behind him as he marched in the South. It was the National Guard that forced southern colleges to open their doors to black students. And the power of the dominant media worked in tandem with the Civil Rights Movement to pressure America into accepting change, or else. Also, MLK-ism was really an act of war. After all, ‘peace’ can be an instrument of war — peace is war by other means. Hitler used peace to lure Stalin into complacency. Americans used the ‘peaceful’ policy of embargo to pressure Japan, desperately driving it into a war with America. Japan invoked peace and prosperity among Asians to justify its invasion and domination. America made peace with Red China as a means to circle the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The Trojan Horse tactic was an act-of-peace-as-an-act-of-war. It was really to make the other side drop its guard against a looming strike. Michael used such a tactic twice in THE GODFATHER. He feigned interest in peace before killing Sollozzo and the police captain. He feigned compromise from a position of weakness before wiping out Barzini and the heads of the five families. MLK-ism was no different. It was the Trojan or Brojan Horse trick used by Jews and Negroes to fool white society into complacency with the promise that blacks only wanted peace and understanding. If Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick", MLK’s idea was, "bellow nobly and hide the big dick." MLK isn’t comparable with Jesus because the vile Negro a sly political operator. And he had no intention of dying for anything. He didn’t choose martyrdom but was just killed by James Earl Ray. Indeed, the real MLK was so unsavory that the Jew-run media have turned him into a myth, an icon, and a demigod lest anyone speak rationally and factually of him and come to a critical understanding of the Civil Rights Movement. Only by turning him into a holy figure safeguarded by sacred taboos will white folks continue to shed tears and wet their pants at the his feet. Even slight criticism of him will be denounced as sacrilege. But that’s how so-called ‘rational’, ‘skeptical’, and ‘open-minded’ Liberals operate. They scoff at religious taboos but erect secular taboos of their own, and they destroy anyone deviates from the holy narrative. Indeed, the rise of the Holy Homo has demonstrated that ANYTHING can be made ‘sacred’ by the power of media. So, almost overnight, America has become a nation where the majority of fools think homos are holy despite the fact that homosexuality is about men acting like girls and sticking penises into fecal holes. We can understand the virtue of tolerance, even of deviant behavior, but we need to reject such behavior being associated with ‘pride’ and the rainbow. And one cannot make jokes about homos as it’d be ‘homophobic’, which is the secular equivalent of ‘blasphemous’. In MONTY PYTHON’S MEANING OF LIFE, someone is sentenced to be stoned for having said ‘Jehovah’. In today’s world, you get stoned for saying ‘fag’ or even ‘homo’, for using ‘gay’ in a negative way, and for telling a ‘gay joke’, despite the fact that homos act so ridiculous in their prancing whoopsy-doo way. I mean can anyone take the likes of Perez Hilton or Chris Crocker seriously? Of course, there are intelligent and talented homos with craft and skills, but homo-ness tends to be ridiculous in a tutti-fruity way. We must repress even our sense of humor in deference to the Holy Homo. Anyway, the interrelation between religion and horror makes for a murky dividing line. It’s no wonder then that some people treat Stephen King novels almost like bibles. Some stand by THE STAND though I haven’t read a page of it, not least because I’m allergic to the hoary Liberal cliche of the Holy Negro. Even those who readily mock the supernaturalism of religions all too willing to suspend their disbelief to immerse themselves in the supernaturalism of the horror genre. Even in a very physical horror movie like THE DAWN OF THE DEAD, a character says, "When there is no more place in hell, the dead will walk the Earth." And one of the particular reasons for the horribleness of THE EXORCIST is that most of the horror takes place in a girl’s bedroom, the sanctuary of innocence and safety. Parents feel most secure when their children are asleep in their bedrooms. The bedroom is where kids grow up with teddy bears and dolls. And many girls have flowery blankets and pink walls and all that cutesy stuff. And there is the psychological comfort of the blanket. Though the blanket is rather flimsy — as opposed to a concrete wall or steel door — , even adults cling to it for a feeling of security[even when the room is warm]. So, it’s especially horrifying in THE EXORCIST because the Devil takes over the bed. There is no comfort even under the blanket. The horror, instead of being in the dark streets, is in the bedroom of a little girl. And the men, instead of being killed b street thugs, are killed by the demon-possessed Regan. But then, there’s a duality to the bedroom and the bed. Even though kids are snuck under the covers by mommy and daddy, a bedroom with lights off is a dark place[even a dark infinite place] — worse, a house-as-haven turns into the ultimate trap once it is taken over by the intruder, i.e. safety within the house turns into imprisonment within the house. Also, kids feel all alone in the room. When kids make the transition to sleeping in their own bedrooms, they discover aloneness and must face the darkness alone. And during thunderstorms, it can be frightful for a child to get out of bed and go to the washroom. Also, as the child grows older, the bedroom changes from a sanctuary of childhood innocence — with teddy bears and dolls — to a secret hiding place of private fantasies and desires, whether it be related to sexual matters, drugs, petty juvenile crime, or dark obsessions. Imagine what the bedroom of the lead singer of Blue October whose hit single was "Hate Me" might have been like during his teen years. Some kids even collect Satanic literature. Consider the scenes in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY and MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE where the mothers find smut in the sons’ rooms. Think of the bedroom as a private fantasy land in the film C.R.A.Z.Y. Think of how Edward Cullen sneaks into Bella’s bedroom unbeknownst to her father in the TWILIGHT SAGA. Especially in the modern West, where personal privacy is so important, the bedroom can turn from a sanctuary of innocence into a dark den of teenage angst, not least because popular culture fills young ones with vicious fantasies and also because parents are either too permissive or too clueless. This is what Reagan and Conservatives failed to understand in the 1980s, not least because their favored cultural reference was to the 1950s and prior. Though Liberals attacked Reagan and Thatcher for the crass materialism shaped the West since the 1980s, both leaders harked back to an earlier time when social mores had been so different. Reagan disliked materialism, especially the kind peddled by madonna the ‘material girl’. He wasn’t into Liberal MTV permissiveness and trashiness. He didn’t care for the shamelessness of new Wall Street culture. So, why was he pro-capitalist when capitalism was the purveyor of crassness and degeneracy? Because he harked back to the capitalism of an earlier era. When Reagan thought of capitalism and culture, he thought of John Wayne movies, Bing Crosby movies, and works like SHANE and HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY. Reagan grew up during the Depression when the radio was filled with songs that didn’t degrade the nation or family. Capitalism was in mostly in tune with the values of most Americans. Capitalism wasn’t anti-family, anti-parents, anti-Church, anti-patriotism, anti-traditional values, and etc. Of course, capitalism always had a ‘radical’ propensity to subvert moral values, but capitalism for most of American history was in tune with the values of most Americans, notwithstanding the wilder aspects of the Jazz Age. The Counterculture of the 60s pushed an anti-capitalist rhetoric and was allied with the Left. Even though there were plenty of Counterculture people who weren’t particularly political, their movement was mainly perceived to be a Leftist attack on mainstream/traditional America. Thus, Reagan thought capitalism was about good ole American values whereas anti-capitalism was about leftist agitation and subversion. For Reagan, capitalism wasn’t synonymous with decadent materialism but with liberty and individualism in the traditional sense. Because he harked back to a pre-60s capitalist America, he thought of capitalists as being good decent anti-communist patriots. Pat Buchanan sees capitalism — or traditional capitalism — with the similar cultural lens even though he was born considerably after Reagan. For Buchanan, capitalism means heavy industry hiring American workers who can purchase homes, raise families within the stronghold of Church values, and feel as proud Americans. It means American businessmen being patriotic and being part of the American community and economic family. In ALL IN THE FAMILY, Archie Bunker is a working class stiff but has his own bungalow and lives the ‘American Dream’, if only in the most basic sense. So, he too is pro-capitalist. In contrast, there is the Liberal or leftist Meathead who always attacking ‘greed’ and sounds like a socialist. So, Reagan and Thatcher thought the revival of the capitalist spirit would be the return of traditional values. They failed to underestimate capitalism’s adaptive power to ‘appropriate’ new ideas and trends. And in the 1980s, the Liberal Boomers, especially Jews and homos, became the masters of the new capitalism, even if some of them had spouted leftist sentiments during the 60s and early 70s. Because the1960s remade America into a libertine and permissive society, the rise of neo-capitalism in the 1980s, instead of restoring traditional values, hastened the rise of shameless hedonism and materialism that would have been unthinkable when Reagan and Thatcher were young. When Pat Buchanan thinks of younger days, capitalist culture means something like THE SANDS OF IWO JIMA. And even if CASABLANCA was anti-Nazi and made by a left-leaning Jew, it was about romance and doing the right/honorable thing. The woman stands by her man, and Bogart’s character understands why she must do what she must. It’s not just about the cause but loyalty between man and wife. In contrast, the anti-capitalist heroes of the Counterculture were mocking everything about American mainstream values and institutions. Of course, upon closer inspection of 1960s culture, even the so-called anti-capitalists were partaking in capitalist modes of expression and indulgence. All those ‘radical’ rock stars were unwitting agents of capitalist music industry. And Warren Beatty the communist-sympathizer hung around the Hollywood jet-set than with the likes of Bob Avakian or the Black Panthers. But because the Counterculture became increasingly shameless — nude fools at Woodstock, the dazed out potheads at Altamont, and Afro-funkiness gone wild — , shamelessness became associated with the Left and socialism. Thus, Reagan and Thatcher thought the revival of pro-capitalist culture would restore the discipline, honor, and values of the pre-60s world when capitalism became ideologically associated with FATHER KNOWS BEST, patriarchy, conservatism, patriotism, right-wing values, and etc. It’s natural for people to think ‘associationally’ because the human mind is wired that way. Consider how the hero of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, upon hearing choral music, thinks real people are in close proximity because, after all, the Church is associated with the human soul. Unfortunately, it turns out that Pod People are playing the radio playing Church music. It was only natural that Reagan and Thatcher would associate capitalism with conservatism and fail to see how capitalism could easily morph to favor Jewish supremacism, ‘white guilt’, multi-culturalism, interracism, and Counterculture ‘values’. During the Cold War, because capitalists came under assault from the Left, big business and the superrich forged an alliance with social conservatives and white working class who would come to be know as the ‘Reagan Democrats’ even though they weren’t the main winners in the capitalism order. But in truth, many of the boomer liberals who espoused hedonism and shamelessness of the Counterculture gravitated toward free enterprise and capitalism as they grew older. It was one thing to play the ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ in college or at rock concerts, but as they had to make it in the real world, they came to realize it was better to have than not have; besides, one could always justify one’s ‘greed’ by claiming to be accumulating wealth to do ‘good work’ down the line, as George Lucas came to do with his STAR WARS franchise. [Furthermore, the rich capitalists realized that Liberals tend to be generally smarter and more creative than Conservatives. So, why not find ways to co-opt them? Also, as schools came to be dominated by Liberals, even children of rich Conservatives came to be brainwashed by ‘radical’ ideas.] And so, liberal boomers became enterprisers and then infused their mode of capitalism with the culture of shamelessness carried over from 1960s Counterculture. This is why the capitalism of the 1980s was so crass and materialistic. It was not a return to 1950s capitalism of FATHER KNOWS BEST but capitalism reshaped by the cultural modes and attitudes of 1960s Counterculture. Much of 1960s liberation was about hedonism, fun-fun-fun, sex and drugs, rock n roll, and etc, or pleasure without restraint. Ed Sullivan and his ilk tried to keep popular culture somewhat clean, family-friendly, and in tune with community standards. Elvis Presley on his show was only shown from waist up. And Rolling Stones were told to change the lyrics of "Let’s Spend the Night Together" to "Let’s Spend Some Time Together." Counterculture mocked and scoffed at all such cultural restraints. Soon enough, such moral censoriousness had faded away by the early 70s when hardcore porn movies become legalized. And if Playboy magazines only showed breasts in the 50s and some muff in the 60s, it was showing total muff in the 1970s. All of this was crass and materialistic, but it sprung from cultural liberalism, not cultural conservatism. Of course, Hugh Hefner was something of a devious figure. Though a dealer in ‘smut’, he presented himself as a respectable businessmen. Playboy was called a "men’s magazine", and it featured some quality writing. Also, Playboy’s nudie photos tended to be on the ‘artsy’ side, Playboy never went all the way and showed a woman spreading her legs wide open or sticking her ass out so that ‘readers’ would see the pooter screaming out at him, "Hey, it’s me, your burning bush." For strong stuff, ‘readers’ had to go with stuff like Penthouse, Hustler, or Juggs. Given the anatomical differences, no such consideration was relevant when it came to male nude porn. Whereas a naked woman could hide her pooter by not spreading her legs or sticking her ass at the camera, a naked guy simply had his thing hanging out, like in the Playgirl magazine. I recall a weird Jewish girl in the 8th grade who’d secretly bring Playgirl magazine and pass it around to other girls and even flashing some of the pages to some of the guys. Yes, Jews can be awful strange and shameless. Anyway, because of Hefner’s devious two-facedness, his style passed for both ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. You could almost mistake him for a rich Mormon patriarch with a whole bunch of blonde buxom wives. In a similar vein, 007 movies had equal appeal to both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives loved the idea of a well-dressed and loyal secret agent of the Free World saving the planet from degenerate schemers of evil, who were often ‘foreign’ in look and nature, even Jewishy. Dr. No was a ‘white Chinese’, the Kruat-like villain Gold Finger had a Mongol-type henchmen, and Roger Moore in LIVE AND LET DIE battled the nasty Negroes. But liberals loved 007 as a cosmopolitan globe-trotter who and practiced ‘free love’. Indeed, THE PRESIDENT’S ANALYST[which is like Bond movie directed by David Lynch]with James Coburn satirized this very notion by mixing elements of the super spy fantasy with elements of the Counterculture. Anyway, Counterculture and Conservative Capitalism had something in common: The moral side and the libertine side. Conservative Capitalism championed the spirit of free enterprise and individualism, but it also held businessmen accountable to community standards and traditional ethics. Thus, Old Hollywood respected moral organizations like the Catholic League, and businesses hesitated to market products deemed immoral or subversive. Under conservative capitalism, you could make lots of profit but not by corrupting national morals, though, to be sure, what was deemed moral at one time could be deemed improper, even evil, in another one. Many movies and advertising in the moralistic past are now deemed ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, or ‘homophobic’. Conservative Capitalism had both a libertine and a ‘communitarian’ component. It was about both individual freedom and community values, about new products AND cultural continuity. Counterculture Capitalism also had two faces. As boomers like Brian De Palma, Bill Gates, David Geffen, and Steve Jobs came of age, they wanted to make lots of money and do whatever was necessary to win. They were in tune with social changes wrought by the 60s. It was more so with Jobs, Geffen, and DePalma than with Bill Gates, a classic nerd, but they were all comfortable with the new social order created by cultural upheavals of the 1960s. They didn’t want to ‘turn back the clock’. And since society had become more shameless and libertine, they had more leeway in making and marketing products than Conservative Capitalists did. On the other hand, there was a moralistic and judgmental component to the Counterculture. Perhaps, ‘moralistic’ is the wrong word due to conservative connotations. Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say the Counterculture had a utopian streak[as well as neo-tribal streak, especially as Jews who rose in power and prominence sought to safeguard their elite position as an ethnic monopoly, and this required turning ‘antisemitism’ and related ‘evils’ such as ‘racism’ into total taboos]. The concept of Morality assumes that human nature and society are deeply flawed[or naturally barbaric] and shall remain so; therefore, it’s everyone’s duty to be vigilant against perversions and mindful of normal truths. In contrast, the concept of Utopianism assumes that the world must be remolded into a paradise of feel-good platitudes. Counterculture people wanted to have the cake and eat it too. At Woodstock, they were rocking to the music and rolling in the mud, but they also told themselves that they were ‘back in the garden’, in unity with pristine nature, and free of crassness and ‘greed’. And this contradiction[or duality if one wants to generous] was evident in the boomer capitalists of the 1980s and 1990s who wallowed in shameless profit-making but making a lot of ‘progressives’ noises. So, even though Jewish financiers rake in billions, they yammer about ‘social justice’ by pushing stuff like ‘gay marriage’. So, ‘feminist’ careerists in corporations and government make big money or gain great power but yammer about ‘equality’. And perverse Negroes make money through sports, rap music, and crony capitalism via affirmative action contracts but speak the language of ‘revolution’, despite the fact that the elite Negroes get richer while the black underclass remains poor or get poorer. So, Hollywood boomers have grown fat off crass pop culture by peddling materialism and hedonism, but they pontificate about ‘more that needs to be done’. Hollywood types will say, ‘whites’ are still overly privileged while conveniently overlooking that it’s Jews and homos who are predominant in Hollywood and popular culture. While it’s true that increased freedoms and legal equality since the 1960s opened the door to success to all groups, the result has been a win-win for the most-talented and/or best-connected within each group. Thus, smart and driven whites in the past 40 yrs have done better than their parents. And smart and driven women have risen very high. And some blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arab-Americans, and others did very well too. But just because some women have done well doesn’t mean most women have done well, and just because there are more powerful and successful blacks today doesn’t mean blacks as a group has done well. In some respects, the equal opportunity has made things worse in certain communities, both among whites and blacks. The departure of talented blacks out of the ‘ghetto’ left some black areas even worse off than before. And the rise of many whites to elite status in the global order meant that many white communities ended up with low IQ dummies without leadership or guidance, especially as old community values centered around family and tradition have faded too, made all the worse by pop culture’s open assault on decency, shame, and morality. It has been less damaging to the Jewish community since most Jews tend to be high or above average IQ, which means that the majority of Jews made it to the upper-end of the stick. And this might be true of homos too, but homo success may be a bit exaggerated. It could be that smart and successful homos tend to move to rich cities and come out as homos