ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA

Neo-Fascist Thoughts on Reverse-Kafka-ism or Akfakism.

2012-02-02T16:03:00.000-08:00

In today’s world it’s as though gentile white people are Reverse-Kafkaesque characters. In Franz Kafka’s famous novel THE TRIAL, Joseph K is accused of a crime, misdeed, or something, but he is kept in the dark as to the nature of his transgression. Thus, paradoxically, he feels, at once, innocent of everything and guilty of everything. He racks his mind over what he might have done wrong but can’t recall anything that might constitute criminality. Yet, given the hidden desires within each individual’s psyche and the various infractions of daily life(that we take for granted as ‘normal’), he frets he might indeed have done something wrong; worse, he feels as though higher authorities or powers—be they political, legal, spiritual, etc—are privy to the secret compartments of his soul, perhaps knowing what he keeps hidden or what remains unknown even to himself. (A person may be unaware of his/her own smell while others detect it quite noticeably.) Politically or legally, K may not have done anything wrong. But THE TRIAL unfolds in a zone somewhere between mundane reality and dream logic; the barrier between physical and psychological realms seems porous. There is also the question of whether Joseph K is being accused of what he IS than what he may done, an aspect that became more relevant with the rise of radical antisemitism, most disturbingly exemplified by Nazism, which targeted even patriotic German Jews as enemies of the state.

Given the rapidly shifting reality of Jewish existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it’s hardly surprising that Kafka’s stories are infected with ambiguities and anxieties. Even though or precisely because Jews achieved great progress during this period, there was an increasing sense of unease and uncertainty(later reiterated in Bob Dylan’s “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” in the sixties, another period of social/cultural turmoil marked by great hopes and dark fears.) In earlier times, Jews had a clearer sense of their identity, an elemental sense of ‘us versus them’. They were Jews, the Chosen People, and non-Jews were filthy goyim. Though various forms of discrimination against Jews had been the norm, they also had the advantage of clearly informing Jews of who they were and what was and wasn’t allowed in relation to the larger goy world. Life may have been highly restricted for many Jews, but at least most Jews had their feet planted in fixed reality with fixed rules. Even when violence against Jews erupted, Jews understood the dynamic of the hostility: filthy goyim were calling Jews ‘Christ-killers’ and ‘leeches’. Hatred and hostility may be unpleasant, but they have a way of clarifying issues. (Things were a lot simpler to both Christians and Jews when their relationship was defined by mutual hatred. What was good for Christians were often not good for Jews, and vice versa. But consider all the problems resulting from Christians—especially white conservatives—pretending that Jews and Christians share same values, agendas, and loyalties. The likes of Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich can pander to Jews all they want, but the fact is most Jews remain the enemies of the white race. Similarly, the alliance of United States and China may produce more headaches than mutual hostility between the two nations.) But with the Emancipation of Jews in many parts of Europe in the 19th century and rapid progress made by the Jewish community, things seemed to be getting both better and more troublesome for Jews—and gentiles. Better in the sense that Jews could attend colleges, expand business opportunities, and even win appointments to government positions. More troublesome in that the world seemed to have slipped into and stalled in a limbo phase between the old and new. Old forms of anti-Jewish discrimination were fading but still present, sometimes in subtle ways. Passing of the old also meant Jews being cut off from their cultural roots that had given them so much meaning for thousands of years. The loss of the old was both liberating and alienating to Jews. The coming of the new promised greater freedom and opportunities for Jews. Yet, Jews also feared assimilation(and extinction)into a newly welcoming and tolerant goy society. Also, with the rise of mass politics with increasing demands for democracy and with advances in the science of race, the new order turn out to be even more dangerous to Jews than the old ever had been. If the ‘antisemitic’ masses had been held in check by aristocrats(dependent on Jewish skills in business)in the old order, the rise of People Power meant that the elites had to pander to populist passions. Given that most goyim tended to be less wealthy and influential than the ascendant class of Jews, mass goy resentment(that could be exploited by demagogues and radicals)was inevitable and indeed all too common. Also, the new science of race could create a wall of separation between goyim and Jews far more fundamental than earlier ones. In the old order, a Jew could convert to Christianity and fully assimilate into Christian society. But, what if Jews were seen as a race? What if Jewish personality, social, and economic traits were seen as biological than merely cultural? The most radical form of this view was Nazism, which tried to eradicate Jews as a racial category.
On the other hand, the science of race could not have been lost on Jews either. Though the rise of right-wing ‘racism’ drove most Jewish intellectuals toward ‘anti-racism’, many Jewish thinkers had been interested in the field of racial sciences prior to its being hijacked by white and ‘Aryan’ supremacist types. Once racial science became politicized and owned by radical right nutjobs, Jews believed they had no choice but to adopt ‘anti-racism’ and politicize it to their own advantage.