whereas less intelligent homos tend to be stuck in less liberal areas of the country and remain in the closet. Therefore, homo statistics are probably skewered to favor the successful since the unsuccessful, especially those in more conservative, black, or Hispanic communities, are less likely to come out and act all ‘gay’ — in the black community, those who act too ‘gay’ might even get beat up as a bunch of ‘faggots’. Anyway, identity politics tends to be associative; and therefore, even if your people don’t achieve much or are stuck in the bottom, the mere sight of your kind with wealth, power, or fame may make you feel ‘empowered’ by way of ethnic association, indeed even if the successful don’t care about their own identity or people. Anyway, there’s nothing as resilient as capitalism since no other system favors and empowers the talented, the ambitious, and driven as much as capitalism does. Career in politics can lead to a lot of money and power, but politics is sort of like professional sports. You have to be at the very top, or you don’t amount to much. The president, supreme court justices, senators and governors of powerful states, mayors of big cities, and few others have great power in politics, but everyone else is relatively small potatoes. They can make a good living, but they can’t gain the wealth and advantage of people on the Forbes 400 List. Also, no one makes it in politics without funds, and funds mostly come from private donors. So, capitalism is here to stay. And there was no way that the Counterculture boomers were going to choose socialism over capitalism for themselves. David Geffen may speak leftist politics, but why would someone like him say NO to all the billions he could rake in from the music industry? Zuckerberg may put himself forth as some kind of ‘progressive’, but why would he undermine his opportunity to rake in billions more? Each state has slots for only so many Senators, Congressmen, and mayors, but any highly talented and driven person can make it in the private sector. Thus, we’ve undergone the massive shift from Conservative Capitalism to Counterculture Capitalism. If the former’s profit potential was held in check by community standards, the latter’s permissiveness vastly expanded the opportunities for profit — even by peddling something as foul as Lady Gaga and FAMILY GUY. Of course, there is PC to enforce the cult of Tolerance and Diversity on the business class. It basically amounts to obligatory obeisance to Jewish and Homo power as ‘more equal’ than others. Jewish paranoia and Homo hysterics get far more attention than Hispanic complaints, and Arab-American resentments hardly get any hearing in the Zionist-controlled media. Anyway, we were saying something about the duality of the bedroom as a place of both innocence/safety AND corruption/secrecy. It is in the bedroom that American boys and girls go from childhood innocence to teenage rebellion. The room that had once held teddy bears, crayons, and coloring books can turn into a den of drugs, porn, radical literature, guns, and etc., especially in the age of the Internet. After all, the Columbine murders were hatched in the bedroom of suburban kids. And there are plenty of looneys on Youtube who sit in their bedrooms and use camcorders to share some of the dumbest, darkest, and most ludicrous thoughts with the rest of the world. The internet has made the bedroom the portal to the world. Prior to the internet, there was the phone to be sure, but the bedroom was mainly a place of private daydreaming, like what Benjamin Braddock does in THE GRADUATE or what Brian Wilson sang about in his songs. The bedroom was a hideout. Today, via internet connections, kids can hide from their parents but communicate with other looneys halfway around the globe about their dark obsessions. Also, if something like Phone Sex[once the staple of late night TV advertisement] was done through an obvious intermediary, it seems many private individuals are making money through live-chat sex sites where they bare their breasts, butts, poons, penises, and balls with strangers all over the world. It’s no wonder that there’s a whole bunch of horror movies where evil passes through computer connections and screens. It’s as if this hyper-technology has revived the power of the Devil, indeed much more effectively than by the idols in THE EXORCIST dug from the ground. Regan in THE EXORCIST is, of course, at the age when a girl is turning into a woman. She’s shedding the vestiges of her innocence and budding into a woman with sexual drives. Her bed is turning from a haven of childhood into an altar of sex. Parents protect children from external threats and outside forces, but the biggest threat arises from within. You can shelter and shut off a young girl from all the world, but the demon-of-desire will arise from within her body. It’s like the baby creature tearing out of the guy’s stomach in ALIEN. It’s like Michael shielding his pregnant wife from external threats in THE GODFATHER PART 2, only to discover that his biggest enemy, the killer of his kid, was none other than his wife’s conscience — for her to birth a just act, she must kill Michael’s child in her womb. It’s like the Chinese game of Go where you think your pieces are safe from outside threats, only to discover that your main weakness is internal within the presumed safety of your domain. [The great success of THE EXORCIST may have shaped and informed the rest of Friedkin’s career, and not only because Friedkin’s next film was called THE SORCERER, which, though having nothing to with the supernatural, places its characters in what looks like hell-on-earth. Though a remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot’s classic THE WAGES OF FEAR, Friedkin’s version goes further in having created a world that almost seems possessed by demon-spirits. The nemesis of the men in Clouzot’s film is their own frayed nerves, whereas the jungles of THE SORCERER seem haunted by natural spirits manifested in raging storms, winds, and rivers. Also, because of the introductory scenes cluing us as to why the men{criminals and a terrorist}ended up in South America — plus the fact that the barkeeper is a Nazi criminal on the lam — , the setting is like a purgatory from which the men might redeem and save themselves only by courage, sacrifice, and luck, albeit ironically to serve the ‘greed’ of an oil company. Friedkin’s next film CRUISING also tips its hat to THE EXORCIST. If Father Karras is filled with doubt regarding his faith, the Al Pacino character, in his role as undercover cop in the extreme world of homo S&M, begins to question his sanity and sexuality. Is he becoming homo too? If so, is it an awakening of his latent repressed homosexuality. Or, is he being seduced by the sheer will-to-power{and shower} and camaraderie among the tough and muscular world of S&M clubs? Karras doesn’t know if he really belongs in the House of God or world of men, and he seriously thinks of leaving the Church. Besides, as sinful as the world of man is, reality is neither absolutely good or absolutely evil. Besides, he doesn’t think too highly of other priests either. In such state of confusion and ambiguity, the demon-possession of Regan comes as a blessing to him because it is OBVIOUSLY evil. Against grey, grey is hardly noticed. Against black, even grey seems white. There is a similar sense in CRUISING. The homo S&M world is disgusting, but most of its denizens cannot be said to be evil-evil. This is even truer of the ‘mainstream’ gay world{though one can argue that the respectable face of perversion is actually worse than the nakedly ugly kind}. And its display of machismo and muscularity might even be appealing to confused straight men with a sense of inadequacy, a condition that might apply to Al Pacino’s character. And yet, when a man is uncertain if he is or isn’t homo, there’s bound to an element of panic. A part of him wants to join the fruiter world, but another part feels ‘possessed’ and panicked by demonic spirits of perversion, something that must be rejected. In such confused state, it could be a relief to know there’s a demented homo killer out there whose deeds accentuate the sickness of sexual deviance. {On the other hand, Pacino’s character tracks down a homo killer to save would-be homo victims. Thus, homosexuality is presented as both wolf and lamb.} And indeed, even the killer in CRUISING seems to be at war with himself, as if he’s ‘possessed’ by another ‘him’, and given that some of his lines were dubbed by someone else, it has the feeling of THE EXORCIST where the devil-possessed Regan speaks with dubbed voice. He seems to kill his victims as a homosexual but also an anti-homosexual, i.e he gets kicks as an ultra-transgressive homo indulging in perversion, yet he also feels righteous indignation while ‘punishing’ his homo victims whose degenerate lifestyle tempts him away from the normal path. We later learn that his father had been dead for some time, but he still writes letters to his dad as if he’s alive and even converses with his phantom in the park. Most interestingly, the killer we see in the opening of the movie isn’t the killer who is captured at the end. But it’s as if a same ‘evil spirit’ has taken possession of both — and possibly others — and speaks through their lips. We see different individuals speaking with the ‘same voice’. It’s as if Friedkin was saying that the ‘killer’ isn’t some distinct individual but a kind of ‘spirit’ that exists among us — possibly all of us, including in men of the law — and has the potential to turn anyone into a psycho and murderer. Instead of sanity vs insanity or normality vs abnormality, CRUISING suggests that insanity is sanity run up against a brick wall and fallen into despair and desperation. So, just like the Devil in THE EXORCIST can take possession of just about anyone, madness is something that can infect and possess any of us. We scapegoat sicko individuals — the witches of our time — to put behind bars, but what if their sicknesses are just a hatchlings of the same sickness incubating in each of us? Indeed, consider all the ‘normal’ and ‘decent’ people who cheered O.J. Simpson the murderer. Consider Americans who hoot and cheer the total destruction of Palestinians who did NOTHING to Americans. Consider the ‘normal’ bystanders in DOG DAY AFTERNOON who are so willing to turn a couple of seedy bank-robbers into folk heroes. [Sidney Lumet’s film may be the ultimate post-60s hangover movie. It is the anti-BONNIE AND CLYDE. 60s radical chic populism that was willing to paint any bunch of troublemakers as rebels, romantics, and revolutionaries soon went up in flames as the supposed heroes turned out to be thugs, louts, or lunatics. But then, DOG DAY AFTERNOON is also an anti-DIRTY-HARRY in showing that law enforcement is a lot of hard work requiring patience and ruthless cunning, not grandiose heroics with a Magnum 44.]
CRUISING is well-crafted but falls flat from incomplete characterization and muddled plot lacking in focus. Friedkin justified this aspect of the film as implying that the uncertainty of ‘truth’, and indeed the film leaves open the possibility that there may be more than one killer, even the possibility that Pacino’s character and another cop — a closet homo — could be killers too. {It’s as if a world of perversion will keep on incubating confused psychopaths. Cure is useless in a world wallowing in disease.}Ambiguity has to be earned and justified dramatically, but CRUISING merely invokes it as rationale for glaring contradictions in characterization and plotting. It’s like the second half of APOCALYPSE NOW falls apart because Coppola had no idea where the story should go and how it should end. {No amount of style and mood can redeem a story lost. It’s like a brain surgeon who fails to save the brain isn’t going to redeem his failure by fixing the ears, nose, and mouth.}A good example of earned ambiguity is ZODIAC by David Fincher. Even though CRUISING is technically as well made as ZODIAC, Fincher fully fleshed out his characters and pursued every thread to the end. Uncertainty lingers at the end, but it is earned uncertainty, not one imposed on confused material. So, Fincher did his homework and then declared lack of conclusive answer, whereas Friedkin used ambiguity as a crutch for his failure to give meaningful shape to CRUISING. Oddly enough, the eeriest scenes in CRUISING are not set in the dark underworld of the S&M homo community but in the enclosed green-leafed community of Columbia University where the murder suspect is a graduate student. As Pacino’s character stalks the suspect in this idyllic world, we are reminded me of Dustin Hoffman’s scenes at Berkeley in THE GRADUATE. There’s a foreboding sense of melancholy and trouble-in-paradise. Friedkin’s greatest work, TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., also seems to take some cues from THE EXORCIST. In the original novel — at least from what I’ve been able to glean from a few chapters available on Google Books — , the two agents catch the prey and survive, but things get much darker in the film. The villain, as played by Willem Dafoe, isn’t merely evil but demonic. And the hero, Chance played by William Petersen, seems ‘possessed’ himself by some crazy spirit. His partner Vukovich — more like sidekick — resists Chance’s force of will and charisma, but in the end, Chance’s dark soul passes onto him. When Karras absorbed the Devil from Regan’s soul, he leaped out the window and expunged it from his own body. But it seems like Vukovich has become Chance.] In SINISTER — directed by Scott Derrickson and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill — , the girl is corrupted at a much younger age. And if in THE EXORCIST, the Devil had a roundabout way of finding himself into the home of Regan, the demonic figure in SINISTER has an easier path through the modern technology of the internet as frightful medium. The movie clearly speaks to our fears and hopes about the power of idolatry. Though the idea of Evil passing through idols/images sounds ludicrous to modern secular ears, there are still places in the world where people hate to be photographed. The Amish in America object to people taking photos them. Some feel that photos steal their souls. Others see photography as idolatry replicating the creations of God. [In a way, cameras do rob us of our souls. Consider people taking endless selfies. The cult of narcissism devalues the soul expressed in words vis-a-vis the body represented in images. The camera has given the decisive edge to the image. People define themselves less by feelings in their hearts or ideas in their minds than by images caught by cameras. It’s as if representations of us are more real than the actual us in thoughts and emotions.] And of course, pre-modern cultures believe that certain objects and even things of nature have magical properties. And Catholics, especially in the Third World, still believe in the power of Relics and the like. Some of the most potent magical objects were ones made by men. They could be divine/magical or demonic/malignant, and sometimes, it’s difficult to tell which is which. Across cultures, what may be deemed divine in one culture may well be demonic in another. To Jews, all the divine idols of other cultures were Satanic. Christians smashed pagan idols sacred to the native cultures of Europe, and not long ago, Afghan Muslims destroyed giant statues of Buddha. Christian Right folks in America are disturbed by toys modeled on pagan cultures, especially India. There’s the story of how certain Babylonian civilizations sacrificed children to the gods, but in SINISTER, it’s as if the demonic figure, instead of destroying every child physically, selects a few and steals their souls to make them ‘sacrifice’ their entire families to the demon world. It’s significant that the father is a writer, a dealer in words, the means of communication and expression favored by the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been wary of idols and images, though the Catholic Church has been something of an exception. Kids are more reactive to images in their early years, and many kids learn to draw before they learn to write. It’s possible that among ancient Hebrews, kids were even proscribed from drawing pictures[at least of certain things] — which comes naturally to kids — as such might be ‘graven images’, affronts to God. In SINISTER, the youngest child is a girl, and she loves to draw, so much so that the parents even allow her to draw on a wall of the house. Thus, a kind of word vs image dynamics comes into focus. Words carry ideas and thoughts; they convey the meanings of right and wrong, good and evil, though, of course, via the art of rhetoric and imagery and vocality, words can be just as emotively manipulative as images and music. Words can fool, but they still have to make sense; they have to put forth some kind of argument and explanation based on facts, logic, and explanation. Images have no such burdens or obligations; images can allure and cast a spell simply through the power of visuals. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY doesn’t have much dialogue[and abandoned the originally intended voice-over narration], but its impact is overwhelming. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, a Jew whose people have deep roots in the power of written and spoken words but not so much in the power of ‘graven images’ and idolatry as they were forbidden among Jews. On the other hand, maybe a bias against visual expression had a paradoxical effect of making Jews even more imaginative with images. It’s been said that the Radio Generation had greater visual imagination because listeners had to form images in their own minds whereas TV viewers could just let the Idiot Box roll the images before their eyes. So, even though Jewish tradition didn’t allow for much image-making, Jews were surely forming images in their minds when they heard the stories of the Beginning, the Exodus, the Prophets, Kings, and etc. And when Jews finally got a chance to unleash their ‘imagistic’ power, the result was the films of Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, Erich von Stroheim, Joseph von Sternberg, Cecil B. DeMille, Fritz Lang, Milos Forman, Miklos Jansco, Stanley Kubrick, William Friedkin, Steven Spielberg, and many others. It’s as if the imagistic sperm had been building up inside the Jewish mind for a long time and finally ejaculated in the 20th century especially through the art of cinema — like in the cosmorgasmic stargate scene in 2001. Anyway, in SINISTER, there is a kind of direct connection between children and images, one that is both enticing/alluring and terrifying. As children lack a developed conceptual view of the world, their reaction to images tends to be intense and direct. They are more likely to believe in the wonder & magic of beautiful things and more likely to freak out at terrifying stuff. Adults are not immune to such reactions either. Even when we conceptually KNOW something is bogus, our nerves can be triggered into panic overdrive by sights and sounds that strike a primal chord. We know nothing in a haunted house is real, but the visceral power of stimuli overrides our sense of reality. It’s like the doctor in Ingmar Bergman’s THE MAGICIAN knows that what he is witnessing — dead man come to life — is impossible, but his nerves surrender to fright than stand with reason. Bergman was interested in the strange relationship between the mind that seeks truth and the senses that love tricks. The mind-intellect-reason can distinguish the real from the unreal, the scientific from the superstitious, the philosophical from the sentimental. But the mind can also be coldly clinical, lacking in warmth and disdainful of emotions that make us human such as love, trust, and forgiveness. Though on some level, many of Bergman’s films seem to be about the problems of faith/religion vs facts/reason, the deeper problem was that Northern European Christianity of Lutheranism lacked the warmth and color of other forms of Christianity. Even the world-view of Luis Bunuel’s Catholi-cynicism and Fellini’s Catholi-circus-ism aren’t without the human touch. Even to the non-believer, there is undeniable color, drama, and pageantry to Catholicism. And one could be content as a dimwit in the Russian Orthodox faith. One could hold a clump of soil, look up at the sky, and feel the grace of God in everything. But the Germanic-Scandinavian-Northern-European way was different. It was tidier and disciplined, and therefore, someone of Lutheran or related Protestant faith couldn’t be like a dirty uncouth drunken Russian holding a clump of dirt and feeling the presence of God. Also, as the Northern European norm held emotions in check, northerners could not indulge in the sentimentality of Catholicism in NIGHTS OF CABIRIA. Thus, even before the coming of ‘clinical’ science and ideal of reason to the Northern Europe, the austere spiritual outlook, mind-set, and habit had become coldly forbidding and stern. It emphasized mental discipline in the devotion to God than any kind of emotional ‘excess’ or sentimentality. Thus, the Lutheran minister in FANNY AND ALEXANDER is very much like the doctor/scientist in THE MAGICIAN. Different methodologies but the same mind-set. Thus, the main dichotomy was less between faith/religion and fact/reason than between warm-and-forgiving personality and cold-and-hard personality. In FAITHLESS, the woman and the man who carry on an illicit affair are modern secular people, but the woman is warm and giving, whereas the man, modeled on Bergman himself, is cold and harsh. So, the answer to life isn’t revealed simply by going from superstitious religion to sound reason. It’s really a matter of the heart. Richard Dawkins is a man of facts and reason but also one of the most insufferable jerks that ever lived. The son in WILD STRAWBERRIES is a modern rational person, and the minister in WINTER LIGHT serves the Church, but both their personalities are rigid and unyielding. And even though female characters generally tend to be softer and warmer than male ones in Bergman films, there are plenty of cold-hearted women in his films as well, like the ones in THE SILENCE and PERSONA. The woman[Claudia Cardinale] in 8 ½ tells Guido that his problem is he doesn’t know how to love, but that actually wasn’t Fellini’s problem, and he knew it. His problem was he loved too much and too many things and people — he came to love every ‘creative’ idea that popped into his head — , thus demonstrating that loving too much could paradoxically become a kind of selfishness. While Guido/Fellini wanted to be loved by everyone, he also wanted to love everything and everyone — his friends, his wife, his mistress, other women ranging from sleek and intelligent to gross and fat, his collaborators, the Church, the men of reason, tradition, modernity, and etc. We associate love with selflessness, but the desire to love can be like a huge appetite, a kind of gluttony. After all, a person who loves all movie-makers and all movies feel a need to watch movies all night and day, and that kind of love isn’t much different from someone who loves food so much that he feels a need to devour everything. Thus, an indiscriminate loving of everything can be a kind of emotional greed, a piggishness. The ending of 8 ½ feels generous and giving but in a deceptive way. It’s a wondrous to be sure but also grandiosely self-aggrandizing. It was Fellini’s way of saying he loves the people and things in his life so much that he’s not going to bother with separating the wheat from the chaff. As a result, his subsequent films were like shapeless orgies of gluttonous love. It didn’t matter that many of his characters and ideas weren’t interesting since Fellini was so full of love for everything and everyone. So, when the woman in 8 ½ says to Guido, "you don’t know how to love", it could have double-meaning: you lack the depth of love or the focus of love. In contrast, the problem with Bergman was he really had a problem with love itself. He certainly didn’t worry about the problem of over-loving since he wasn’t capable of that. Instead, his love generally focused on a small circle of friends and lovers, but he was coldly judgmental and difficult, and he was very much aware of this problem or failing on his part. The minister in FANNY AND ALEXANDER is a repellent character — and sometimes filled with self-pity and depression — , but he at least has his faith in God. Bergman, like the woman in PERSONA, couldn’t find anything he could anchor his emotions onto since he’d lost the Faith but not necessarily the neurosis of craving for faith or some kind of certitude. Worse, Bergman couldn’t help feeling that his self-criticism was really a form of self-aggrandizement, and this doubt is certainly evident in FAITHLESS. Though a self-damning portrait of an illicit affair that destroyed a family — the wife acts out the desire that the Nicole Kidman character only fantasized in EYES WIDE SHUT — , it also serves as a kind of moral exhibitionism of masochistic guilt. [Worse, despite the contrition, there’s nevertheless the bragging right of having wooed a beautiful woman from her family. It’s like a hunter expressing sorrow for the animal he killed but still holding up the magnificent trophy.] As the long history of Christianity shows, even self-abnegation can be a form of self-promotion, and we can certainly see that among white ‘progressives’ who yammer about ‘white guilt’, ‘white privilege’, and ‘racism’ but find exhibitionistic pleasure in showing off their noble ‘conscience’, especially vis-a-vis unrepentant ‘rednecks’ and ‘greedy’ Republicans. So, Tom Brokaw earned over 3 million dollars a year but always pontificated about how troubled he was about ‘white privilege’, and of course, every time he and his ilk lamented thus, their black colleagues and feminists would pat them on the back for their goody-doody-ness. ‘White guilt’ is the new golden crucifix necklace worn by affluent white Liberals who can afford to pontificate about ‘inequality’ since they themselves get first pickings off the privilege tree in the globalist system. So, all those affluent white New Yorkers live in a gentrifying city with reduced black crime — largely due to the police policy of ‘stop and frisk’ that mainly targets blacks and Hispanics — but pontificate how upset they are about the George Zimmerman verdict that acquitted a ‘white Hispanic’ murderer of a ‘child, a child!!!’ Thus, so-called ‘white guilt’ among affluent Liberals is really a form of white privilege and self-righteousness. ‘White guilt’ Liberals don’t feel racially superior to blacks like ‘racists’ of old. Instead, they feel morally supremacist toward conservative, working class, and/or poor whites who have a less rosy view of blacks due to firsthand experience of black pathologies, which affluent white Liberals avoid since they can afford to live in the better parts of town or in gated communities. Anyway, neither reason nor religion was the key answer in the cinema of Bergman. The problem of northern Faith wasn’t merely the superstition but the stark certitude that was no less cold and hard than in science and reason. Indeed, superstitious and supernatural elements could add warmth, color, and magic to religion. After all, Death isn’t the most fearsome figure in SEVENTH SEAL. He is rather humorous and charming. He’s willing to play a game of chess instead of just taking a life. He comically saws off a tree to take the life of a man whose time is up. And in the final image, he leads the dead in a kind of dance that is somewhat reassuring and poetic, at least to the eyes of an ‘artist’ performer. Death does what he had to do, but he isn’t evil or particularly malicious or cruel. And he doesn’t judge, and if some demand a last chance, he obliges them with a game of chess. Besides, it’s people and their follies that are doing most the killing; Death is just there to pick up the mess. Though far from a great film, THE SERPENT’S EGG shows how reason/science can be an instrument of deception and manipulation, indeed even more effectively than religion/superstition. In the film, we find characters undergoing all kinds of stresses and neuroses only to discover later that they’d been part of an experiment, not unlike what happens to the hero in LA JETEE. Though Steven Pinker and Cass the Ass Sunstein try to put a human face on psycho-social experimentation, much of modern psychology is dedicated to perfecting more effective ways to manipulate us like laboratory rats. We are told that Free Will is just an illusion, and maybe the power of reason too. It is assumed that our minds have certain innate mechanisms that react to certain stimuli and conditions in certain ways; therefore, in order to create a better world, we need new methods of manipulation that fools us into thinking that what we’ve been manipulated to do is really the product of our individual will. Though modern psychologists don’t employ means as inhumane and terrifying as in THE SERPENT’S EGG, they are invested in discovering ways to dupe and manipulate us subconsciously than persuading us through rational discourse of the truth and facts. Reason and science were once trumpeted as honest investigation and discourse to dispel the stupid power of superstitions and dogma, and surely no one can deny the achievements of science and reason in matters of management, production, and governance. However, as scientists gain more insight into the mind through new discoveries, the paradoxical result is less stress on reason — at least real reason as opposed to the bogus ‘cult of Reason’ — among the masses. If high-IQ Jewish scientists feel that most people dumb emotional creatures like the morons on Oprah who can’t think straight, then there will be less trust in reason as the way to greater justice and understanding. After all, we can’t rely on pure reason and facts when dealing with children. If lots of adults are little more than big children — due to lack of intelligence or lack of emotional control — , what good could reason do with them? Furthermore, if Jews are the elite overlords of the West, and if genuine reason and honesty could lead us to a critical understanding of Jewish power, why would Jews like Steven Pinker or Cass the Ass Sunstein want gentiles to be sharpen their rational faculties? It’s no wonder that high-IQ Jewish scientists uphold reason to the extent of debunking the Christian Right but restrain its full implications as means to speak truth to power. When reason challenges Jewish elite power, we are reminded that our minds are innately too irrational for an objective understanding of the world. In other words, just leave the power of reason to the Jews. It’s a kind of balancing act where reason is absolutely invaluable when it comes to critiquing the Christian/conservative Right but not so infallible when it comes to observations about racial differences and Jewish power. Presumably, such observations can undermine the entire edifice of political correctness that paralyzes white consciousness with the heavy dose of ‘white guilt’. Because of the associational ways of the mind, we go on thinking in terms of rationalism = science because the those on the side of Reason had used or at least invoked science to challenge the orthodoxy of religion and all manners of superstitions. Of course, Rationalism means something more than belief in the necessity of reason. It has also meant the arrogant conviction that the iron fist of Reason could crack open all mysteries, answer all questions, resolve all issues, and lay down the blueprint for utopia based on truth understood by all. There is the stupid version of Rationalism in the Enlightenment notion that was summed up by Thomas Jefferson’s highfalutin idea that ‘all men are created equal’ or the French Revolution stuff about ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’. While such notions or ideals are not necessarily stupid in and of themselves[and certainly not as nice-sounding political rhetoric], they can hardly be based on any truly factual and rational observation of society. To be sure, when power and privilege were passed down by hereditary means regardless of talent, the ideal of ‘all men are created equal’ was relatively more rational than the convention that even a dumb son of the King should inherit the throne. In other words, a person of humble origin could be highly intelligent and capable, and a smart rationally organized society should give such people the opportunity to rise in the world. But then, the notion that just about anyone has equal capacity for success and social climbing is also ridiculous, but it’s one of those political truisms that are sacred in today’s world as the result of Enlightenment tradition. [Democracy certainly doesn’t guarantee the best kind of people ruling over society. The blame must go to the oligarchic elites and the masses. The elites don’t want strong-willed, independent, and intelligent leaders. They want someone pliable and compromising, especially toward elite interests. So, oligarches tend to support mediocrities or opportunists than men of genuine vision and principles. Furthermore, because democracy is about ‘majority rule’, the oligarches only need to convince slightly more than 50% of the populace. Sway the 51%, and you have control of 100% of society. Elites also control the outcome by limiting the choice of candidates. This is why the ‘vetting process’ is so crucial. If the top candidates have been chosen by the oligarches, it doesn’t matter who wins. It’s a matter of tweedle-dee versus tweedle-dum. This is why Donald Trump has upset the elites. He has mangled the ‘vetting process’ within the GOP. All the other candidates of the GOP were handpicked and groomed by the elites. Trump has a will of his own that connects with the people. But the problem is with the people too. Even if oligarches had no power and even if society were run entirely by direct democracy, the mediocre masses will often support the second-rate than first-rate. Just look at the cultural tastes of the masses. Most ignore genuine works of art and prefer trash like FIFTY SHADES OF GREY.] At any rate, the advance of science was championed, even defended at times, by the Rationalists, and therefore, the it came to be assumed that the march of science would facilitate greater a greater rational understanding of human society and affairs. But as science probed deeper into the human mind and body, it began to realize the instability of man’s grasp of reality. Even a man wholly devoted to reasons, empiricism, and science feels, thinks, and acts as a bundle of animal emotions, however tamed they may be. Today, most experts in psychology agree that people use reason to rationalize a priori biases rooted in personal emotions. [The prime formative period for associative emotional development is in childhood, and this is why ‘progressives’ are eager to emphasize early childhood education. They justify their policy on grounds of proper intellectual development during childhood, but their real goal is to indoctrinate young ones as early as possible. Thus, certain images, sounds, and ideas — such as those associated with MLK and KKK — are made to form the basis of emotional references and responses in the young ones. With such PC hallowing of the childhood soul, it’s no wonder that so many millennials have kneejerk emotional commitment to ‘anti-racism’ and worship of the Noble Negro. Even when millennials use reason, it only serves the core emotional assumptions seeded into them in childhood.] Reason serves than rules over emotions. Rationalist Liberals insist that ‘racism’ is irrational, but this very insistence is irrational because racial differences are obvious, evolution is impossible without race-creation, and the Liberal argument is rooted in emotional conditioning that reduce truth into a simple morality tale of MLK vs KKK. Liberals don’t calmly and rationally argue their case but seethe and foam at the mouth and fall back on adjectives such as ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’, ‘hateful’, and etc. to defame people who espouse race-ist ideas even when laid out in the most factual and rational manner, as by Jared Taylor. Or Liberals fall back on fallacies such as "racial theories are evil since ‘racism’ led to slavery and the Holocaust." But slavery has been around forever, and it was blacks who captured and sold slaves to ‘racist’ whites. ‘Racist’ whites didn’t invent slavery. Also, Northern European whites were far more race-conscious than the Spanish and the Portuguese, but the Spanish and Portuguese — who racially mixed with natives of America and blacks on a large scale — practiced the Atlantic slave trade for much longer, and the trade was put to an end by the British Imperialists, who were by far the most ‘racist’ of the European imperialists. The relation between ‘racism’ and slavery is mostly nonsense since slavery existed all over the world, and many societies enslaved their own people. Hindus enslaved Hindus, and Chinese enslaved Chinese. Russians held Russians in serfdom. In America, racial reasons were invoked to perpetuate slavery, but slavery didn’t develop out of any racial theories that originated in the 19th century. Slavery has been around for tens of thousands of years. In the case of Nazism, it is true that racial ideology was at the center of Hitler’s mad wars, but why should every theory of race be associated with Nazism? Should every theory of socialism or social-democracy be associated with Stalinism-Maoism-Pol-Pot-ism? Anyone who screams ‘commie’ at a Liberal or Social-Democrat would be regarded as a paranoid McCarthyite, but Liberals foam at the mouth over any discussion of race, no matter how factual, rational, and scientific. Also, if all theories of race must be associated with National Socialism since Hitler held radical racist ideas, why not associate imperialism, genocide, and slavery with democracy since democratic America had practiced ‘genocide’ against American Indians, used black slavery, and carried out imperialist wars of expansion and influence? Besides, evolving theories of race were common among the Founding Fathers, 19th century scientists of liberal persuasion, modern progressives, and etc. Margaret Sanger was a race-ist, and most British liberals of the first half of the 20th century believed in the truth of races and racial differences. Yet, such societies didn’t turn into Nazi Germany. If anything, they became the main enemies of the German state. Thus, the notion that "any racial theory = Nazism" is just a lot of Jewish supremacist bunk to intimidate white folks from thinking honestly about race. While we can agree with those who debunk the ludicrous racial theories of Hitler and the Nazis, it makes no sense to reject or deny every theory of race. It’s like saying all socialist ideas must be crazy because of its connection, however indirect, with Stalinism and Maoism. In other words, even the idea of public libraries should be rejected lest it to the Great Leap Forward or the Gulag or the Killing Fields. Who can take such argument seriously? Yet the sheer hysteria of ‘anti-racism’ has convinced a lot of people — ironically, the most educated ones — that any theory of race and racial differences is going to lead to another Holocaust or bring back slavery — never mind that interracist Latin America and Muslim world practiced slavery for much longer. Such hysteria is neither rational nor scientific but because it was so often expressed in the name of Reason, many people mistake it for rational argument. Of course, racial reality is what it is and won’t go away. So, we have the ridiculous sight of so many white, Jewish, and Asian Liberals going to elite schools and removing themselves from the reality of underclass black violence — that is threatening and dangerous for the simple FACT that blacks are naturally stronger and tougher and more prone to aggressive emotions — but pontificating about the evils of racial theories or race-ism. They seem blind to the fact that actions speak louder than words. By their actions, they are clearly race-ist since they try to avoid black communities and prefer only Nice Negroes who can be tamed by white culture. Perhaps, their rabid hysteria is a means of denying their own hypocrisy. They repress their fear of the Negro[even as their actions reflect their fear] just like Victorians repressed their sexual feelings. Anyway, the more we learn about the human mind and human nature through science, the more we learn that people feel, ‘think’, and act according to factors other than Reason. If philosophical rationalism seeks to persuade people with facts and logic, scientific rationalism is a means by which scientists seek to unlock hidden compartments of the human mind and manipulate the contents within. It’s like what happens in the movie INCEPTION. Why try to use reason to persuade the late tycoon’s son to break the company apart? The son’s rational faculty has its own defenses[especially centered around personal pride] against the arguments of others; furthermore, reason, far from being universal, tends to operate egotistically as everyone seeks rational authority over others. Debaters use reason not to agree but to win. Also, why would the son be willing to break up the company when it may well undermine the power of his family? To persuade him to do so, the dream-hackers in INCEPTION slip into the wellspring of their target’s mind to weaken his defenses, and then, he becomes putty in their hands. It’s like the trick makes the magic. As scientists gain greater insight into how the mind works — especially the dynamics between rationality and irrationality — , they’ll focus more on changing people’s minds through emotional manipulation than through rational argument — to be sure, rational-seeming argument can be used emotively by selective use of topics and taboos; it’s like NPR presents itself in objective intellectual manner but restricts itself to certain topics, certain types of guests, and certain range of correct discourse. Deviate from the rules, and panicked disapproval becomes palpable with alarm bells about ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’. Thus, we are moving toward a BRAVE NEW WORLD kind of society IF the scientists can help it. They will regard philosophical rationalism as a huge waste of time. They will prefer to approach the mind like doctors treat the body. If a part of the body is sick, you don’t rationally argue with it to make it healthy. You use drugs and medical procedures. Unlike other organs and body parts that are merely functional and interlinked, the brains have traditionally been regarded as the storage of mind’s autonomy and independence. So, if a person has a bad habit of over-eating or cursing, his mind might become self-aware and stop doing what he shouldn’t be doing. But, why bother with such arduous effort and self-discipline if one could just take a drug that alters body chemistry into compliance? Why sit down and spend long hours discussing a problem with someone if he could be easily manipulated through a combination of drugs and sensory-stimuli, like in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE? And indeed, the rise of ‘gay marriage’ has been a great experimentation in the power of manipulation. As we know, there was no rational or sane argument for ‘gay marriage’. Instead, Americans were fed with a constant barrage of positive