Anyway, the world that Kafka knew was like a baby half-inside and half-outside the womb. The worlds of THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE seem both traditional/reactionary and modern/futuristic. They also seem both free and authoritarian. In both novels, the main character often moves about freely, makes easy contact all sorts of people, is protected by or guaranteed of all sorts of rights. But, there is also an overwhelming sense of forbidden places and prohibited knowledge; and of privacies, physical and psychological, being spied upon(though, to be sure, the main characters also seem to be, wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly, guiltily or innocently, spying into the realm of hidden power). There are known rules and unknown rules. One is allowed to navigate through spaces with known rules, but one needs to acquire unknown rules to gain access to forbidden spaces. Sometimes, one trespasses into certain spaces without knowing; or perhaps one trespasses knowing only subconsciously, thus being consciously innocent while being ‘guilty’ in a deeper sense. From this angle, the theme of THE TRIAL can be said to be essentially psychological: the conflict between conscious rules and unconscious desires.
The thematic permutations of THE TRIAL are almost infinite, making it one of the richest works in literature. (There is also, of course, the biographical aspect of the novel. Kafka was socially awkward; he could also never resolve the tensions between himself and his father. He was also sickly, and his stories could serve as medical metaphors, and indeed, Kobo Abe, the famous Japanese novelist steeped in Kafka, transposed Kafkaesque themes to medical environments in FACE OF ANOTHER and SECRET RENDEZVOUS.) On so many levels, Kafka felt as an outsider, outcast, and exile. He felt oppressed by his father, felt insecure as a writer, was dogged by health issues, couldn’t find romantic fulfillment(maybe he was a closet-homo), etc. His cultural identity was the product of convergences among German, Hungarian, Czech, Jewish, and other strains. He was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a multi-ethnic melting pot on the verge of a melt down, especially with the new mass politics of nationalism. Thus, he was everything and nothing. He was more than a Jew, but some people saw him as just a Jew, while some Jews saw nothing Jewish about him. He wrote in German but stood outside mainstream German culture.
In the new order, the individual of all stripes had the freedom to move in any direction yet also felt pushed from all directions. Everything that seemed to liberate also seemed to imprison. Freud’s theories could lead to greater understanding of the mind, but they also meant scientists could probe our hidden souls—called ‘subconscious’—to cure various ‘neuroses’. What was once thought to be normal was called ‘repressed’ and ‘mentally ill’, and what was once deemed ‘sick’ was redefined as ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’. The rise of the modern state ensured a more rationally and efficiently managed government, but the machine-like bureaucracy could become labyrinthine and its immense powers could crush the individual. And the new system was built atop the old system, thereby entangling ancient superstitions and customs with modern conceits and methods. Liberation of man from religious superstition could be replaced by the new religion of the law, with rules so complicated and dense that even an army of lawyers couldn’t resolve issues in their lifetimes. One could be freed of the shackles of tribal loyalties, obligations, and hatreds, but there was no guarantee that everyone would do the same; and if everyone did, the world would be filled with rootless individuals alienated in a world of signs and laws monopolized by the ‘system’ whose workings were beyond the understanding of anyone.

Anyway, relevant to the problem facing the white race is the dilemma of Joseph K in THE TRIAL. In the story, K wakes up one morning and finds strangers in his apartment. He soon learns the men are low-level authorities sent to inform him of a pending trial. They do not tell K what he’s accused of, and indeed they don’t know anymore than K does. Also in K’s apartment are his colleagues from work, brought along by the authorities and found by K to be rummaging through his photos. It’s as if the wall between private and public has dissolved, no less than the wall between reality and dreamworld. As K goes about to prove his innocence—for what he has no idea—, he finds the law both with him and against him; sometimes, he doesn’t know when it is with him or against him. At one point, he finds one of the petty officials being cruelly punished by his superior for having stolen items from K’s apartment. On this occasion, justice seems to be on K’s side, but the ‘justice’ seems crude and primitive, like whipping a slave in the ancient world. Throughout the story, K is told that law protects him in so many ways, but the law also accuses him in so many ways, none of them very clear. Sometimes, his very effort to clear his name sinks him deeper into the legal quicksand. Each right move also turns out to be a wrong move, depending on the circumstance and advice. As the story progresses, the initially psycho-legal dimensions of his problem take on social, political, historical, and religious dimensions. There is no way out. When he enters a church, the lecture he receives from a priest is just a spiritual counterpart to his legal problems.

Though it would be wrong to read THE TRIAL only as an allegory of the Jewish experience of modernity, Kafka’s ethnicity undoubtedly serves as the keystone. Kafka, being a member of the most ancient of races and the most modern of peoples(also the most rootless—geographically and economically—and the most rooted—historically and spiritually), felt more acutely than goyim the strange duality of the modern world. In some ways, the novel is like a sci-fi version of the Book of Job, and its ending evokes Abram’s near-sacrifice of Isaac. If Isaac is spared, K is not. Was there no God to order a stop to the killing? Or did God, in the new order, demand the sacrifice of K? Or is the state the new god? Or, was it all just a bureaucratic mess-up leading to a wrongful execution, or was the murder carried out to cover up bureaucratic incompetence?
Given the uneasy status of the Jew in the early part of the 20th century, we can understand the unease, anxiety, and vulnerability that characterize Kafka’s works. Some commentators observed that the fate of the main character in METAMORPHOSIS prefigured the Holocaust. And Orson Welles, who directed the movie version of THE TRIAL, changed the ending in consideration of the Holocaust.

Anyway, that was then, and this is now. Joseph K, once a potent symbol of Jewish fear and anxiety, does not exemplify the current Jewish situation, life, and power. If Joseph K of THE TRIAL feels hunted/haunted by hostile forces and if K of THE CASTLE feels as the perennial outsider, Jews today control the innermost sanctums of power, from where they also control the economy, government, science, technology, culture, academia, laws & courts, media, and etc. By formulating ‘new ideas’ and controlling the channels of information, Jews also do the thinking for us. With the power to mold our minds, Jews have effectively infiltrated our minds. We wake up with Jewish-controlled values, we live with Jewish-devised images and signs, and we go to bed with Jewish-ordered values. If the character of METAMORPHOSIS wakes up as a bug and if K of THE TRIAL wakes up ‘guilty’, we are stalked by Jewish power at all places and all times. Not only did Freud interpret our dreams but our dreams are shaped reality controlled by Jews.