propaganda about homos, negative propaganda about opponents of the ‘gay agenda’[with the Westboro Church trotted out as its most prominent face. Also, because Westboro Church has also been tagged with ‘free speech’, its ‘hate’ could be used to argue against speech controls as well in the future], corporate support, celebrity hysteria, soft threats and intimidation, early school education where homos are depicted as the ‘new normal’, pseudo-clinical mumbo jumbo about how opposing ‘gay rights’ is ‘homophobic’, and behavioral controls where using ‘gay’ with negative connotation is treated as a thing of great shame. So, it’s not ‘gay marriage’ that won as a rational idea. The real winner is Jewish power over the media, academia, advertising, corporations, and popular culture. Indeed, Jews are ecstatic about the success of ‘gay marriage’ since it means their scientific methods of heart-and-mind control has come to fruition. If modern Americans can be so easily persuaded — mostly through irrational means — that men who act like girls, practice fecal penetration on one another, and prance around bitchily are the saints of the new age, it means Americans can be made to believe in just about ANYTHING. Thus, Jews the new Goebbels of the world. The triumph of ‘gay marriage’ is the triumph of Jewish power over us. So often, we hear that it’s all about need for more ‘empathy’ and about rejecting judgmentalism, but the whole charade is selective and disingenuous. [Also, PC taboos have a muting effect on certain voices. If prevailing taboos encourage certain kind of talk while discouraging others, then people will only hear one side of the story. In Martin Scorsese’s documentary ITALIAN AMERICAN, his mother does far more talking that the father. She dominates the narrative. The talker always wins whether his/her account is true or not because we only get to hear his/her side of the story. The non-talker may actually be in the right, but we will never know since he never says anything. The Muting Method is a key weapon of PC that favors the talk of liars and threatens the talk of truth-tellers. It’s like blacks are encouraged to have ‘the talk’ with their kids, but when John Derbyshire had his own ‘talk’ with his kids and posted it online, he was summarily attacked not only by Liberals but by ‘cuckservatives’ who suck up to Jews, Negroes, and homos. PC has the power to hit the ‘mute button’, and disabling this button is the first step toward freedom. It isn’t easy to resist the power of this ‘mute button’ since the mechanism has been programmed into us. When Jews hit the ‘mute button’, WE go silent since we’ve been engineered to fear disapproval of the powers-that-be. And we know that if we disobey the ‘mute button’ and keep saying our say, we can be exiled from respectable community. We can’t resist this power alone, so we must form into groups and seek power in numbers and unity. In traditional society, the ‘mute button’ favored the patriarch. Even when wrong and unjust, the patriarch had the power of talk and could blame everything on his wife and kids, even if they were innocent. Since society favored the patriarch who held the ‘mute button’, the wife and kids had to remain silent. Therefore, listeners assumed that the patriarch is a man of honor while the wife and kids are to blame for whatever problem. Since traditional values commanded that wife and kids respect and obey the father, even a father-in-the-wrong could sound righteous and true. There is a sense of this in the Old Testament, a kind of Jewish-Father-Knows-Best. In our world, the game is Jew-Negro-Homo-Know-Best, and they can say just about whatever. Blacks can tell lies about ‘white racism’, Jews can tell lies about Russia and Iran, and homos can tell lies about how Reagan’s ‘indifference’ was responsible for all the dead homos killed by HIV. And the rest of us better remain silent in mute obeisance to the favored groups. For truth and justice, we need counter-voice, counter-talk, counter-narrative.] If indeed Americans are becoming more open to ‘gay marriage’ because they are MORE EMPATHETIC than before, why don’t they feel similar levels of empathy for those who wanna practice polygamy or ‘incest marriage’? If Americans are so in love with Jews due to higher levels of empathy, how come Americans are so blind to the plight of Palestinians who live in crushing poverty under Zionist domination? If the rise of Obama is due to the increase in empathy among white ‘progressives’, why were so many of them heartless toward George Zimmerman the ‘white Hispanic’ who used deadly force to defend himself from a black thug? How come Americans don’t get worked up over all the white, Hispanic, Arab-America, Asian, and Muslim-American victims of black violence and crime? How come many Americans adore the Dalai Lama and feel some sympathy for Tibetans but not for the Muslim minorities and others in China who have suffered comparably or even worse? So, all this EMPATHY stuff is a lot of crap. Political or social empathy is not natural. While most Americans wish bad things didn’t happen around the world, they only really care about groups favored by the media. Also, emotional manipulation is really the key, far more important than knowledge of world affairs. For example, if TV news dryly reported on 10,000 dead people in India but then emotively reported on 100 dead in Egypt, Americans will care more about the 100 dead Egyptians than about the 10,000 dead Indians. Also, years and years of political and social manipulation have made us favor certain groups over others. Thus, Jews, Homos, and blacks are favored over other groups, and this has nothing to do with the actual history of suffering. An American will sympathize more with a Jewish billionaire than with a poor Ukrainian whose grandparents were wiped out by Stalin and his Jewish henchmen. Because our emotions have been molded to be Judeo-centric, a news story about a Palestinian terrorist killing 10 Jews will affect us more strongly than a news story about Israel killing a 100 Palestinians. So, there has been no general increase in empathy[often mistaken for sympathy] among Americans. Rather, selective sympathy for certain groups has risen to fever pitch while general empathy or sympathy hasn’t budged at all or even plummeted in relation to other peoples. [Also, in the Age of the Selfie, most attention is about the self.] So, even though Paula Deen had a gun held to her head by some ghastly Negro, no one feels any sympathy for her since her kind has been defamed as ‘white trash redneck’ by the Jewish-controlled media. Instead, we are more appalled by the fact that she muttered ‘nigger’ out of anger, which is rather amusing since Jews have a long history of using racial and sexual epithets about gentiles. For how long have Jews called gentile women, ‘shikse’, which means ‘abomination’ or ‘filth’, and indeed, Jewish pornographers and Hollywood executives have used white women as nothing but pieces of sex meat to cum on. And how come there is zero empathy for all the white victims of black thuggery in South Africa? Again, the object of empathy is selected for us by the powers-that-be that get to toy with our emotions. We must seek permission to feel sympathy for certain peoples, and we are threatened with disrepute and even ruin if we don’t express obligatory emotions for certain peoples. So, it’s dangerous to express any sympathy for the German dead in World War II since Germans are only to be regarded as the ‘bad guys’. So, if a homo activist asks you with faux-niceness, "are you for ‘gay marriage’?", you better damn well answer YES WITH A BIG BEAMING SMILE AND ‘I LOVE BIG BROTHER’ LOOK ON YOUR FACE, because failure to do so can get you marked as a ‘hateful homophobe’. Empathy with South African whites is not allowed. Indeed, that kind of empathy is suppressed or even vilified. Jewish media lords attack any white person who empathizes with Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome. You see, when whites empathize/sympathize with fellow whites, that is ‘racist’. Given the cult of ‘white guilt’, whites must turn a blind eye to the suffering of other whites and must focus instead of the likes of Trayvon Martin and the disgusting black whore who falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players of rape. So, it’s not permitted for white people to feel any empathy/sympathy for the tens of thousands of whites who’ve been robbed, raped, tortured, and/or murdered by blacks in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. But it’s wonderful for Jews to empathize with fellow Jews in Israel who continue to crush Palestinians, and indeed, the rest of us are required to empathize with Zionist Jews too, especially if you’re an American politician who must kowtow to any Israeli politician who visits America with the airs of royalty. So much for the rise of sympathy/empathy!! No, it’s all about the manipulation of empathy by the Jewish powers-that-be to direct our positive emotions toward select favored groups such as Jews, homos, and blacks while blocking them from reaching poor, working class, and middle class whites who suffer from Jewish finance, black fist, and homo filth. But even with certain favored groups, the rules of empathy will rise or fall depending on the situation. So, when it comes to white American resistance to Mexican/Hispanic invasion, white Americans are the bad guys lacking in sympathy for all those wonderful brownies. But on the matter of George Zimmerman, the narrative was of a ‘white male’ or ‘white Hispanic’ filled with irrational and paranoid fear of black males, the salt-and-peppa of the earth, who are so wonderful that one of the main obsessions of urban white Liberals, Jews, and Homos is devising ever more creative ways to control, limit, and/or expel the black urban population. The policy is to have more brownies immigrate to big cities to work as waiters and to have more blacks ‘emigrate’ out of cities into outlying areas where they can prey on poorer whites whose plight is conveniently ignored by the media, 95% of which is pretty much owned or controlled by globalist Jewish supremacists and their homo helpers. And contrary to the contention that America has become less judgmental, only the rules of judgmentalism have changed so that Jews, homos, and blacks are free to accuse, condemn, denigrate, mock, belittle, and attack whomever they don’t like. Anyway, we are now living in the post-rationalist age. The Enlightenment is dead because we don’t believe in individual intellect and free will. Though all ideologies and movements operated by deception and manipulation, there was once a time when liberals, progressives, and leftists nevertheless believed in the hope of justice and progress founded on reason and truth. Especially given the religion’s dogmatism of faith, reactionary’s conviction in tradition, and fascism’s ‘irrational’ appeal to mythic vision, the progressive saw themselves as the defenders of facts, logic, and truth as the true foundation of a just society. Today, Jewish elites have no confidence and trust in the masses. Also, if Marxist Jews were willing to surrender their Jewish identity for universalism, post WWII Jews are strongly defined by ethnic identity, especially in relation to the Holocaust. Since Jews no longer want to be part of gentile humanity but instead simply want to rule over it, their appeal to universal reason and truth sound more hollow by the day. It’s empty rhetoric than hope-for-reality. Universal education has long been established as a fact of American life, and almost no one goes hungry in America. There are tons of books for everyone, but so many Americans freely choose to be slobs or morons. And even the ones who go to college just swallow BS. They go for cum load than cum laude. Though devious high-IQ Jewish academics willfully dupe their students — especially the dimwit goyim — , the ease with which this is accomplished only confirms their view that humanity is made up of dodos. Just look at the politically correct mindlessness of so many students even at elite colleges. But then, PC at Ivy League shouldn’t be surprising since elite students[outside hard sciences] tend to be teachers’ pets. After all, one must study and study to make the grade, and that means absorbing every word in textbooks written PC academics. Also, it means training and disciplining oneself to think and say only those things that will be met with approval by the admissions office that is overwhelmingly ‘progressive’, Jewish-Supremacist, and/or homo-leaning. So, even though some people who attend elite colleges are independent-minded, many of the so-called ‘best and the brightest’ tend to be of conformist mind-set. It’s like girls in beauty pageants want to look ‘just right’ in accordance to narrow standards. Similarly, the standards of admission to elite schools are rigid, ideologically as well as academically, and conformist personalities better adept at single-minded pursuits are favored. My guess is that students with VERY high IQ tend to be more independent-minded since they don’t have to study as hard to make the grade and pass the tests. You would have time for activities other than assigned school work. But if you’re pretty smart but not genius material, you will have to study very hard, even at the expense of personal independence, to get straight A’s and score high on exams. If manipulation within ‘safe spaces’ now trumps rational persuasion in open debate, we are living in the Age of Machination. After all, it is so much easier to control people through the power of images and sounds, slogans and banners, taboos and fanfare. Granted, this is nothing new give the history of Fascist, Nazi, and Communist propaganda in the 20th century. Or consider American propaganda during WWI and WWII that was sensationalistic and manipulative. Even so, there was at least the hope among liberals that, with increasing productivity and social progress, all or most Americans could be educated and trained into thinking beings with independent will and critical ability. There was the behaviorist challenge from the likes of B.F. Skinner, but most liberals stuck with the humanist tradition. They thought that Negroes, with proper help and education, could become like the best of white folks; they believed that integration would make whites and blacks see beyond the ‘color of the skin’ and acknowledge their common bond as fellow humans. But this seemingly ‘rational’ view turned out to be irrational, the product of naive goodwill rooted in Christian do-goodery. Also, most blacks could not be molded to act like whites, and fear of blacks was not limited to rednecks and ‘racists’ but gripped the hearts of white liberals and progressives in crime-ridden cities. As David Horowitz realized in the late 60s and early 70s, there were marked differences between geeky Jews and muscular Negroes that went beyond skin color. In the realm of social psychology, new studies in genetics make clear that much of human behavior is hardwired and much of what we call ‘free will’ is mostly an illusion. If ‘gay marriage’ advocates had to make their case in an open forum of rational discourse, there would have been many more compelling arguments against it than for it. But why bother with such rational or factual debate when you can use the full force of the mind-control media, academia, and popular culture to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality as the greatest thing since sliced bread or toasted buns? In such cultural climate, even intelligent people with the best arguments against ‘gay marriage’ fell silent since they feared losing their position in a new order given to pro-homo hysteria. After all, if millions of Chinese youths could be inflamed to chant slogans in Mao’s glory only a few years after Mao killed around 30-40 million people in the Great Leap Forward, humanity can be made to believe and do just about anything. There is no certainty to history. It’s all a matter of who controls the power and how the power is used to manipulate the hearts and minds of the managerial elites who then steer the masses like cattle. Consider Germany in the 20th century. The masses were easily manipulated to support WWI. And then, they were easily made to support democracy. And then, they were easily made to support National Socialism. And then, following defeat, they were easily made to support democracy & ‘German guilt’ in West Germany or communism in East Germany. Russia used to be the most backward major nation in Europe, and the masses almost never rose up against the powers-that-be. But WWI got so bad that it led to a revolution, and almost overnight, the Bolsheviks turned masses of Russians into ardent communists. Russians lived under communist indoctrination for 70 yrs, therefore, many thought communism would define Russia for a long time. But the Russian elites changes their tune in the late 80s and early 90s, and communism vanished almost overnight, and Russians today care most about partying and music videos. Christianity had been around for 2000 yrs, but it just took a few decades to convince so many of the flock that Jesus died on the Cross so that a bunch of homos could get ‘married’. How could things change so fast? Because people are sheeple morons. If certain truths and values seemed eternal and everlasting, it was mainly because history changed very slowly before the rise of modern West. Fallaciously, many people came to assume that something that lasted a thousand years had some special power of resilience and survival. But its longevity could have owed simply to historical stasis. In the modern world defined by change, we can see how even the most basic and fundamental values can be vanquished almost overnight by the purging power of Political Correctness and obliterating power of Pop Culture. We can’t take the triumph of any truth for granted. ‘Truth’ is whatever happens to be the champion narrative of the moment as determined by the powers-that-be. The reason for historical stagnation/stasis and historical change/upheaval is often the same: moronickery or moronosity. Either the population mindlessly cannot see any alternative except the one they are familiar with, or the population mindlessly follows the pied piper of fashion. At any rate, the masses cannot change on their own. Consider MEET JOHN DOE where the fat rich oligarch observes how his employees are swayed by what they hear on the radio. Even though the John Doe phenomenon was just a media stunt, the naive masses get carried away, and today’s reality isn’t all that different. Promote stuff like Ellen Degeneris and WILL & GRACE on TV all across the nation, and millions of idiots come to see homosexuality as the most wonderful thing, and they are afraid of expressing or even harboring a ‘homophobic’ thought because they’ve become enamored of TV celebrities. On their own, the masses can only believe and do as they’d been programmed. They cannot break out of the box on their own. For change, they need inspired leaders — rarities among mankind — to guide them like Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt. Unfortunately, so many ‘inspired’ leaders have been lunatics, egotists, opportunists, supremacists, tyrants, or charlatans. Thus, change can happen suddenly but not necessarily for the better, indeed even more the worse. Russians got swept up in collectivized agriculture that overturned sane farming practices. Japanese were energized into supporting a war that led to national ruin. Seemingly sober and conservative German masses got roused into following Hitler to the pits of hell. Chinese farmers surrendered to the hare-brained economic plan of Mao who didn’t know a thing about economics. Americans mindlessly signed onto Great Society that rewarded bad sexual behavior among Negroes. 