The odd thing about THE TRIAL is the character Joseph K, though seemingly passive and ‘victimized’ by bigger forces, is something of a passive-aggressive figure. Indeed, he may less be a passive victim targeted by powerful forces than someone who obsesses about powerful forces precisely because he is, if only subconsciously, obsessed with (gaining access to)power. Though ostensibly he seems to pursue all avenues of justice to clear his name(to be left alone), HE could be the aggressive party discontent with his lot in life. He could partly be projecting onto the system the desire for power he senses but represses in himself. (Similarly, in the movie ANGEL HEART, the private eye pursues a killer who turns out to be himself.) It’s like someone who secretly or subconsciously desires to be like God but consciously denies it as it would be blasphemous. Thus, he tries to clear his name before God, but what if God knows his true heart? What if God knows the God-complex repressed in the man’s heart? Thus, there may be two meanings of guilt in THE TRIAL. On the one hand, a totally innocent man, Joseph K, has been opaquely accused of a crime or transgression. On the other hand, Joseph K genuinely feels ‘guilty’ in some part of his soul because he wants access to the innermost sanctums of power. From this perspective, Joseph K is very much like K in THE CASTLE. K of THE CASTLE is not accused of any crime. He is a land surveyor just doing his work, but his work requires him to go deeper inside the Castle, but the Castle prohibits his entry. On the surface, it seems as though K is being toyed with by powers-beyond-understanding or powers-behind-the-wall. Yet, K subconsciously may want to enter the Castle to gain access to the source of power. Thus, K plays innocent but really isn’t.
This aspect of K’s existence can be found in modern Jewish history. According to the official Jewish narrative, Jews are simply good decent people trying to get along, minding their own business, and conscientiously doing their work, BUT dark hostile goy forces are out to accuse, condemn, persecute, and even murder the Jew. And though Jews are innocent, goyim project wild fantasies onto the Jew so that the Jew becomes emblematic of everything that is contrary to the values and interests of goyim. It’s not difficult to understand why such narrative would be appealing and useful to Jews. But when we probe into the hearts and minds of Jews in the 19th and 20th century, can we say Jews were merely well-meaning and hardworking people who were scapegoated and witch-hunted by gentiles? Didn’t Jews harbor a powerful ‘will to power’, will to control, will to take over, and will to own the less intelligent goyim? Some Jews may have known this consciously but kept it hidden while other Jews may have felt it in their hearts but repressed it into the subconscious. Thus, there could be more going on in Kafka stories than people generally make out. Joseph K of THE TRIAL could actually be a far more aggressive figure than he may appear. He may feel ‘accused’ because deep within his heart he knows he is ‘guilty’—of wanting to gain the power. (In the 90s there was a trial involving David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt. I sided with Lipstadt for the simple reason that I thought Irving had no right to sue someone for concluding that he’s Holocaust Denier—not least because he’s been one for some time. I’m for the right of people to deny the Holocaust and to call someone a ‘Denier’. Thus, Lipstadt seemed like the hapless Joseph-K-like figure bullied by Irving the powerful thug with thin skin. So, when Irving lost the case, I thought he got what he deserved. But as with the dual nature of Joseph K, it turns out there was much more to the story. Lipstadt, far from being an ‘innocent’ Jewish scholar bullied by a ‘hater’, was a powerful Jewish supremacist who had used the ‘Holocaust Denier’ charge to force publishers to cancel their contracts with Irving. Thus, her calling Irving a ‘Denier’ wasn’t just a personal opinion or academic viewpoint but a weapon of Jewish Supremacist political correctness to deny certain individuals from voicing their views. Though Irving is a loathsome character in many ways, he’s long been an important historian of certain aspects of National Socialism. Thus, effectively banning his books was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater—though to be sure, the bathwater in this case really reeks. Anyway, the point is Lipstadt, with the full aid of the Jewish-controlled media and British courts, played the innocent victim when, in fact, she was an influential Jewess seeking to silence ‘controversial’ views in the service of Jewish Power than an ‘innocent victim’. She was no less foul and disgusting than Irving. Jewish control of finance, law, and courts is also the reason why Solzhenitsyn’s book on Russians and Jews has still not found a major publisher in the United States. Even publishers who would like to release the book refuse to do so out of fear of repercussions from Jewish banks, media, and lawyers. They will be morally and financially blackmailed.) Kafka himself was a complex person. Outwardly, he seemed like a shy, awkward, and passive figure. But his obsessive stories betray a darker side. Politically, he was very much a Jewish radical. His stories are like espionage tales. What do spies do but pretend that they’re innocent in the nation they’re operating, all the while trying to access the innermost secrets of the system? Jews have long operated as spies, literally and metaphorically. They are the most ruthless seekers of power but also the biggest declarers of innocence. This dual aspect of Jewishness was evident in the 40s and 50s when a whole lot of Jews were involved in communist infiltration and espionage—culminating in the transference of atomic secrets to the USSR—, yet the Jewish community claimed absolute innocence—indeed, not only claimed innocence but accused the accusers of the guilt of accusing Jews of guilt. For a long time, many American Jews insisted that the Rosenbergs were innocents railroaded by ‘paranoid’ forces in American politics. Even when declassified documents proved beyond any doubt that Rosenbergs and other Jews were guilty of espionage, the myth of Jewish innocence and martyrdom during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’ has defined much of American historiography—now controlled by Jews. Plays like ANGELS IN AMERICA by Tony Kushner will have us believe that Ethel Rosenberg was some kind of saint while Roy Cohn was especially evil because he sided with ‘paranoid’ forces against his own kind; actually, he was a double-traitor for he was a gay guy who opposed the gay agenda. Today, everyone in the know knows what really happened in the 40s and 50s. While it’s true that HUAC and McCarthy exploited anti-communist fears, there really was an extensive network of communists and communist sympathizers—many of them Jewish—operating in America for the Soviet Union and interests of subversive radicalism. Yet, this truth hasn’t been mythologized for public consumption; instead, the main mythic narrative on the history of American anti-communism concerns the ‘innocent and heroic martyrdom’ of decent and idealistic Jewish ‘progressives’ at the hands of ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’; it’s nice decent hapless Jews crushed by bullying thug McCarthy. (Saul Alinsky’s RULES OF RADICALS is, in a way, Kafka-ism turned into political theory. Alinsky thinks radicals should work at looking nice, decent, and mainstream. They should act like they don’t care about power or don’t have much of an agenda—like the seemingly hapless K character in THE CASTLE—, all the while working to gain access into the inner sanctums of power, wherein to gnaw away at all structures of white gentile power. The character of METAMORPHOSIS woke up as a cockroach, but powerful Jewish elites wake up everyday as termites, and they are working fervently to gnaw away at the backbone of white power. It is the way of the Jew. In a way, they can’t help it as it comes naturally to them.) So, for most Americans, the real truth about Jewish radicalism and espionage in America gone down the memory hole. Similarly, though Jews played a very significant role in the Soviet seizure of power in Russia, the only narrative we have is “Jews as victims of the Soviet system”. Thus, most Americans think of Jews as hapless and ‘innocent’ victims of communism, Nazism, antisemitism, radical Islam—never mind the history of Zionist violence against Palestinians—, McCarthyism, etc. We are told the ONLY thing Jews ever wanted to do was work and live in harmony with rest of society(and maybe gently make the world a better place), but gentile society just wouldn’t leave the Jews alone. So, a movie like SCHINDLER’S LIST shows all these nice wonderful Jews who wouldn’t hurt a fly being murdered by psychotic Nazis. Though what the Nazis did was indeed psychotic and horrific, we’ll never understand the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust unless we take into account the foulness of Jews in the modern world. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but to understand German wrongs, we need to take a cold hard look at Jewish wrongs. But ‘guilty’ Jews act like they’re totally ‘innocent’. (The ‘innocence’ of ‘guilty’ Jews has become such a fixture in modern politics that even though American & Israeli Jews did most to put Obama in the White House, most conservatives pretend as if Jews and Israel are hapless victims of the ‘stealth Muslim’ Obama. Ironically, this is rather Kafkaesque in the sheer surrealism of its logic. Given the secular religion of Holocaustianity—that teaches people that Jews have been the Innocent People, rather like how Christianity says Jesus was the Perfect Man—, we must take it on faith that Jews are always and absolutely ‘innocent’ even when all evidence shows them to be the most ‘guilty’ of power-lust, deviousness, venality, deception, hideousness, and etc.) The Jewish Innocent-Guilt Complex can be found in figures such as Steven Pinker, David Remnik, and Cass the Ass Sunstein. In public, they act so mild and mellow, like they have no interest in such things as influence and power; oh no, all they care about is truth and doing their work with honesty and conscience. They fool so many people that most goyim must indeed be a bunch of morons. In a way, such Jews are channeling Kafka, but the difference is they are K’s on the inside(of power) than K’s on the outside. If anything, WE are hapless dupes and victims of their power and influence.