300,000 young people gathered at a rock concert in a place near Woodstock and shat all over for three days and call it the ‘garden’. So, sudden change, just like prolonged stasis, could be the product of moronic mindlessness. If there weren’t so many morons, Jim Jones couldn’t have done what he did. And thanks to the moronic mindless of Americans, we went from a nation decent enough to tolerate homo deviancy to a nation celebrating fecal penetration and mutilation of private parts. I don’t know if Time magazine was right in the 1990s when it said 80% of Americans believe in angels, but it seems the great majority of them now believe in fairies. On the one hand, Liberals feign disappointment that so many Americans in this day and age could be so ignorant and stupid to believe in angels, but on the other hand, Liberals see hope in such findings for implying that childish Americans can be made to believe in just about anything. The powers-that-be only need to find the right buttons to push on the human psyche, and presto, the masses are cattle. No need to slowly prepare and bake the mind in the rational oven. Just microwave it with the correct radiation. Americans have a microwave popcorn mind. And given that American Conservatism has been fostering moronic mindlessness of their own — such as wasting time on ‘school prayer’ & ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ for political gain and encouraging the Christian Right to spread Creationism & other such nonsense — , they are just as guilty. Both Liberalism and Conservatism rely on the moronosity of the masses, but Liberals, especially the Jews, are far more adept and skilled in the art of manipulation. Liberals have Harvard and Hollywood, conservatives have 700 Club and Hillsdale College. Jews have AIPAC, white nationalists have dinky American Renaissance Conferences. Anyway, there has been no giant leap in empathy among Americans. The only difference is that there’s been a shift in the object of empathy due to machinations of the Jewish-controlled media. So, if white folks in the past empathized mostly with fellow whites and Christians, today they ‘empathize’ more wit Jews, homos, and blacks than with people of their own kind. Of course, Jews, homos, and blacks care about no one but themselves. How empathetic were Jews about the victims of Bolshevism headed by Jews? How empathetic were Jews about Poles who suffered in WWII? The only narrative about Poland since WWII in the American Jewish-controlled media has been "Poles are antisemitic" — though Jews do appreciate Poles whoring themselves out to US against Russia — , but there’s been no mention of Jewish contempt for ‘dumb Polacks’ over the centuries and of Jewish collaboration with Soviet occupation of Poland. And you won’t find much Jewish empathy regarding the Palestinians. And the horrors suffered by Iraqi Christian following the Neocon invasion have been mostly swept under the rug. And Jews don’t care what might happen to Christians if Assad’s regime were to fall in Syria. So-called ‘empathy’ is mostly a matter of selection, mostly decided by the media powers-that-be. Why did Americans come to care so much about blacks in South Africa but feel almost nothing about Palestinians in Israel/Palestine? Because Jewish powers-that-be in the media reported the problem in South Africa as a b/w moral issue, whereas the Israel-Palestine conflict was heavily skewered to favor the Jewish narrative. Even when Israel was viewed with a critical eye by the ‘American’ media — which really should be called the Jewish Supremacist Media — , it was in a dispassionate, ‘balanced’, and even-handed manner. The media rejected an even-handed approach to apartheid South Africa as morally perverse since white rule was simply deemed ‘evil’, BUT ‘balance’ was the key to understanding the Israel-Palestinian conflict despite the fact that Israel was founded through massive ethnic cleansing & terrorism and the fact that Palestinians continue to subsist in sub-human conditions. Or consider the massive killing of innocent pigs that are as smart as dogs, if not smarter. How come there is so much inter-species empathy for whales and dolphins but no sympathy for pigs, even among those who know that pigs are highly intelligent, sensitive, and emotional creatures? Where is the hampathy? It’s nowhere to be found because the powers-that-be don’t turn it into an issue. To be sure, there have been movies like BABE and its sequel, but it only goes to show that favorable depiction of a particular group of people or animals is not enough. There must the politics of shaming those who don’t get on with the program. Thus, even though people who like BABE might sympathize with the pig, there is no shame for those who continue to indulge in the killing and eating of pigs. If anything, humans are far more piggish than pigs are, and if there’s real justice in this world, pigs ought be called ‘humans’ and humans ought to be called ‘pigs’. Thus, empathy must be combined with ‘shamepathy’ if real change is to happen. After all, the homo agenda didn’t merely promote positive images of homos but negative images of those who oppose or reject the homo agenda. So, the true politics of empathy is about the powers-that-be choosing which groups should be favored and which groups should be defamed. In contrast to such ideological sham, true empathy doesn’t mean automatic sympathy for others but an attempt to understand what others are thinking and feeling. Thus, a truly empathetic approach to the South African controversy of apartheid would have required us to see the conflict not only from the black point of view but from the white point of view. Sure, apartheid did racially favor whites over blacks, but could there have been legitimate reasons as to why whites wanted to keep the power? After all, blacks have never shown themselves to be capable of complex civilization. Indeed, there is de facto apartheid in the US, with most white Liberals preferring to move away from largely black areas. Even white Liberals fled from Detroit, and even Liberal ‘blue cities’ tend to be racially segregated. If even white Liberals in majority white cities fear blacks, just imagine the fears — often valid, legitimate, and rational — that South African whites had in regards to blacks who came up make up 85% of the population and were even more savage than American blacks. But, we were not allowed to empathize with white South Africans in the way we were encouraged to empathize with Jews in Israel and even Zionist settlers in the Occupied Territories. And, how much empathy was there for George Zimmerman from blacks or white Liberals or Jews? If anything, there was a lot of hateful hostility, judgmental condemnation, and jumping-to-conclusions and sticking by the false narrative even after it was debunked by new details. Yet, these Liberals and blacks say white people need to feel more empathy! Just like the hysteria about ‘hate’, the politics of empathy is a game of power. Jews and their allies get to decide what is ‘hate’, who shouldn’t be hated and who should be hated. So, even black thug rappers shouldn’t be hated — as that would be ‘racism’ — , but we are encouraged to hate, hate, and hate white males and people like George Zimmerman the ‘white Hispanic’ who dared to guard his own community beset with high rates of black crime. So, we mustn’t empathize with white Southeners who’ve been attacked, robbed, raped, and/or murdered in great numbers in the past fifty years, but we must ‘empathize’ with Trayvon Martin who’s been pictured as ‘unarmed black child with a bagful of skittles’. We are supposed to ‘empathize’ — and ‘welcome’, celebrate, and even worship — men who stick their penises into other men’s fecal holes, but we must feel hatred for Chick-Fil-A for supporting the true meaning of marriage. We are not to empathize with Russians whose economy had been stripped and raped by globalist Jewish oligarches. Instead, we must condemn and hate today’s Russians because they refuse to sign onto the Jewish-promoted cult of homo holiness. According to these Liberals, Russia is ‘fascist’ because it won’t bend over to ‘gay marriage’ and hideous Pussy Riot! I guess America was ‘fascist’ few years ago when ‘gay marriage’ was not law of the land. Jewish-Homo-run America is an empire of lies. On the race issue, we have liars like Jared Diamond and Steven Pinker, all the more upsetting since they are high IQ Jews. On the other hand, the ability to lie well and trick people is a facet of intelligence, and of course, smart people love to spin facts and dupe the dummies. Hollywood studio bosses don’t give a crap about the junk movies they are making except as cash cows; most movies are meant for the masses of dummies. Jerry Springer loves running circles around the dumb goy audiences who watch his show. Parents lie to their children and teachers lie to their students premised on the notion that children ‘cannot handle the truth’. Pinker is especially a big liar because of his pretense of being the voice of truth, honesty, and reason. In truth, he’s just another anti-race-ist Jew whose anti-race-ism is really a twisted form of race-ism; race-ism meaning race + ism = belief in races, racial differences, and/or racial identity and consciousness. Pinker denies the fact of racial differences because he knows it may justify the rise of white gentile unity and power that may threaten Jewish power and supremacism. How can someone like Pinker, who’s done so much research and pored over so much data, not know that general racial differences exist? He is right to say human nature is basically similar and that all people share basic/common attributes. So, Peruvian Indians and West Africans all have two eyes, two years, four limbs, emotions of happiness-sadness-anger-envy, logical abilities, and etc. But there is surely the matter of degrees, and those degrees are what determines the difference between Albert Einstein and Mike Tyson, between Dan Quayle and Alan Dershowitz. While most Jews don’t have the IQs of an Einstein or a Dershowitz, who can deny that there are more of such people among Jews than among other groups — and indeed, Pinker even wrote a piece for the New Republic where he, more or less, agreed that Ashkenazi Jews do have higher IQ. General IQ differences among various groups and races cannot be denied. Of course, culture matters. If Einstein had been born into a ultra-conservative Jewish community where he was only allowed to study the Torah and Talmud, he could not have been a great scientist. Or if he’d been born in a world where anti-Jewish laws forbid Jews from entering the academia, he couldn’t have done much as a scientist either. Similarly, who knows how many great black athletes there were in the 19th and early 20th century who weren’t given the opportunity to excel? Because the white-dominated mainstream culture/society didn’t permit blacks to play in many professional sports, a lot of black talent went unknown. But, all things being equal, when blacks were given the opportunity to play in professional sports, they generally outperformed other races by a very significant margin. So, even though culture/society can suppress certain talents, it doesn’t mean that change in culture will ensure equal achievement for all groups. In America, Mexican-Americans have the same opportunity to succeed in sports and physics/chemistry as do Jews and blacks, but most Mexican-Americans tend to be average-talented in both intellect and athleticism. Of course, a change in cultural attitudes can make Mexicans strive harder in certain areas, but no matter how much a Mexican-American trains for basketball or football, he is likely to be far less successful than a black guy making half the effort. And even though there are surely very smart Mexican-Americans, intellectual achievement is not the hallmark of the Mexican or Mexican-American experience. So, how disingenuous of Pinker to argue in THE BLANK SLATE that racial differences have accounted for nothing in the different levels of achievement among the races and that it was entirely a matter of ‘culture’. Pinker seems to agree with Jared Diamond that geography was the crucial factor, but surely both Pinker and Diamond know that geography affects not only culture but genetics. Certain geographies not only better facilitate the flow/exchange of ideas but select certain traits over others in the process of natural selection. Surely, Diamond and Pinker know that the arctic climate didn’t merely shape Eskimo culture but favored certain genetic traits prominent among Eskimos. And these traits could be physical, intelligence-related, and/or emotional/temperamental. And if it’s true that there are more than one kind of intelligence, then surely certain climates/terrains favor certain intelligences over other kinds. If musical improvisation is a kind of intelligence, it could be argued blacks are more adept at it because the aggressive and funky hunter-warrior personality favored under the hot sun in a world of dangerous animals made blacks more alert to sensory and sensual stimuli. Diamond and Pinker say black Africa failed to develop complex civilizations because it was isolated from the advancements in the Near East and Europe. In contrast, there was supposedly much trade and exchange of ideas from East to West across Eurasia. But this is so much baloney. In truth, the flow/exchange of ideas between Near East and Africa long predated the exchange between Near East and Europe. Ancient Egypt, though not black, had black neighbors among the Nubians/Kushites. So, long before Northern Europe had contact with the advanced civilizations of North Africa and the Near East, blacks in what is today Ethiopia and Sudan had contacts with the most advanced cultures of the early ancient world; and indeed, there were times when Egypt was conquered by black tribes in the way that Romans were later conquered at times by Huns and then by the Germanic tribes and the Chinese were invaded by the Mongols. So, there were blacks in Africa who had contact with ideas, modes, and means of high civilization, and these blacks had thousands of years to spread these ideas to other parts of Africa. Later, the Arab tribes — Christian, pagan, or Muslim — had many contacts with black Africa, and black Africans had ample opportunity to learn from Muslims, and of course, some tribes did. There was even the kingdom of Timbuktu that rose to prominence before the rise of modern Europe. It had a large library of Arab/Muslim books. So, blacks in large parts of Africa were not shut off or isolated from the rest of the world. Also, many black tribes carried out extensive slave trade with Arabs and then later with Europeans who arrives on the West African seacoast. From both Arabs and Europeans, black Africans had ample opportunity to learn about other worlds. And African kingdoms that sold slaves to Arabs and Europeans also obtained from them the products and skills of the more advanced parts of the world. And there were plenty of cattle and horses in parts of northern Africa, even amongst the black tribes. So, why didn’t blacks do much with these ideas, goods, and products? Why didn’t Timbuktu develop into something greater? Why did it house Arabic books but fail to produce anything of indigenous black African knowledge or wisdom? Indeed, Europe and the Near East had, for thousands of years, closer contact with North Africa and western coasts of Africa than with India, China, or Japan. Why were the Japanese able to take Western guns and learn how to build them on their own whereas black African kingdoms that also bought Western guns through the slave trade failed to achieve the same? And even though many black Africans had such prolonged contacts with ancient Near East, Arabs, and Europeans, why didn’t they develop more cities like Timbuktu? Why was Timbuktu an anomaly than the norm? If Egypt and the Near East did indeed exert decisive influence on ancient Greece as some scholars have argued, why didn’t similar civilizations develop in black Africa when many black Africans near North Africa had had a longer ties with Egypt than did the Greeks, relative late-comers in the Cradle of Civilization sweepstakes? Northern Europe came under the influence of ideas and tools originating from the Near East much later did some of the black tribes and kingdoms in black Africa, but why did northern Europeans make steady and then astonishing progress once they were equipped with those ideas whereas black Africans who had contacts with Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Europeans never developed complex or advanced civilizations — except in a few pockets like Kush and Timbuktu, but even those failed to survive for long? Who can deny that long before the West finally broke through the barriers of East Asia and traded in any significant measure with the Chinese, there had been a long relationship between Europe and black African kingdoms of the West Coast who supplied the slaves? Why did those African kingdoms, despite having accumulated much gold and ideas from Arab and European traders, fail to do anything with them and just continued to have tribal dances where half-naked ladies shook their asses while warriors of the tribe pumped their groins? And consider the fact that South America was far more isolated from Europe than Africa was, which actually had more contact with Europe than most of Asia did, and yet, the indigenous peoples of South America developed far more complex and impressive civilizations than even the most advanced black Africans did. Did black Africans build anything to match the monuments of the Mayans, Incas, or the Aztecs? How was it that a people so thoroughly separated from the Old World were able to build such great civilizations — albeit bloody ones — whereas the most impressive sub-Saharan monument is maybe the fortress of Zimbabwe, small potatoes compared to the pyramids of the South American natives? Though the natives of the Americas aren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the world, their average IQ is clearly higher than that of black Africans. Also, there is the matter of temperament. As the indigenous peoples of the Americas are ‘Asiatic’ in origin, they tend to be naturally less aggressive than black Africans. ‘Less aggressive’ doesn’t necessarily means less cruel, less evil, or less sadistic. After all, Heinrich Himmler was a dough-faced beta-male without an aggressive personality, but he was as evil and diabolical as they come. And there are plenty of ‘less aggressive’ Chinese who feel nothing when they see dogs tortured to death in the making dog stew. Even so, for there to be civilization, there has to be followers and leaders, and a community made up of aggressive Jafro-jivers is going to have a hard time building something. Everyone from the top chieftain to the lowly slave will prefer to dance on a dirt mound with women shaking their asses and men pumping their groins like they are horny apes or something, and we have plenty of that in American black communities as well, especially as social freedoms since the 50s/60s have encouraged blacks to revert to their savage ways of ‘jungle-jivery’. So, it’s not just a matter of intelligence but temperament. Contrary to the BS peddled by Diamond and Pinker, much of black Africa has had a long history of trading and exchanging ideas with North Africa, Near East, and Europe. And when Near East and North Africa were the most advanced parts of the world in the ancient world, black Africa had much easier access to the Cradle of Civilization than cold and isolated Northern Europe did. [Incidentally, UK and Japan make interesting case studies as one has been at the far side of Western Europe and the other at the far side of Eastern Asia. Though at the far edges of the world and racially isolated — more so than most other places in Europe and Asia — , they were at the forefront of absorbing and reworking ideas, skills, and technologies from all over the world. Perhaps, their being surrounded by seas made them, at once, more exclusionary and more curious. Seas sealed them from the rest of the world, and yet, sea routes, prior to the arrival of airplanes, had been the main venues of contact among civilizations. Though Japan came late to the seafaring game, once they got started, they built massive naval fleets and emulated the British. It’s like modern Japan took its national ideology from the Germans and its military strategy from the British. Anyway, Britain and Japan prove that you don’t need massive movements of peoples to learn from the rest of the world. Japan didn’t need to bring a million Indians to Japan to absorb Buddhism. It didn’t need to let in a million Chinese to learn about Confucianism. It didn’t have to be invaded by Western nations to learn from the West. And Britain didn’t need to be invaded by the entire world to learn all sorts of ideas and sciences from all over. Indeed, if exchange of peoples is so crucial to progress, why did Turkey, Greece, and Central Asia make less progress than Britain and Japan? Turkey, Greece, and Central Asia were places where all sorts of people — from Europe, Asia, Near East, North Africa, and etc — clashed, conquered, and traded over thousands of years, and yet, Turkey is still a semi-Third World nation, Greece is among the poorest European nations, and Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are hardly centers of world progress. Thus, it seems the best formula for progress is for a nation to have an higher-IQ population, relative unity and homogeneity, secure borders, and an openness to ideas and technologies from abroad. Britain gained so much by absorbing ideas from all over the world, but how has it been fairing ever since it began to absorb millions of people from Pakistan, the Middle East, black Africa, and the Caribbean? Entire areas of UK are slowly but surely turning into Jamaica and Pakistan, or Jamakistan.] Only a fool or liar would say race alone determined the rise of the West, but only a fool or liar would say race had nothing to do with it. The notion that blacks could achieve just as much as Europeans, Jews, or Japanese if given access to modern ideas and means is just so much PC sophistry. It’s like saying, if Mexicans or Japanese build more modern gyms, they’ll produce just as many top professional athletes as black communities do. There has been lots of black, Arab, and Asian immigrants — especially from former colonies — in France, but how come blacks dominate much of French sports? Pinker brands himself as politically incorrect because he’s willing to discuss biology in relation to sociology, but he maintains the conceit that basic similarities among human groups means natural equality in innate talent. This, of course, is unscientific and sloppy, but of course, a man as smart as Pinker knows he’s peddling BS, but his Jewish Supremacist agenda prefers to suppress the discussion of racial differences because, once it becomes well-known that blacks generally have lower IQ and harder muscles[and those are the main reasons for racial problems in the US], ‘white guilt’ will begin to evaporate, and that means Jews won’t be able to manipulate white emotions anymore. If black problems are largely due to biological differences, then whites need feel less ‘guilt’ about the past. Also, whites have a right to fear blacks since stronger blacks can cause a lot of pain to the white community. Thus, ‘racism’ turns into rational race-ism that is morally justified. Pinker says biology matters but then says there is only one biological truth for all the human race, which, as any honest person knows, is rubbish. While it’s true that whites and blacks are basically alike — both can laugh, cry, smile, joke, do