Jewish attitudes as they rose to prominence in the modern world could be summarized into three stages: (1) Don’t rock the boat (2) Chutzpah (3) steer the ship secretively. In the early stage of the rise, many Jews didn’t wanna rock the boat too hard because goyim might be alarmed. Though there was no deficit of radical Jews, they wore their radicalism as universalists than as Jews. Don’t-rock-the-boat Jews were ambitious but sought to fit into or at least appear to fit into the larger gentile society. After WWII came the chutzpah Jews, rising to fever pitch in the 60s and 70s. With the Never-Again-ism of the Holocaust, Zionist victory over Arabs in the Six Day war, and social turmoil of the 60s and 70s, Jews felt the sudden rush of chutzpah; whole bunch of them barked like Lenny Bruce and swung their schlongs like porn ‘actors’. Bob Dylan and Alan Dershowitz have been this kind of Jew. At this stage, though Jews were making great headway, they still hadn’t consolidated their power. But Jews who came of age later grew up in the very bosom of power. Thus, though politically liberal, their style and attitudes became more ‘conservative’ and ‘measured’; indeed, similar thing happened with gays; when homosexuality had been taboo, it took the recklessly courageous freako-homos to go out into the streets and define homo culture; but once homosexuality became tolerated and even accepted(as a sexual norm!), non-freako-homos came out of the closet and consolidated their power in a more ‘conservative’ manner; thus, if gay power in the 60s looked like Stonewall riots, gay power today looks like Tim Cook as CEO of Apple, which is now a real fruit.
The Remniks, Zuckerbergs, Brins, and Pages of the world are inner-Jews or steer-the-ship-secretively-and-carefully Jews. Such Jews don’t have to make a lot of noise and fight for power since they are born into great privilege and power. Indeed, SOCIAL NETWORK is amusing for depicting Zuckerberg as an underdog Jew up against Wasps who still presumably control Harvard! What need for chutzpah when you got the power? Of course, many Jews still have a form of chutzpah, but it’s of a quieter kind. When you hold a big stick, you don’t have to speak so loud. Jews need only whisper into the ears of George W. Bush or Obama, and goyboys will do their bidding.

Though the New Jew seems less shrill—compare the young Jew with the older Jew in Woody Allen’s ANYTHING ELSE—, it would be foolish to think the New Jew has become conservative(in the American political sense) and moderate. If anything, they are thrilled with the power they now have and will do anything to keep it no matter how detrimental it may prove for non-Jews. Jews know that it’s to their advantage to seem powerless even though they have the power. Jews know the main threat to their power is the rise of white gentile consciousness that may consolidate as a racially united political movement. So, the New Jew, though seemingly mellower on the outside, is no less driven by will-to-power as the older generation of Jews. Since they got the power, they are energized not so much by will-to-power as by hold-the-power and grow-the-power. Steven Pinker may have the face of an angel, but he has the devil’s heart. His new book argues for the current order because Jews own it. Joseph K now owns the castle.

Perhaps no artist was as keen as to the nature of the new reality as Stanley Kubrick the great Jew. Consider what he did with THE SHINING and EYES WIDE SHUT. Though the former is based on a Stephen King novel, the spirit of the adaptation owes more to Kafka. In a key part of THE TRIAL, Joseph K meets a priest who relates a tale of a man who appears at the gate of a courthouse to receive the law; time passes and the man grows old but the gate remains shut. Near death, he asks why all through these years he was the only one who came to the gate to receive the law, whereupon the guard answers this courthouse was only meant for him. This can be interpreted in two ways. The system—be it spiritual, political, psychological, or biological—condemns each person to his own private hell; we hear of universal truth or justice, but in the end, we stand alone before a ruthless and even arbitrary power. But another interpretation is the man sought out the courthouse of his own volition to gain control of the law; he is left outside the gate but what really brought him there was his desire for power, HIS own power. Similarly, the Jack Nicholson character in THE SHINING is both victim and villain. On the one hand, we might say he is a reasonably decent man who is turned wicked by the evil spirits of the Overlook Hotel. But in another way, the Overlook Hotel could be the projection of his own drive for power and wealth. In a way, it’s as though the Overlook Hotel exists just for him to return to in infinite incarnations to claim the power as the master of the house. Ostensibly, he was hired by the hotel, but deep down inside he wants to own the hotel to the point where every dimension of the hotel, temporal and spatial, becomes a part of him and vice versa. If he is a victim, he is a victim of his own will-to-power. Though the aggressive side of K’s nature—in either Kafka novel—isn’t as blatant as Jack’s in THE SHINING, K too seems to be, at least to an extent, a victim of his own psychological desire to know and have more than he ‘should’. Paradoxically, he is a hapless victim of his own villainous desire for power.
EYES WIDE SHUT is based on the novel of the Jewish author Arthur Schnitzler. Though I haven’t read the book, I heard the two main characters, husband and wife, are recognizably Jewish. Kubrick reverses the situation in his movie where the two leads are clearly goyim, played by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. They seem to be successful and well-positioned, but they are nothing compared to the super-rich, among whom is a Jew played by Sidney Pollack. Thus, the Jew controls the inner-sanctums of power, and it is the goy who, Joseph-K-like, tries to break in.
Cruise’s character is what might be called an Akfak—simply ‘Kafka’ reversed.

In a way, all of us goyim are Afkaks. We are goy outsiders who aren’t allowed into the inner sanctums of power now controlled by Jews. Since most goyim were never on the inside(even when goy elites ruled the roost), they aren’t even aware of the power shift that took place within the Castle. Of course, the elite goyim who used to control the Castle know what happened, but they quietly moved aside to make room for the Jewish usurpers than sound the alarm. After the Holocaust and Jewish control of the media and popular culture—so influential in how people see reality—, the goy elites dared not tell the public what was really happening; the Jewish media would have denounced and defamed them as ‘antisemitic neo-Nazis’. People like Nixon and Billy Graham did discuss the problems of Jewish power in privacy, but when the secret recordings later came out, Graham got on his knees and kissed Jewish ass and sucked Jewish cock and bawled apologies like a baby. (It goes to show who holds the power in this country.)

Even in the upper echelons of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley and the GOP made way for the neocon Jews while figures such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran who sounded the alarm were exiled and/or silenced. Since most people are sheep, most mass conservatives went from nodding their heads to paleocons to nodding their heads to neocons. Conservatives who had been skeptical of MLK suddenly turned into worshipers of MLK. Conservatives who were skeptical of Zionism became the biggest fans of Zionism. Conservatives who’d been critical of the Jewish establishment became the biggest fans of everything Jewish.
Even so, it’s not a complete Jewish putsch. Rather, the unspoken deal between the old goy elites and new Jewish elites allowed the former would to maintain a degree of privilege and wealth as long as they accepted and went along with the Jewish agenda. (It was similar to the deal brokered between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the 19th century. Aristocracy was on the decline relative to the rapidly ascendant bourgeoisie. In the deal, aristocrats would bestow class and status to the bourgeoisie while the bourgeoisie, even as it gained greater control of the economy and culture, would work with than against the aristocracy. Today, the declining goy elites are eager to have their children marry Jews. Wasp establishment has the cachet of prestige, Jews have the brains and money.) Thus, Buckley kept his increasingly symbolic and substantively meaningless status to his final day as neocon Jews took over the reins of the conservative movement. And people like David Rockefeller and others have their cushy positions in the NWO as long as they play along with the Jewish agenda. Clintons also have a new stake in the new order, with their daughter marrying the son of Jewish billionaire who purchased his pardon from Clinton as president.
In EYES WIDE SHUT, it’s not like only the Super Jews are enjoying gorgeous babes in a secret orgy. Rather, Super Jews and Super goy elites have forged an alliance where they gather together to ritual-fuck superhot babes in their Castle. Even so, there are indications that Jews are on the rise while the goyim are in decline. The Super Jew played by Sidney Pollack seems feisty while the super goy rich guy who hands Tom Cruise a note at the gate seems old and crusty; he looks like the old dying David Bowman at the end of 2001; it’s like wasp elite is fated to die, to be replaced by the Jewish Starchild of David.
Long ago, rich goy elites wouldn’t have invited hairy and hook-nosed Jew to an Aryan-beauty fuck-fest, but now they have no choice because one must do business with Jews to maintain one’s wealth and privilege in the new order. Thus, ‘Aryan’ beauty must be shared with Super Jews. And Super Jews like the arrangement because part of the Jewish psyche says, “I don’t wanna belong to a club that would have me as a member.” A totally Jewish club would be filled with hairy hook-nosed Jews who look like Woody Allen and Sandra Bernhardt. Also, even when Jews have the power, they wanna the enjoy the thrill of entering the Castle that had been forbidden to them for so long. Even as insiders, they relish the sense of outsider-ism. Thus, an alliance with the Super-Goy-Elite makes the Jews feel like they finally made into the forbidden zone of power. (The counterpart to the Jewish Innocent-Guilt Complex can found in the politics of Negro crime and sexuality. According to the grand liberal narrative—especially as peddled by hideous Jews—, so many INNOCENT saintly Negroes suffered at the hands of ‘white racists’ who accused black men of having lascivious feelings for white women and/or harboring criminal and violent intent. Such racial stereotyping led to the ‘racist’ view that most blacks are born rapists hungry for white meat or born robbers/murderers who will steal or murder at the drop of a hat. There is some truth to the liberal narrative in that some innocent blacks were accused of crimes they didn’t commit, and some blacks were suspected of being criminal when they were not. But the iconography of the saintly innocent Negro—who presumably just wants to get along—falsely accused of Jungle Savagery by ‘evil white racists’ is baloney, though I must say it was rather amusing when Rodney King, of all people, aksed “Can’t we just get along?” when, in fact, LA riots were sparked by the fact that he never tried to get along with anyone. In fact, movies like BIRTH OF A NATION were absolutely correct that the average Negro male’s main sexual passion is to be beat up ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys and hump as many white women as possible. Just look at black sexual behavior in sports, music, and integrated schools. They love nothing more than acting like thugs, belittling the white boy—now relegated to pussyboy beta male status—,and conquering/owning as many white chicks as possible. Though some Negro males were falsely accused and even killed for having raped white women, most Negro males do indeed have wild fantasies about humping and even raping white women and beating up/belitting ‘white boys’. Even Negroes who were falsely accused of crimes they didn’t commit were ‘guilty’ of having such savage feelings; even a Negro who didn’t whup a white boy and rape white women most likely had such thoughts on his mind. But for the Civil Rights Movement to gain traction, white American had to be convinced that most Negro males don’t have sex on their mind, and if they do, they only wanna sexually hump black women, not white women. So, the sexual fears of white males in the Deep South had to be depicted as rabidly virulent and irrational, unfounded on any real evidence. Thus, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, a movie about some saintly innocent Negro falsely accused of rape, became the standard of liberal racial mythology. Even after all these yrs with so much black-on-white rape, we are told TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is truth while BIRTH OF A NATION is a lie. And in GONE WITH THE WIND, we see a noble Negro saving Scarlett from being raped by a white man. You see, them Negroes be so nice and noble—and so uninterested in sex with white women—that they risk their skin to save a white women from lecherous white males! Even as late as the 90s, we got neo-MOCKINGBIRD movies like GREEN MILE, which had a mountain-sized Negro who wouldn’t even kill a little white mouse. I wonder if Hitchcock’s PSYCHO was partly a counter-argument to liberal sermons like MOCKINGBIRD. In PSYCHO, Norman-Bates-as-his-mother says he/she wouldn’t even hurt a fly. Now, if a skinny-and-harmless-seeming white boy can commit such evil deeds out of sexual rage, what would a Negro male do if let out of the cage? How about something like the Knoxville Massacre? But as Jews have a lock on the mass media, most Americans will still be thinking of Negroes in association with MOCKINGBIRD, COSBIES, and OPRAH—and of course, the Reality TV show called the OBAMAS. But, liberals are a confused lot. On the one hand, they prop up MOCKINGBIRD-ism, the notion of the saintly innocent Negro who done never think of sex, especially with a white woman. On the other hand, liberal tell us Negroes are so great because they gave us sexy Jazz, because Jack Johnson the Negro thug whupped a lot of white boy ass and banged a thousand white chicks, because Negroes got big dicks, because Negroes sing rap and dance like they’re fucking on the dance floor. Not that most conservatives are any better since what passes for conservatism these days is a movie like BLINDSIDE and Glenn-Beck-and-Rick-Lowry-weeping-over-MLK. Anyway, just as Jews were ‘guilty’ of powerlust and hatred of goyim but played innocent like they simply wanted to get along, Negroes have been ‘guilty’ of interracist lust, contempt for ‘faggotyass’ white boy, and violent racial fantasies but act as though they just be wanting to be respected as equals and getting along in peace with everyone. Of course, the saintly Negro with no sex on his mind —especially with a white woman—was the creation of Harriet Beecher Stowe, a nutty Christian woman. If anything, people like Freud should be praised for at least overturning the Victorian sexual bullshit, with which UNCLE TOM’S CABIN fits right in. Having repressed the reality of sexuality in discussion of social and cultural matters, it was possible to believe in the completely spiritual and asexual Negro who only be wishing for love, peace, and justice. Had Americans been more forthright about sex in mid 19th century, there would have been more of a frank discussion of the dangers posed by Negroes. Such was later delivered in the form of Jack Johnson, a walking-talking-fighting-jiving icon of black male sexual lust and physical aggression. But again, white males refused to see reality in the face and do something to bring about permanent racial separation, the only thing that could have saved the white race. If Stowe was simple-minded and naive in her moral fantasies, Kafka seems to have known and hinted a lot more than meets the eye.)