simple math, and etc. — , there are shades of differences in white and black emotional expressions with profound implications. For one thing, if we were to measure psychopathy by white standards, we would have to conclude that many blacks would qualify as psychopathic. It’s like if we were to measure height by Japanese standards, many Americans would count as tall. What is extreme in one group would be the norm in another. If psychopaths are "characterised by superficial charm, pathological lying and a diminished capacity for remorse", this can be said of many blacks. But what might appear as psychopathic to white folks in a Western setting may not be psychopathic by black standards where being wild, savage, jigger-jiving, flipping out, funky-ass-monkeying-around, booty-ass-mofo-shucking-and-spear-chucking, cackling-at-hyenas-and-running-like-a-mothafuc*a-from-a-bigass-hippo is natural and normal behavior. The Negro in COOLEY HIGH says over the coffin of his dead friend, "Don't worry, man. I'm gonna make it. I can lie and steal too good not to survive." Naive white Liberals might say that such attitude is the result of blacks having to shuck-and-jive in white America over a few centuries of Jim Crow, but in fact, the Negro personality is really the product of 100,000s of evolution under Chimp Bro. Though all individuals, under certain circumstances or conditions, can be made more devious and cunning, it comes more naturally to some than to others, and blacks really take the cake, and so do the Jews and with much higher IQ. Surrounded by lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, hippos, elephants, rhinos, crocodiles, warthogs, and other badass animals, black Africans had to be especially slick and funky ass to survive. It’s like chimpanzees and gorillas are more aggressive than orangutans in South Asia. Bonobos are African apes but relatively more benign because they’re isolated in a more peaceful environment from most dangerous animals. Since a single wrong move could mean death from animal attack, black Africans had to be more than strong; they had to be fast, jazzy, elusive, and etc. One false move, and a lion could claw off a big chunk of their ass or a hippo could bite off their legs. The greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali owed not only to their strength and toughness but their ability to be evasive and slippery in the ring. Thus, they were not only able to land a lot of punches but evade a lot of blows. The tough/aggressive side of blacks makes them egocentric, weak in empathy, and self-centered. [On the other hand, blacks have lots of rhythmpathy. Blacks aren’t much at peering into the souls of others, but they are adept at picking up others’ signals, emotive or physical. It’s like an animal is very alert to even the slightest movements of other animals lest they pose a threat. Just like boxers need to react to blows before they happen, animals have pre-cog alertness to danger. Negroes look for physical signs to assess and take advantage of the situation. They also look for emotive signals to manipulate. But such ‘reading’ or picking up of signals is mainly for playing, not understanding.] The evasive/slippery side of blacks makes them deceitful, superficially charismatic, charming, and slick. And the highest and perhaps even sublime expression of this black nature is Jazz, which is both very aggressive, energetic, show-offy, and attention-hogging AND elusive, sneaky, shady, and under-the-radar. It both hits and hides, attacks and backs off, rushes and hushes. It’s not a musical form that promotes anything like empathetic emotions. It’s all me, me, and me, albeit with far greater sophistication than something like Rap. Whatever advantage such black personality may have in the dangerous world of savage Africa, it comes close to psychopathy in the modern West where people need to be calm, conscientious, mindful, self-critical, reflective, rational, and empathetic. If measured objectively by white standards, blacks will be deemed more psychopathic than any other group in our society. Indeed, notice the absolute lack of empathy, sympathy, reflection, or thought among blacks in the OJ Simpson trial and in the Trayvon Martin case. Notice how blacks are utterly blind and uncaring about all the victims of black crime, but holler and scream about their own grievances, even when they are clearly in the wrong. While many peoples can be low in inter-group or inter-cultural empathy — Russians feeling little for non-Russians, Poles feeling little for non-Poles, Chinese feeling little for non-Chinese, etc. — , blacks fail not only in inter-cultural empathy but intra-cultural empathy. If troubles flare up between Russians and Poles, most Russians may stick together and put the blame on Poles, and vice versa, but at least amongst their own kind, a Pole or Russian may be able to admit wrong, apologize, and be somewhat reflective. Alexander Solzenhitsyn, in his book about Jews, didn’t only discuss Jewish problems but Russian problems. But blacks, even as they make common cause on issues like the O.J. Simpson or Trayvon Martin affair, mostly bitch, howl, and fight one another because every Negro thinks he or she is the center of the world. Such behavior seems psychopathic by white norms but is all too common among American blacks, which is why entire swaths of black-dominated areas in America have become unlivable to a lot of people. [Indeed, the main reason why blacks prefer to accuse whites than fellow blacks for all the problems of the black community is that whites are the ones who will listen and pay them some heed. In contrast, a black accused by other blacks will just holler and pull out his gun. Blacks demand sympathy and justice from whites because they can’t get any from their own kind.] But in savage Africa, such behavior may be useful as one tribe of howling chimp-out Jafro-jivers must act super-crazy to scare off other tribes of howling chimp-out Jafro-jivers or wild animals. It’s like baboon behavior would seem psychopathic to us, but it is essential among baboons if they’re to survive in the quasi-jigger-jiverish world of baboons. By objective standards, there is no question that blacks are by far the most ‘psychopathic’ people in America, with the likes of Jayson Blair being all too common in the black community. When the black community’s idea of leadership produces the likes of Jesse Jackson and his son, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, and Kanye West, it should be obvious to any honest person that black community is really wacky-blacky. It’s no wonder that the Jewish-homo-white-liberal political community had to select and groom their own black guy, namely Obama, since the products of black politics almost always tended to be people like Marion Barry, Maxine Waters, David Stinkin Dinkins, and other Jafros. So, the Democratic elites got themselves the Nice Negro Obama, but look through the veneer, and Obama is hardly any less psychopathic than the others. He’s just smarter and has a keener insight into the minds of whites, homos, and Jews and figured out ‘how to win’, just like the Will Smith character in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. If Jewish supremacists, homo elites, and ‘guilt-ridden’ whites need a Magic Negro, Obama will play that role and give them what they want, but in return, he will take the presidency, even if he must play the role of the Jews’ boy. Of course, it’s all a matter of degrees as most politicians tend to be liars, cheats, crooks, whores, and the like. A person of honest disposition will have a very hard time in politics. A politician needs to be someone who needs to lie with remorse and all the time. Paradoxically, the greater freedom and openness of the press since the 1960s made politicians even bigger liars. When leaders like FDR, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were more or less protected by the press — who swept a lot of potential scandals under the carpet — , they didn’t have to lie as often[even though they were plenty devious]. But ever since the media began to rip into Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and then Carter, it took an especially savvy liar-politician-actor to make it in politics, and Ronald Reagan was that man. Though Reagan wasn’t a compulsive liar by nature, he played politics like a movie. He was smooth and comfortable in the role of Teflon Ron. One of the problems of George H.W. Bush was he wasn’t a good liar and looked awkward telling lies. Then came Bill Clinton, the greatest master liar in American political history, a hustler and huckster of such charm that people loved him even when they knew he was lying. Bush II was a bad liar just like his father, indeed much worse, and he is considered maybe the worst president in US history. On the other hand, he came across as retarded, so people assumed he more dumb than crooked. Obama has been channeling Reagan and a bit of Clinton, and he is a good liar. In a way, we are living in dangerous times because now we have the double-lie syndrome. Prior to Johnson and the radical 60s, the Press tended to be rather protective of major politicians, and thus, America was a less honest and less open nation. But because of the media protection, politicians didn’t feel a need the master the art of the lie. But with the change of the media climate in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War, and then in the 1970s with the Watergate scandal, the media began to scrutinize politicians much more closely. Paradoxically, this pressure on politicians for more honesty and transparency had the effect of turning them into pathological liars since honesty and transparency are almost never winning hands in politics. [Look what happened to Walter Mondale for honestly saying he will raise taxes.] But beginning with Reagan, the media began to grow chummier with the ruling elites. Reagan was allowed to get away with stuff Nixon or Carter would not have been allowed to get away it. The media woke up during the George H.W. Bush presidency because they felt remiss in their duty after having played mindless cheerleader to the Panama invasion and the Gulf War. And then followed the L.A riots. Jews were upset over Bush and Baker’s attempt to deal fairly with Palestinians. And then there was the long love-fest between Clinton and the media despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most crooked American presidents of the 20th century. The media finally turned on him because of the Israel-Palestinian fiasco and the sex scandal. After 9/11, the media decided to given Bush II a benefit of a doubt and played massive cheer leader for the Iraq War, but the disaster — compounded by the Hurricane Katrina mess — awakened the media to finally do their job, but then came Obama, the Magic Negro fantasy, and the media went utterly batty in promoting him as the fulfillment of the unfinished business of Camelot and MLK. So, the media’s call for more honesty and transparency in the 1960s and 1970s had the unintended consequence of making politicians even more savvy and devious as liars. And today, the Jewish-Liberal-homo media that are so in love with Obama cannot even be bothered to do their job. The media’s past attempt to make politicians more honest made them more dishonest, but now, the media are in on the racket of protecting guys like Clinton, Bush II after 9/11 and up to the Iraq War, and Obama as Mr. Hope of "white America having come a long way". Besides, most of TV news — from which most Americans get the news — is essentially Republican propaganda in the form of Fox News and Democratic propaganda in the form of all other channels and networks. Of course, it would be deemed ‘racist’ to point out that psychopathy is more common among blacks and indeed may be something of a norm among blacks, at least by white standards. So, we now have a nation where the group that is most psychopathic bitches, whines, and threatens most about ‘injustice’. The group that attacks, robs, rapes, and murders the most claims the top mantle of moral righteousness. If we could discuss racial differences and the fact of stronger black muscles & naturally more aggressive black temperament, then we would understand why there are so many problems arising from the black community. But even Steven Pinker, who professes to be politically incorrect, pushes the truism that racial differences either don’t exist or insignificantly account for social differences. Saying that there are racial differences between blacks and whites isn’t to say that the two races are fundamentally different. Both share the same basic emotions, and both can walk, run, talk, look, hear, smell, taste sweetness, enjoy music, and etc. But there is a difference in degrees that can have profound consequences in a complex civilizational setting. If blacks and whites both lived as savages, the racial differences wouldn’t be as pronounced as both would be chucking spears, though, to be sure, blacks would be chucking them farther and making more noise. But in a civilizational setting, even difference in degrees of intelligence can mean that one person can make a million dollars a year while another makes minimum wage. In a prison setting, a Jew, a white gentile, a black person, a Hispanic, an Asian man, and an Arab man are going to eat the same food, sleep in the same kinds of cells, and walk the same yards. But in the free world, the Jew is more likely to succeed as a doctor, lawyer, or scientist than a Negro or Hispanic is. The white man is more likely to be part of a more orderly society than a Negro is. In elementary school, most kids are more or less learning the same thing. But differences keep widening as the grades progress. So, all this stuff about the races being ‘basically the same’ misses the point because civilization magnifies the consequences of such differences. If Jews, blacks, whites, and Hispanics are forced to live in a ghetto community without much freedom, they will all be impoverished and more or less the same, even though smarter Jews and whites will likely be more responsible in the use of their scarce resources. But if they are allowed to leave the community and live as free men in a modern society, Jews are simply going to achieve more than other groups because of their higher IQ. And we know isn’t just about Jewish culture or Jewish respect for learning. If Sarah Palin and Susan Sontag had been switched at birth — with the help of a time machine — , Palin the Jewess would still have grown up to be a bimbo, and Sontag the Christian would still have grown up to be a brainy neurotic person. If Woody Allen and Marco Rubio had been switched at birth — again with the help of a time machine — , Allen the Cuban-American would still have been a witty guy whereas Rubio the Jew would still have been a dodo. People like Diamond or Pinker have certain physical and personality traits that mark them as Jewish. Though not all Jews look ‘Semitic’ and non-Jews can look ‘Jewish’ too, Jews are more likely to have the features and attributes of people like Diamond and Pinker, and one would have to be politically correct to say otherwise. Anyway, what can be done about racial problems when the most psychopathic people in America, the blacks, are treated as the moral arbiters of what-is-to-be-done? Even the much lauded and praised MLK was psychopathic character, a compulsive liar and crook. He was a plagiarist who cheated on his doctoral thesis. He often stole the speeches of other ministers. He pontificated about God but indulged in the most ungodly acts with all sorts of women and WITHOUT an ounce of remorse or guilt. He feigned the act of a pacifistic saint — another sign of bogus psychopathy — and noble prophet but was a foul-mouthed and violent thug who used to knock women out and brag about it. If that isn’t psychopathic behavior, I don’t know what is. But we are to believe that he was some great moral exemplar and spiritual teacher, and even conservatives, in order to fend off charges of ‘racism’, pontificate about how MLK was really a conservative Republican, which is like the surviving Trojans, even after the fall of Troy, honoring the Greeks who made the offering of the Wooden Horse. So, America’s racial morality is upside down and makes no sense. Blacks, who are by far the most dangerous and psychopathic people in America, are held up as a race of tragically noble victims whose approval is necessary for white redemption. And this is made all the worse by the fact that the new elite of America is made up of Jewish supremacists who are, in their own way, no less psychopathic than the blacks. Jews are clearly smarter than blacks and even white gentiles. Jews are capable of reflection and remorse, at least amongst one another, which sets them apart from the black community. If most blacks are incapable of admitting wrong even to one another and if each Negro acts like he or she is the greatest thing since sliced watermelon, Jews are capable of apologizing to one another and admitting wrong before the eyes of fellow Jews, though not as readily as white Christians are with the Church community. But when it comes to dealing with gentiles, Jews are almost always incapable of reflection, remorse, and apology. Even when a slimeball Jew like Bernie Madoff stole billions from gentiles to enrich fellow Jews — until the pyramid collapsed and Jews got hurt too — , the spin by the Jewish-run media was "poor helpless Jews were the main victims of Madoff." And even Conservative Jews are behind Roman Polanski and don’t want him brought to justice. Jews will hunt down any artist or intellectual associated directly or indirectly with ‘antisemitism’, ‘Nazi sympathies’, or ‘collaboration with Nazis or Fascists’, BUT Jews will scream ‘foul’ with hysterics if anyone dares to hunt down Jewish communists who had a hand in the killing of millions, Jewish radicals who aided and abetted communist regimes, and Jewish intellectuals who made apologies for the murderous regimes of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Such call for justice would be ‘McCarthyism’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to endlessly bitch about how Wagner didn’t like Jews, how Herbert von Karajan had been close with Nazis, or how Heidegger supported Hitler at one time, but you better not say now a so-and-so Jewish artist or intellectual supported Lenin or Stalin or how he aided and abetted the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in what is now known as Israel. So, if you point out that Aaron Copland had Stalinist sympathies, why, you are a dirty ‘red-baiting’ and ‘Jew-baiting’ ‘paranoid’ right-wing looney, but if you endlessly carp about how Karajan had once worked under the Nazis without protestation, you can write one article after another in the Jewish-controlled media. So, Jews can be ‘hysterical’ and ‘paranoid’ against any would-be ‘anti-Semite’ or ‘crypto-Nazi’, but you better keep mum about anyone with possible communist ties or Zionist sympathies for Israel, a state that continues to oppress the Palestinian people and keep them living in ghettos under inhuman conditions. And even though Jews dig up the ‘antisemitic’ or ‘racist’ past of people on the white gentile right, you better not dig up the checkered past of Jews and expose their crimes. If it must be discussed, understanding and empathy are called for, e.g. Neocon Jews used to be Trotskyites because Trotsky stood for humane face of communism against evil Stalinism. As for Zionism, you better praise it to high heaven and pretend that Palestinians are Neo-Nazi scum plotting to drive Jews into the Dead Sea. The difference between blacks and Jews is that blacks get swept up in their emotions and loud rhetoric whereas the cunning Jews often know what they are doing and why. Though Jazzy blacks do play slick-n-slack as well as loud-and-proud, blacks often ‘think’ with childlike passion. Jews are smart enough to know that they’re playing a dirty game, but their mad addiction to power and paranoid fear of white gentiles preclude honesty and integrity. To an extent, white gentiles deserve some blame as to why Jews have come to feel this way. Though Jewish nastiness goes way back, there were a good number of thoughtful and self-critical Jews prior to WWII, but the sheer horror of the Holocaust convinced most Jews that they must play to win and gain total control because there’s no telling what the white goy community might be capable of in the future. Many assimilated German-American Jews had been critical of Jewish nastiness and radicalism, but after WWII and the Holocaust, they lost their standing as leaders of the Jewish community. Though their criticism of Jewish excesses[especially of the radical and uncouth elements of the community] had some positive impact, the tragedy of the Holocaust made them sound like Uncle Tom Jews; therefore, the new Jewish outlook that came to dominance after WWII was one of greater chutzpah, rage, hatred, and bitterness premised on the notion that all vestiges of ‘antisemitism’ must be stamped out like poisonous rats by any means necessary. Even though the Holocaust should only be blamed on the Germany of WWII period, Jews felt that if such a thing could happen in the heart of Europe, it could happen anywhere, and besides, too many Europeans in German-occupied areas had collaborated with the Nazis and shipped Jews to their deaths. But there is no denying the generally nasty way of the Jew. If Jews bitch about the Angry White Male, we must bitch about the Nasty Jewish Elites. And today, Jews are a totally psychopathic elite in America, and homos are following in their footsteps. Notice how homos show no remorse about the HIV epidemic caused largely by the disgusting practice of promiscuous