So, what does it mean to be an Akfak? It means there is no way out. No matter how many times you try to profess your redemption or innocence, no matter how much money you’re willing to pay, no matter how many times you apologize, no matter whatever new thing you do, and etc to prove you’re no longer an ‘evil racist’ or ‘rabid anti-Semite’, you will be put on trial just as Joseph K was in Kafka’s novel. Joseph K listened to all sorts of advice, met with all kind of people, and did all manner of things, but he was just as ‘guilty’ in the end as in the beginning. There was no escape. Ironically, we are Akfaks because Kafka(the Jewish elite)is now in the big house, in the Castle. It is a form of Jewish revenge and/or power-lust.
Jews know that white gentiles need to be constantly accused of something because the moment whites no longer feel guilty under the pressure of accusation, they’ll begin to think in terms of their own interests and agenda, even pushing against Jewish interests. To prevent white gentiles from pushing back and gaining momentum, they must constantly be pushed against the wall. Since Jews—even with Negroes—don’t have the numbers to physically push around whites(though this may change with rising non-white population in America), Jews rely on psychologically pushing white people through instruments of education, media, politics, etc. In boxing, if you’re too busy covering up from the opponent’s blows, you don’t have a chance to fight back. You must cower and lean back against the ropes as blows rain down on you. Since it’s too much for one people to keep punching at whites, Jews take turns with blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Jews have even turned a lot of whites—maybe over 50%—into honorary non-whites who embrace interracism and white democide as great virtues. Whites are so busy trying to prove that they are not ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’—white males are also burdened with ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘xenophobia’—that they have no energy left to hurl accusations back at Jews or blacks. Conservatives are too busy trying to prove that they are not ‘homophobic’ to argue why ‘gay marriage’ really stinks as a abomination of biology and morality. If some white people are too busy fending off accusation of ‘racism’ and other evil ‘isms’, some white people find spiritual meaning in being condemned; they feel like Magic Honkeys when they get on their knees and weep before some Negro or bawl like a baby listening to MLK speeches. A Magic Honkey feels holy for he or she has been defanged and removed of poison glands; they once belonged to a race of venomous serpents but they are all harmless snakes now. But since they are still snakes and may regrow fangs and venom glands, they must always be reminded of their sinful nature.

An Akfak can profess or prove his innocence by doing what is demanded of him, but he will then be accused of more and more crimes and transgressions. It never ends. When the Civil Rights movement called for the end of Segregation and racial discrimination, that’s what blacks got. But that wasn’t enough. Whites were still guilty, and so there had to be the welfare state, aka Great Society. But that wasn’t enough. There was then school busing, but it led to much black-on-white violence. So whites—even or especially affluent liberals, many of them Jewish—moved out. So, whites were guilt of ‘racism’ for merely wanting to flee from black crime. Whites were told that they were guilty of black crime since blacks commit crime due to poverty and rage, both of which are the products of white racial oppression of blacks in the past(and in the present too in all sorts of ‘subtle’ ways). So, there were Afro-motive Action, Section 8 Housing(which should be called Section Hate Housing since violent hateful Negroes are dropped into white neighborhoods), home loans to black deadbeats, and etc. But even that is not enough because the racial gap still remains. (But do not think whites will be declared ‘innocent’ if the gap were to ever be closed. After all, Jews are immensely powerful and rich, much more so than white gentiles, but they still feel entitled to full protection and support as a ‘victim group’. Similarly, even long after Christians brutally and ruthlessly vanquished paganism from Europe, they still maintained the mythology of pure saintly Christians oppressed and murdered by evil Roman pagans and Christ-killing Jews. Myths are powerful, and the most powerful myths today are Holocaustianity and MLK faith. Consider the fact that NFL is dominated by blacks but the main issue is “there aren’t enough black quarterbacks.” No one bothers to ask, “where are the white running backs or Mexican linemen?”)
If whites are not accused of ‘racism’ politically, they are accused economically, e.g. not enough black CEOs in corporations. If not economically, then socially, e.g. white people don’t hang around with enough blacks. If not socially, then culturally, e.g. not enough blacks on TV sitcoms. If not culturally, then sexually, e.g. not enough white women having sex with Negroes. If not sexually, then historically, e.g. slavery have scarred the black soul forever, and even the Rwandan genocide is said to have happened because of what Belgians did long ago. If not historically, then psychologically, e.g. you might be SUBCONSCIOUSLY ‘racist’ or your white baby may be born a ‘racist’. And you thought Joseph K had it bad! Afkaks have it much worse under the power of the hideous Jews.

The people who do most to play this game on us are the Jews, the neo-Kafkas in the pantheons of power. They are inside the Castle with all the control levers while we are on the outside as reverse-Joseph-K’s. We are always on trial, always accused of this or that form or variation or mutation or whatever of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, and whatever other bullshit they can cook up. We are accused of ‘racism’ from so many angles—political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, psychological, etc—that we are left feeling like a goy driven crazy by the Jewish gang in Marx Brothers movies. Jewish accusations run circles around us and sting us all over. To Jews, we are nothing but a lump of rotten flesh attracting buzzing flies. Just like rotten meat deserves flies, rotten white race deserves the buzzing pests of Jewish accusations—or so the Jews want us to believe. Even before we can explicate ourselves from one accusation, we are smacked with another, then another.
It’s like NY TIMES keeps coming up with ever more ‘creative’ explanations for the racial gap in IQ and education between whites and blacks. Instead of focusing on the truth—that blacks are generally lower in intelligence and more aggressive in their nature, which makes them less likely to sit still and learn something—, NY TIMES comes up with ‘brilliant’ explanations that all lead to accusations against ‘white racism’. Black under-performance, we are told, is due to stress, diet, health issues, biases, and etc; and all these issues lead to ‘white racism’ since ‘white power, privilege, and greed’ consciously or subconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, wittingly or unwittingly work to keep blacks down. So, even after all these years, whites are still the main culprit for problems of the black community.
At one time, blacks said black educational failure was due to insufficient school funding. So blacks schools were lavishly funded in some communities. But when that failed, it was the ‘bigotry of low expectations’—something Compassionate Conservative Bush and Ted Kennedy agreed on—and poured a lot of money to fix, but when that went bust, we were told there weren’t enough good teachers. But when idealistic teachers tried teaching black kids but still failed to close the gap, it was something else and etc. The madness never ends. Always, we are told something MORE has to be done, and whites support these policies because they did ‘racist’ things in the past, are still consciously or subconsciously ‘racist’, and would be ‘racist’ for the simple fact of not wanting to fix the problem. (Though majority of American whites are children of immigrants who arrived after the Civil War, ALL whites are associated with the ‘sin’ of Southern slavery. Even a newly arrived Polish-American is part of ‘white racist evil’. Again, and you thought Joseph K had it bad? Akfaks have it worse.) Some white people think white ‘racism’ will finally be cured through interracism, especially with pussified white boys welcoming Negro studs to bang white women. But look at Obama the soam(son of a mudshark). Though his mother was white and white people treated him nice from childhood, he played the race card just the same. Also, white folks’ preference for mulattos and light-skinned blacks has also been called a kind of ‘racism’; indeed, light-skinned Negroes who succeed accuse whites of preferring their kind over the darker-skinned kind; they wanna have the watermelon and eat it too; they use their mulatto-ness to succeed in white society but then accuse whites of keeping dark-skinned Negroes down. (To be sure, white liberals are an indeed a dirty bunch. Affirmative action is useful to white/Jewish liberal elites because if promotion was based purely on meritocracy, the upper echelons of business, law, government, academia, media, and etc would be almost totally white and Jewish. That would really embarrass white/Jewish liberals who yammer so much about diversity and equality but live in a world of their own. So, for the sake of good publicity, they need some color in their midst, and so they use affirmative action to choose the clean-cut blacks to rub shoulders with. With Obama at their side, liberal Jews can pretend that they just love diversity and fairness.) There is no end to this. If white people keep trying to earn their ‘innocence’, they are gonna end up like Joseph K in THE TRIAL—or like Don Imus. Yeah, his apologizing sure did him some good.