fecal penetration. They were shooting off into each other’s ass more than cowboys were shooting one another in Lincoln, Texas. And notice how homos demand that we see each and every one of them as charming, wonderful, angelic, perfect, saintly, friendly, gentle, and etc., when, in fact, homos are among the most arrogant, bitchy, nasty, vile, mean, devious, conspiratorial, and venomous movers-and-shakers in elite institutions. Indeed, homos and Jews have ganged up in the business world to choke and destroy anyone who opposes the ‘gay marriage’. These intolerant and nasty homos — with the arms of Jewish power around them — dare lecture us about ‘empathy’. So, that’s today’s America in a nutshell, or butt-hell. At the top, we have psychopathic Jews and homos[lacking remorse, reflection, and empathy]corrupting every institution of this nation, and we have psychopathic blacks[lacking conscience, morality, and civility] preaching to others about how they must work harder to ‘understand’ them. If blacks punch you in the face and rape your daughter, try to ‘understand’ them. If Jews in Wall Street rob you and if Jews in government send you sons into Wars for Israel from which they return in body bags, don’t speak truth to Jewish power. Just ‘empathize’ with the Jews and wave the Israeli flag. When Jews, homos, and blacks speak of ‘empathy’, it never means Jews should try to understand Palestinians or Arabs or white Christians. It never means homos should try to understand why many Americans reject ‘gay marriage’. As far as the homos and homomaniacs are concerned, those who reject ‘gay marriage’ are pure evil and filled with ‘hate, hate, hate’. It never means blacks should try to understand why there’s so much fear of black violence, aggression, and crime; indeed, whenever blacks call for a ‘conversation on race’, they really mean a sermon or a monologue where they are the only ones who are doing all the talking, and the talk amounts to "we have a right to kick your honkey ass as revenge and you ‘racist’ white boys better fear us" and, "you honkeys must be racist because you fear us because we are black." And so, nonsensical ‘conversation’ repeats over and over like a broken record. Though all cultures and peoples have problems of psychopathy, we must allow for degrees of differences. For example, what may seem excessively wild and aggressive in dogs may be the natural norm and necessity for survival among wolves. If a pack of wolves acted like Golden Retrievers, they are going to lose out to other packs and bears and won’t be able to bring down animals like moose and caribou. Every culture has its standards of normal vs abnormal, but each culture will differ based on tradition, value system, and heredity. Thus, loud and aggressive behavior among blacks may seem natural and normal in a black community as blacks are naturally less inhibited and exhibitionistic, but it would seem out of place among Germans and especially Japanese who are naturally more self-controlled. Of course, there is a wild and aggressive nature in all humans, and Germans and Japanese can get out of order too. Even so, racial personalities differ from group to group. American Indians, for instance, have a lot of SOCIAL pathologies, but they are markedly different from blacks in their natural temperament; they are not funky and jive-ass or ugabuga. Thus, the standards for Afropathy, Judeopathy, and homopathy are different from Europathy, Sinopathy, Russopathy, and etc. Though the cultures espoused by Germans and Japanese have been significant in shaping their behavior — after all, the adoption of black culture among the British Chavs have made them barbaric — , some races are more likely to take to certain values and meaningfully implement them in the workings of their daily lives. Blacks, due to the nature, have a way of turning even becalming ideas and values into an occasion for funkery. Jesus Christ preached patience, self-discipline, reflectiveness, and meekness, but black Americans and black African just love to holler, shout, dance, and shake their booties to the Gospel like they is a bunch of chillun. There is more to Jewishness than Jewish culture. Even if we were to take a bunch of Bolivian Indians and raise them in Jewish households with the Torah, Jewish humor, Jewish intellectual thought, and Jewish historical memory, most of them will not be Jewish like real Jews. While there is a Zeligish side to every person, there are certain biological barriers to that person becoming totally part of the Other. A Polish person can play the blues and act like a Negro with all sincerity, but he can never be like a true Negro. Even with all his effort, it would be just that: an act. It’s like a shy person can try to be outgoing, and an outgoing person try to be inhibited, but they are both going against their nature. Furthermore, even though we pay lip-service to racial equality, our actions betray how we really feel about race. Thus, the kind of behavior we wouldn’t tolerate from whites is tolerated when blacks do it. Our responses make allowances for racial differences even as we deny them. If white frat boys act too loud, we think they’re being boorish and insensitive. But if blacks act even louder, we say, "they’re just being natural and having a good time." Until it was banned, a whole bunch of black football players, upon making the touchdown, would shake their bodies like a bunch of African savages who’d just speared an antelope. If whites acted like that, it would have been called stupid and unsporting-like, but it was overlooked and tolerated because there was an understanding that "it’s a black thing, we wouldn’t understand, and therefore, we mustn’t judge." And if white people acted like Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, or other nasty Jews, they would be thought hostile and nasty, but when Jews act pushy and vile, we praise them for their brashness and daring. So, in practice, there are different standards for different groups and races. What is okay and normal for one group is deemed abnormal and unbecoming for another group. White Liberals who wouldn’t tolerate certain behavior in their own kids and white colleagues overlook such behavior among blacks because, well, blacks like to let-the-good-times-roll. In our age, the antics of the demon-possessed girl in THE EXORCIST is very much the norm. When Friedkin’s movie came out, people remembered the out-of-control 60s culminating in Rolling Stones Altamont fiasco and Charles Manson murders. And porn theaters had sprouted all across America. Even so, huge segments of America were appalled by the social changes. It was a time when a young girl masturbating with a Crucifix in THE EXORCIST did strike people as shocking insane behavior. But even such would today pale next to Miley Cyrus’ antics on stage. But then, already by the early 90s, there was madonna rubbing her vagina with coke bottle on-stage. In a way, one could argue that morality, especially gore-ality or gorality of the kind exhibited by THE EXORCIST and other horror movies, is just as problematic as the filth it condemns. Indeed, some might argue that Horror is merely a hallucination of the repressed who mistake[sometimes willfully]what is healthy and natural as foul and wicked. So, the real horror isn’t with sexuality or lust but with the inability to express, exhibit, and embrace one’s natural drives that are then mis-characterized as ‘obscene’ and ‘indecent’. So, the greater evil isn’t the demon-possession but the repressed morality that hallucinates the natural into the demonic. From this angle, the Church is the real villain in THE EXORCIST. Such a view may be implied in John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN. First scene features the subjective view of a murderer who turns out to be young boy. He kills his older sister who just had pre-marital sex. It is a murder of judgement even though the boy, Michael, may be too young to understand the full implication of why he did what he did. In a way, Michael’s ‘rationale’ is similar to that of the priests in THE EXORCIST. The priests must drive out the demon that possesses and sexualizes the 12 yr old girl Regan. Michael must ‘exorcize’ his sister who committed a naughty wicked sexual act. Michael’s ‘exorcism’ demands execution. Sometimes, what is called morality is a MASK for envy, and envy can be about power, wealth, beauty, and/or sex. It is telling that Michael is a masked killer in HALLOWEEN. In a way, so is Norman Bates of PSYCHO. Though not masked in the literal sense, he wears a wig and a woman’s dress; he is ‘masked’ in the persona of his dead mother. The confused male may cling to the mother figure as the source and arbiter of higher morality. Sons grow up with an idealized vision of their mothers. They see their mothers as existing for their children. It’s if their mothers’ main purpose in life was to give birth to them and love them above all else. The idea that their mothers could have been wives or women of OTHER men and could have loved other sons seems inconceivable to young boys. It is only later that they realize things are more complicated. But men who fail to make this adjustment are likely to end up weird. It’s like the David Cronenberg film SPIDER where a man has problems reconciling his vision of mother as pure saint with the realization of his mother as a sexual creature, a ‘whore’. If some mothers pathologically cling to their sons, some sons pathologically cling to their mothers. The sons may grow especially weird IF the mother who clung to them so obsessively suddenly shift their main affection to a new lover. Norman Bates seems to have undergone such change in mood. A mother who’d perhaps once clung to him fell in love with some man, and Bates couldn’t stand it and killed them both. Such sexual dynamics may no longer apply today since so many children now grow up under shameless hussies and whores. The ideal of the normal devoted mother has been lost in our culture. In the past, most women aspired to be good wives and mothers. And single mothers tried to defend their reputations somewhat. But today, we have hideous women with tattoos and piercings having kids out of wedlock and having several boyfriends. And kids grow up under these kinds of women. In most cases, mothers were not virgins when they were married, and among some segments of the population, the majority of children are born to non-married women. From a young age, many kids now grow up seeing their mother as wanton whores. Imagine having someone like Lena Dunham as a mother. Well, one positive outcome is that the sons won’t turn into Norman Bates since they won’t have to worry about mother/whore complex. On the other hand, there will be a host of new pathologies. As for kids raised by homo or trans-gender parents... I shudder to think. Also, all the ‘cuckish’ cases of non-white kids, especially black ones, adopted and raised by naive & gullible white adults, are also bound to lead to host a new problems. Anyway, traditionally at least, the mother figure stood for moral ideal and meaning. A young woman was perceived as being filled with ‘demonic’ lust, but upon bearing children, her sexuality went from heat-for-meat to warmth-for-the-kids. And kids used to grow up with such a Mother Image/Ideal. She stood for purity and devotion as opposed to the lascivious lusts of the free-roaming whore living only for self-indulgent pleasure. In a way, the son’s claim on the mother is more problematic than the husband’s claim on the wife. The husband seeks to ‘tame’ the woman like Sean Connery seeks to domesticate the woman in MARNIE, rather ironic in her case since the ‘wild’ prey happens to be sexually frigid despite the sex appeal. But even as the husband tames the wife, he uses her as a sexual object. A husband is not de-sexualizing the woman. He is sexualizing her but only for himself. He doesn’t deny her sexuality. If anything, he demands it but for himself only. In contrast, a son grows up seeing the mother as a non-sexual being. She is like a saint-like figure, adoring and full of affection and, in contrast to the stern father, caring and forgiving. He clings to the image of the mother as a non-sexual being whose womanliness is devoted to taking care of him. He must share the mother with the father whose affection for her seems to be on the racy side. But the idea of his mother going with OTHER men is deeply disturbing to the son[at least in the traditional setting], which is why so many sons try to repel stepfathers, thus explaining the rather frequent cases of violence between stepfathers and stepsons. PSYCHO and CARRIE offer examples of the psychological breakdown of the Mother-Child Complex. Bates projects onto his dead mother the fixation he felt for her; his fixation for her becomes ‘her’ fixation for him. Our sense is that his mother was close to him but not as close as he wanted her to be, which is why she found a new lover and why Bates felt a need to kill them both. He wants ‘her’ to feel totally possessive of him, but ‘her’ irascibility betrays a sense that ‘she’ sees through the BS that Bates is forcing upon ‘her’. The ‘she’ side of him resents what is being foisted upon ‘her’. Most frighteningly, the Other Personality formed within Bates begins to develop its own subconscious. So, we are dealing with Bates, his subconscious, his mother persona, and its own subconscious. Bates has two personalities and two subconsciousnesses. It gets so twisted that it goes beyond conventionally scary when the truth is finally revealed. When the Vera Miles character sees the skeleton on the chair, she screams for obvious reasons. But the total lunacy in the next moment stuns her into silence. We see Norman Bates dressed up as his mother wielding a knife. Vera Miles character ought to be screaming even louder, but she is scared straight, frozen into pure terror as crystalline clarity. Terror is terrifying but terror beyond terror is calming.)
Due to the fragrant or aroma-centric character of French culture and the lingering effect of smell/scent, the ‘importance’ and ‘greatness’ of France’s place in the world has been exaggerated. Even though English — American English at that — has become the international language for some time, there was once the idea of ‘lingua franca’, or French as the language of the powerful, influential, and educated. Of course, this was essentially a Eurocentric view since it was in Continental Europe that France and French culture played a decisive and dominant role up to the first half of the twentieth century. Even when France was no longer politically or economically dominant, especially in relation to the rise of German power, it was seen as the cultural and intellectual center of Europe. And French language was admired for its flowery and expressive beauty. Thus, the Traditional Elites had to know French to be considered educated, and some of them spoke better French than their native tongues. But this was also true of the Progressive Elites because France was, especially since the French Revolution, at the forefront of progressive and radical ideas. Thus, French culture and language came to be associated with both elitism/aristocratism and egalitarianism/populism. Thus, conservatives and liberals alike all over Europe aspired to learn French and read French literature, philosophy, and criticism that ranged widely from the far right to the far left. Both the European Right and European Left looked to French intellectualism for ideas and icons.
Of course, with the rise of the German research university and German advances in science and philosophy, Germany too became a continental language(at least in certain narrow fields), but German was never much admired for its beauty for it is not beautiful — though it is hardy and shapely in its own way. German achievements tended to be limited to jargon-laden science, medical, and philosophical fields. In literature, Germany of the 19th century trailed behind France and Britain. And even though Germany in the 20th century produced its share of great writers, it remained eclipsed by France. Also, whatever merit the knowledge of German provided in the understanding the works of Heidegger or Heisenberg, it was simply not the preferred conversational language among the European elites. And though anti-French feelings weren’t uncommon in continental Europe — not least because Napoleon’s armies had once ravaged Europe and also because French ideas, good or bad, had a way of destabilizing status quo in many nations — , France was regarded as the essential member of Continental Europe. However arrogant, insufferable, and threatening the French may be, they were still ‘one of us’ as far as mainland Europeans were concerned.
The British, on the other hand, were across the sea and seemed rather aloof from the rest of Europe(especially as British civilization grew closer to its overseas colonies[especially India as the Jewel in the Crown] and outgrowths, United States being the most important by far). It was as if continental Europe was made of land creatures while Britain was like a hawk hovering above rather cynically, looking to pick off on carcasses of European wars and problems. To be sure, Scandinavian nations like Sweden and Norway are also divided from rest of Western Europe by the sea, but they are still connected to continental Europe through Russia and Baltic states. Also, as Scandinavian nations didn’t become overseas powers like Great Britain did, their identity and loyalty tended to remain closer to the rest of Europe. Also, Britain was a strange blend of influences that complicated its cultural essence. One could speak of Slavic peoples, Baltic peoples, and Germanic peoples, but what were the British really? Though Anglos are considered to be ‘racially’ and linguistically part of the Germanic family, English language is like a Germanic body filled with French blood. If you know English but don’t know German or French, you’re more likely to understand French sentences than German ones, even though English is considered a Germanic language. Of course, ethnic or cultural similarity doesn’t guarantee amity. After all, Poles are a Slavic people, but they’ve mostly had less problems with Hungarian Magyar peoples than with other Slavic peoples, especially the Russians. And Croatians and Serbians are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically almost identical in many ways, but they slaughtered each another during WWII and after the Cold War.
Even so, most Europeans have a clear sense of what and who they are(or they used to prior to being brainwashed by PC) than the British do, which seems rather odd. After all, since continental Europe had so many nations on the same land mass, one might expect them to have all melded into one and adopted a rather vague or confused sense of identity. But perhaps the sharing of the common land mass paradoxically had the opposite effect. Because one’s cultural, historical, and linguistic identity could so easily be lost through invasion, conquest, and assimilation, maybe the various European ethnic groups were more adamant about guarding and preserving their unique identity. In contrast, though Britain had been conquered many times by different peoples, its isolation from the rest of Europe may have psychologically made the British less ‘obsessive’ about Britishness, at least in the blood-and-soil way of various Continental Europeans. Though British have been adamant about their Britishness, it has been less a matter of biology than about attitude and manners. This may seem odd since the Anglo-Brits were among the most racially exclusive people among the great imperialists, but there was the sense that British imperialist subjects could learn to be like British gentlemen upon mastering the right manners, demeanor, and attitude; and this idea lingers to this day, which is why the British elites feel so flattered when Africans and Asian-Indians arrive in Europe and speak with British accents and act with the right kind of air.
On the other hand, with the globo-Americanization of British mass culture, it now appears that most immigrants are assimilating into rap culture and globo-Hollywood ‘values’ than to anything particularly British, and this dire development may explain why the British elites are even more eager to have non-whites rise socially and act in the proper British manner. Since racial elitism is now deemed taboo, there is only cultural elitism remaining, but of course, elitism of any kind is officially a bad thing, so the British elites, even as they attend the best schools and hang around the ‘best kind of people’, try to show the world they are ‘cool’ with global popular culture, and of course, the Royal Family has turned into little more than tabloid material, especially after the near-deification of the scandalous and trashy Princess Diana. Though all European peoples are ethnically mixed if we delve into their pasts — invaded and mixed with Roman blood, Greek blood, Viking blood, Slavic blood, Hun blood, and etc, — most Continental Europeans have a deeper sense of themselves as an organic people and national family than do the British. (Perhaps, the dryness and witty irony of British culture steeped in individualism disdained the theme of blood and kinship as a bit too barbaric and boorish. British attitude was more about breed than brood. Lineage had cultural than kinship significance. An Italian hugged his mama and his kids. A Briton acknowledged his mother and looked sternly upon his children.) Most Europeans have thought of themselves as Polish people, German people, Russian people, and etc. but the British thought of themselves more as belonging to British classes than as being one British people in the blood-and-soil German or Mother Russia way.
This may seem odd since Britain tended to be more progressive than the rest of Europe. How was it that German elites could be more repressive of their people yet feel a deeper affinity with the German folks? How could it have been that the Russian Tsar was far removed from the lives of most Russians living in crushing poverty and yet feel a deep spiritual connection to them? In contrast, most British folks had more freedom, liberty, and rights than most people in Europe, and yet the British elites didn’t have a deep emotional attachment to them. Was it due to the a dry disdain for any kind of overt sentimentality or excessive emotions(seen as slavish and slobbering)? Or, was the emphasis on class division a form of progressivism? If one’s identity is more about class than race/nation, one is likely to think more in terms of ideas, ideology, and abstractions. Class doesn’t exist in nature. It is a social convention based on social rules and regulations. Thus, even though it is unequal and hierarchical, it could be said to be more ‘leftist’ than feelings of nationalism, race-ism, or ethnocentrism. A nationalist state could be more egalitarian, with deep feelings of bond between the elites and the masses — as in National Socialist Germany or Zionist Israel — , but its primary political emotions are based on feelings of biological roots and a sense of ‘family’, and such feelings are beyond ideology, even if they may be used for ideological constructions. Therefore, one cannot intellectually argue with a race-ist, nationalist, or ethnocentrist since his vision is a matter of passion, belonging, and loyalty. In contrast, one can ideologically argue with a class-ist since class is a social convention based on ideals. There can be discourse on the current class system being just or unjust. Class-ism can be molded, race-ism cannot. One can argue with a class-ist for a better class system, but one cannot argue with a race-ist for a better race-ism. For example, a fervent Zionist may be open to ideas about restructuring the socio-economic system in Israel, but he will not be open to ideas that say Israel should welcome open migration of Africans, Asians, and other non-Jews. Zionists want Israel to be a Jewish state populated mostly with people of Jewish blood, and that’s that. It’s not a matter of ideological or moral right or wrong, or abstract notions of good vs evil; it’s about racial passion that the Jewish people have a certain uniqueness and must survive in their sacred land til the ‘end of time’.
German Blut und Boden
Zionism and Jewish Homeland
Perhaps, due to the ethnic complexity of Britain owing to various invasions, with no group gaining total supremacy, the idea of class was better suited in keeping the nation together. (Class-based communism kept Yugoslavia together, and the caste system was key to holding much of India together.) If one ethnicity in Britain insisted on its cultural identity as the sole true one, other ethnic groups might have rebelled(as happened in Ireland, and Scotland is still not a settled issue), and there would be endless internecine conflicts. But if society were ordered around the idea of class, different groups could function according to agreed upon rules of who may rise to the top. And in a way, such a mode made the British pretty decent and effective rulers of Hong Kong. They ruled as class elites while not messing with the Chinese-ness of the Hong Kong-ese folks. If the British had attempted to enforce Britishness as a racial/cultural identity on the Chinese, the Chinese might have been more resistant. The Spanish imperialists, of course, took a different route. In Latin America, they sought to spiritually convert the natives to Catholicism, make them all speak Spanish, and take on Latin identity even though the vast majority were non-white and remained rooted in one way or another to indigenous cultures. Ironically, British emphasis on the social idea of class, though at odds with the idea of race, enabled the British to defacto maintain a form of race-ism in their vast empire. Since the British respected the differences in races and cultures of their subjects, they could keep to themselves and remain British and white. Respect and reject.

At any rate, despite the epochal impact of the French revolution, the allure of French culture was always elitist and intellectual. Even French Maoism could be opaque and intellectual, odd considering that Maoism was the most anti-intellectual of communist ideologies. The most famous French Maoist artist, Jean-Luc Godard from the late 60s to the early 70s, made films so perplexing and dense that it’s hard to conceive of working class people sitting through them. And in this sense, French leftism was always something of a self-contradiction since French culture appealed mainly to the elites. And it was this appeal to elitism that gave French language an advantage among the elites around the world, at least prior to the rise of global domination of America. Though the British empire and Spanish empire were vaster than the French empire — and even though more people around the world came to speak English and Spanish in Anglo or Latino empires — , French remained, even into the latter part of the 20th century, the official language of world elites. Though Anglos and Latinos won the game of quantity — in the sheer number of speakers — , the French won the game of quality, as the best people, the elites, of the world aspired to learn and speak French to be admitted into the fancy society of power and privilege. Perhaps, it might have been otherwise if Spain had maintained its leading position in European history, but its relative stagnation made France the main repository and creator in new literature, philosophy, arts, and expressions. Since the elites of Europe aspired to sophistication, they directed their gaze at France. Even when Germany and Britain eclipsed France in terms of military or economic power, the French could always rely on the supremacy of arts and culture. And even if Anglo intellectualism and philosophy gained recognition for being more practical, sensible, and useful, French intellectualism could take the credit for greater originality, eccentricity, imagination, and brilliance, even if ultimately unworkable, misconceived, or even downright dangerous. And of course, French language got plenty of support from the non-French. Frederick the Great achieved great things for Prussia but disdained German culture and language and preferred to speak French whenever possible. The Russian elites often spoke French than Russian among themselves as the mother tongue was considered uncouth and rough, the language of peasants. And the cultural influence generally flowed from West to the East, and much of these influences originated in France. Of course, northern Italy had been prominent in the Renaissance, but as Italian peninsula failed to unify into coherent polity, the center of gravity turned to other nations, and France became the major player for a long stretch, not least because Germans were also slow to form into unified political power. Though lingua franca became ‘lingua franca’ in Europe and the world, it was essentially the language of the elites except in some French colonies. If most native peoples in Latin America really came to speak Spanish or Portuguese as their main language — and if the Filipino language came to be heavily influenced by Spanish — , most Europeans outside France knew little French or none at all. While most Russian elites knew French, most Russian who were dirt poor peasants never even heard it spoken. Despite Frederick the Great’s linguistic preferences, just about the only language most Prussians knew was German. When the world was dominated by the elites with iron-rule, French culture and language had an advantage in appealing to elite tastes and sensibilities. But when the center of gravity shifted to mass culture, the dominance of the French influence came under serious threat as there wasn’t much in French culture that could be said to be appealing directly to the masses. Even today, when we think of French culture, we think of ‘art films’, wine and cheese, and the ideas of men like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes(despite the fact that today’s France has been Americanized and globalized). An element of refinement, elegance, fancifulness, and/or preciousness still clings to the idea of Frenchness. Even when French go for realism or naturalism, they do it with greater ‘thoughtfulness’; consider the poetic elements of Truffaut’s 400 BLOWS or the seriousness & intelligence of films of Bertrand Tavernier. One senses that the French never quite felt natural being natural. Even their naturalism has an element of preconceived artifice, as in the films of Claire Denis. When Americans go for ‘fart jokes’, they are really just making or laughing at ‘fart jokes’. But if the French go for such, they give consideration to the Idée of Fartois. Sometimes, the French project their Idea-ness onto things without or weak on ideas, which is why the French, for a time at least, conned themselves into appreciating Jerry Lewis as satirist of American culture, even rating him higher than Jacques Tati, whose PLAYTIME was a total failure among the French who preferred to ponder the ‘meaning’ of Lewis movies.
As the idea of elitism waned in the 20th century(especially following WWII), French cultural dominance(already questionable by the late 19th century due to competition from Germany, Britain, and America) became increasingly less assured. Even as France continued to inspire and engage with the elites of the world, they failed to engage the masses whose tastes were becoming more important in shaping not only popular but serious culture. French New Wave appealed to ‘art house’ cinephiles, but most people around the world preferred American-style pop music and Hollywood movies. For every person who rhapsodized about a Godard or Truffaut film, there was a thousand who watched THE GODFATHER and ten thousand who watched STAR WARS.. Also, elite culture lost the edge as a force in originality and ‘radicalism’. If elitism had traditionally been associated with aristocratic conservatism, the rise of modernism transformed elitism into the avant-garde, the idea that the educated and intellectual were at the forefront of artistic and cultural development. The new modernist elitism embraced artists like Picasso, Matisse, Schoenberg, and Stravinsky. They were thought to be ‘ahead of their time’ whereas mass/popular culture played by one simple rule: give the clueless masses what they want to make them happy and to make yourself rich. But as the 20th century wore on, especially with cultural upheavals after WWII, more thinkers and commentators argued that popular culture was often just as or even more revolutionary, original, creative, and expressive than so-called avant-garde arts and expressions deemed to have become sterile, esoteric, repetitious, insular, and dogmatic in the antiseptic laboratory of academia or in the enclosed ‘art world’ where quality, worth, and importance were judged by a tiny circle of insiders playing the game of Emperor-has-no-clothes. In other words, Alfred Hitchcock could actually be a more daring and ‘subversive’ artist than Ingmar Bergman(and especially makers of so-called ‘avant-garde film’), and John Ford’s THE SEARCHER could be a much more provocative work than so many SERIOUS films about the subject of American history, race war, sexuality, and imperialism. And Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Louis Armstrong, and Duke Ellington could be said to be musically more significant than Alban Berg, John Cage, John Adams, and a whole number of so-called avant-garde and ‘cutting edge’ music composers of the 20th century whose ‘importance’ rested mainly the approval of a cloistered culture club of elitists(who, by the way, claimed to be radical ‘egalitarians’) . After all, who got to determine what was ‘significant’ or ‘important’? For much of the 20th century, it was a small circle of academics, critics, curators, and insiders who determined what was ‘important’ and what wasn’t. Of course, they could very well be right and appreciate things ignored by most people(who indeed lack taste and erudition), and time sometimes proved them right. But the test of time could just as well work against them. Indeed, what if the test of time favored Hitchcock over the likes of Maya Deren? What if the test of time favored Shostakovich over Schoenberg? What if the test of time favored Muddy Waters over Alban Berg? What if the test of time favored BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S over Ingmar Bergman’s WINTER LIGHT or Richard Lester’s PETULIA? Though ‘radical’ or avant garde intellectuals like to pride themselves in being ‘ahead of their time’, they tend to be trapped in the fashionable conceits of their own time, turning a blind eye to something popular of worth while praising something simply because it is ‘challenging’ and ‘difficult’. Susan Sontag made this mistake in the 1970s in her profuse praise for HITLER: A FILM FROM GERMANY by Hans Jurgen Syberberg. In her piece on Leni Riefenstahl in the essay "Fascinating Fascism", she argued that as important and talented as Riefenstahl had been in her time, her work was becoming irrelevant in the development of contemporary cinema. She remarked that Dziga Vertov would matter more in the future of movie-making, but when we survey the rise of pop fascist aesthetics in Hollywood blockbuster movie-making and around the world — from Bollywood to Hong Kong/Chinese film-making — , who can deny that Riefenstahl was one of the great prophets of the future of cinema, no less than Walt Disney and Cecil B. DeMille? But Sontag couldn’t see this back in the 1970s because her radical-intellectual snobbery didn’t want to see it, and so the test of time proved her wrong. Of course, avant-garde-know-it-all-ism is still a feature of the arts-and-culture scene, which is why so many young cinephiles have been fooled into believing Chantal Akerman is an important film-maker and that JEANNE DIELMAN is one of the ‘most profound’ films ever. Under any sane test-of-time scenario, no way would the worthless works of Akerman be appreciated, let alone praised to high heaven. But, Akerman became the favorite film-maker of the moment among the radical critics in the 1970s, and her devotees have been propping her iconic status for its Jewishness, lesbianism, Marxism, and feminism. Such ‘intellectual’ baggage makes the bag-lady of cinema ‘important’ in the eyes of politically correct dupes who feel obliged to admire a ‘woman director’, especially one that is Jewish and lesbian. Even though Riefenstahl and Leni Wertmuller were a hundred times the artist Akerman was, the film community dominated by the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum, Dave Kehr, J. Hoberman, Gavin Smith, and Amy Taubin have anointed Akerman as the Great Female Director, and too many young cinephiles happen to be brain-dead zombies and teachers’ pets lacking in individuality and integrity to see and say the truth. I mean it might be ‘antisemitic’, ‘sexist’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘white male privileged’, ‘misogynist’, and ‘shallow’ if they didn’t confirm and endorse the intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic implications of Akerman’s most ‘radical’ film. Never mind it’s a three and half hours bore-fest with a woman peeling potatoes and shining shoes until she gets an orgasm and kills someone. It’s like what Adam Sander says in BILLY MADISON: "Chlorophyl? More like Borophyl." You see, according to the so-called ‘left’, it was a great evil for the ‘white’ Hispanic George Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself from a black thug, but it’s great for a woman to murder a white male if she finally gets an orgasm and breaks out of the patriarchal shell. Sorry to say, such profundity is too deep for my feeble and shallow mind to ponder.
Anyway, when the world was elite-centric(whether traditionalist, intellectual-radical, or modernist avant-garde-ist), French culture that aspired to fancy, refined, esoteric, and/or advanced ideas or expressions had a privileged, if not always dominant, place in the world. But as culture became more mass-or-popular-centric, American culture quickly total dominance. One might say Anglo-English culture eclipsed French culture and language, but the process was more complicated. In a way, Anglo-English and Anglo-culture suffered the same fate as French culture and language. Because Britons and Americans speak the same language — and because of the great success of the British Rock from the 1960s to the 1980s — , there’s been a tendency to see Anglo-British and Anglo-American culture as intertwined. But, even though British Rockers surely inflected Rock n Roll music with sensibilities and attitudes that were uniquely British, they were mostly abandoning Britishness for Americanness. Similarly, there was a huge divergence between British cinema and American Hollywood cinema. (Today, many famous British actors simply aspire to be American ones. And if speaking English with French accent was considered charming and romantic in American culture, most French actors working in Hollywood simply want to pass as American.) Also, much of what came to known as ‘American culture’, though expressed in English, came under the control of Jews, was shaped by black styles, and acquired white ethnic accents. And much of Anglo-American culture became so divergent from British culture that they might as well have been speaking different languages. Dolly Parton and the Queen Elizabeth might as well be from different planets. Even though non-elite Britons didn’t speak fancy, the British English was essentially high-toned, with the middle classes were mindful to sound proper and aspired for social elevation(or at least approval from superiors). And the lower classes that pronounced ‘stupid’ as ‘shupid’ and often left out parts of words — like with Liverpudlians — tried to speak extra respectful-like in the company of ‘social superiors’. They might even tip their hats and say "aye guv’nor". Of course, much has changed in Britain, with lots of regular Britons today speaking crudely and boorishly, not least due to the influence of punk culture and black rap culture, what might be called an obnoxious combination of cockney and ebonics, which might as well be cocknics or ebockney. And even elite British of today don’t speak in so high-toned manner as they used to, and people on BBC news service today sound increasingly like American newsmen. For contrast, listen to English on BBC from the 1960s or even 1970s with current BBC English. The fall of Anglo-British culture/language has been relatively overlooked vis-a-vis the fall of French culture/language because of the global domination of American English, but for all practical purposes, American English might as well be a different language than British English. If anything, Britain has completely lost its standing as a world power. Even though it’s still one of the richest nations on Earth — UK’s economy is still considerably bigger than all of Africa’s combined — , UK is politically and culturally turning into a slave-whore of America that is controlled by Jews, homos, and their mulatto puppets. Thus, British policy is to make UK more ‘diverse’ like the US by bringing more blacks from Africa and the Caribbean. One major difference is that one of the biggest minorities in Britain are from South Asia — especially Muslim Pakistanis — , but Britons have lost pride in Britishness and seem eager to embrace the globalist-imperialist standard of ‘diversity’ that would turn British identity from one of blood-and-land to ink-and-pen. Since political correctness promoted by Jews deny any European pride in European identity per se — as that would be ‘racist’, ‘nationalist’, ‘xenophobic’, and ‘right-wing’ — , the only way Europeans can feel pride is by promoting ‘diversity’ in the name of ‘European values’. It’d be like a person who’s allowed to feel good about himself only devouring excess amounts of food that will sicken and kill him. Thus, a German cannot feel pride as a German but only as an ‘anti-racist’ who is promoting ‘diversity’ in Germany. A Briton cannot feel pride as a Briton but only as a ‘progressive’ who supports more non-Britons in the UK. Thus, national and racial suicide is only justification for feeling any kind of pride among whites in the West. Imagine if Ugandans or Japanese were told that they could only feel national pride by promoting policies that will undermine the racial, cultural, and demographic character of their nations. Imagine if Israelis were told that they could feel pride as Zionists ONLY IF new Zionism was all about making Israel as ‘diverse’ as possible. They would laugh at your face, but whites in America, Canada, and Europe seem to buy this whole hog as the media in their nations are controlled by Jews and their white Liberal puppet running dogs.
When the American Republic was found, there was a discussion in the Assembly as to whether the official language of America should be something other than English since the Colonialists had fought a long bitter war with Briton. Some suggested French or German as the Colonialists could not have won without support of Continental European troops, and if the official language of America had been German or French, the ‘lingua franca’ of world today might indeed be German or French. If Americans had taken up French or German as their mainstream language, would American culture been impacted more by French or German literature, philosophy, tracts, and fashions? Perhaps. Even though modern translations greatly expanded inter-cultural communication, societies that speak the same language tend to interact more, especially if they have something to offer. (Cultural achievement cannot be overlooked as cross-national capital. After all, the high-achieving French and possibly even the Japanese had a greater cultural impact on urban American intellectual life than West Virginia hillbilly communities that speak English but produce little in the form of art and literature.) Consider the close ties between Asian-Indian elites and British elites, not least because Asian Indian elites speak English as the defacto language of educated India. And in turn, American popular culture might have impacted France or German even more if Americans had adopted French or German as their main official language; this surely true of music, especially pop music. Even though most people don’t much pay attention to lyrics, British songs are more appealing to Americans and vice versa because the lyrics are in English. In contrast, no matter how good the melodies or singing may be, non-English songs seem ‘foreign’ to American ears. Though America never had an official language, English has, of course, been the defacto language of Americans, and now, it’s becoming the necessary and even preferred language of many people around the world with some degree of education and aspiration(or mere obsession with pop culture). Indeed, one of the main barriers between Japan and the US has been the differences in their languages, and this has been the case with Mainland Chinese as well; Hong Kongese and Singaporeans are, of course, somewhat different. One wonders what the international cultural scene would be like if the British had ruled not only Hong Kong but much of China, say, for a hundred years. Over that period, a substantial Chinese elite might have become fluent in English, and there might be more of a cultural understanding between Chinese elites and Anglo & American elites in the way that Anglos and Americans have a certain rapport with Asian-Indians, something that they generally don’t with the Chinese Mainlanders.

For Part 2 of this Blogpost, Click Here.