The issue shouldn’t be innocence. We are all ‘guilty’—guilty of the will-to-power, which is natural enough. Innocent Nice Negro is a myth. Kind Decent Jew is a myth. And Lovable White Person is also a myth. This isn’t to say there aren’t nice, decent, and/or lovable people among blacks, Jews, and whites. It’s merely to say there is more to niceness in all of us. We want power, we want to survive, we want the glory. Since it won’t do for everyone to fight one another for power 24/7 and make a mess of things—like Negroes in da hoods—, we need to play by the Rule of Law. But the Law is only useful to those who are willing and capable of playing by its rules. Also, given racial differences in intelligence, temperament, and physical attributes, not all races are compatible. And given the tribal nature of human beings, excessive diversity isn’t something to promote and celebrate.
Just as Joseph K was indeed ‘guilty’ of something, white people too should accept and admit they are ‘guilty’ of something. Whites mustn’t try to prove that they are ‘non-racist’ or ‘anti-racist’, ‘cleansed of racism’ or ‘working hard to purge themselves of shame of racism’, and all such crap. They should face the fact that they are indeed race-ist. Just as blacks are ‘guilty’ of black power-lust, black lust for white women, and black contempt for the ‘faggoty-ass white boy’; and just as Jews are ‘guilty’ of monomaniacal control of Truth, powerlust, contempt for dimwit goyim, and resentment of ‘Aryan’ beauty; white people should admit they are ‘guilty’ of perfectly rational and justifiable race-ist fears of stronger Negroes, smarter & deviously cunning Jews, waves of non-white hordes invading the West, and the looming extinction of their power race, culture, and heritage. Being ‘guilty’ is the natural way of being. Life didn’t evolve from angels from the hellish struggle to survive and dominate. Though Steven Pinker speaks of ‘better angels’, he’s really a Jewish Supremacist who savors the power, wealth, and influence accumulated by Jews. And though blacks bitch, whine, and holler about ‘injustice’, they just want more easy/instant power, wealth, fame, and glory. Jews and Negroes are not innocent angels asking for their share of justice but devilish agents demanding a larger share of the pie, and they’ll do whatever it takes to get it. They will trample all over justice and rule of law if it’s to their interest because they are ‘guilty’ of the will-to-power.

But same goes for white people. We too are ‘guilty’. We’ve always been ‘guilty’, since the first single-celled organism devoured other single-celled organisms. This isn’t to argue for nihilism where ‘only the strong survive’ but merely to say white people also have—indeed must have—racial interests and instincts for survival and competition. It’s the way of nature. Biologically, we are all ‘guilty’ of following the life force. As humans, we’ve arrived at humane and civilized ways of managing our survival by respecting the ‘rights’ of other peoples with their own interests. But everything has a useful limit. When diplomacy failed between US and Japan and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, America had no choice but to fight and crush Japan. White people were not wrong to try to arrive at some understanding with Jews and Negroes. There are good things to be said about Jewish people and history, and there is no denying the relative suffering of blacks in America. But it’s gotten to a point where nothing remains but bad faith on part of Jews and Negroes. Jews are smart, so they can’t possibly believe the kind of editorial and pseudo-scientific tripe they’re always printing in the NY Times. Negroes, being childlike and crazy, may indeed sincerely believe “it’s all the white man’s fault.” In either case, Jew are too venal and devious for us to deal with in good faith and Negroes are dumb & nutty for us to come to terms with. Thus, we must be race-ist, and by ‘race-ism’, I mean race + ism = belief in races and racial differences and in having racial preferences. Race is a part of reality. The ‘racial justice’ experiment in America failed not because of white people’s perpetual ‘racism’—of which there will be no end to the accusations coming from Jews, Negroes, etc—but because of the reality of race. It’s not that whites are guilty of ‘racism’ but they are ‘guilty’ of race-ism. It is a biological ‘guilt’ that cannot be denied. It is the nature of any group of organisms to want to survive, win, and thrive. It’s true that many white people have been race-ist(and justifiably so) in trying to move away from blacks; it’s true that many whites do harbor fears of smarter Jews. But this isn’t some irrational sickness white people need to feel ashamed of. They are natural and rational responses to the biological fact that the stronger and more fearsome Negroes are a physical/sexual threat to the white race and to the biological fact that smarter and wilier Jews are determined to accumulate as much power, wealth, and influence as possible(and will do whatever necessary to break the spine of white unity and power since Jews see white gentiles as their main rivals.)

Neo-Fascist Notes on STEVE JOBS by Walter Isaacson.

2012-01-31T14:06:00.000-08:00

Walter Isaacson’s STEVE JOBS is one helluva breezy read. Like Richard Nixon, Steve Jobs disproved there is no second act in American life. Jobs, who’d lost the company he founded in the mid 80s, found new success with Pixar and returned to a rapidly declining Apple not only as its savior but as the visionary who transformed it into the most valuable tech-company in the world. (But if Nixon’s second act was brought down by a scandal, Jobs’ was cut short by illness and death.) Perhaps, it could be said Jobs’ greatest achievement was to dissolve the barrier between hardware and software, the body and the soul of the computer. According to Isaacson’s book, no one did more to integrate hardware and software into a seamless whole as did Jobs. Apple products made hardware feel like the manifestation of software, as if technology evolved from a simpler lifeform to a more complex one, from a scaly or shell-covered cold-blooded reptile to a warm blooded mammal; there was a suppleness to the feel of Apple products compared to others. Initially, Jobs achieved this by spearheading the friendlier Macintosh in the early 80s; when he returned to Apple, he continued in this vein with iMacs with transparent casings, thus lending the impression of inside as outside and vice versa; finally and most importantly, he led a team of engineers and designers to create hand-held devices where hardware and software were so organically integrated that they seem to hum with its own life energies; instead of having an on/off switch, it ‘came to life’ or ‘awoke’ to stimuli. For some, an iPad may look like nothing more than a electronic sushi tray. But others might say it’s like a pool in a Japanese garden, calm and serene but vibrating with responsive ripples with the mere touch of one’s fingers; or a high-tech mirror designed to reflect one’s hopes and dreams. Given the display of Apple products in art museums, maybe we can even say they constitute a school of art: Art Stevo or Art Ivo—akin to ‘Art Deco’. Personally, I haven’t a clue to the real worth of Apple products as I never owned or used them—and don’t care to. Anyway, what follows is some random musings on Jobs and the book about him by Isaacson.

Like most people, I knew who Steve Jobs was since the 80s. He was the Apple guy. But until I read the book by Isaacson, I had little knowledge of and interest in what Jobs was about. I got interested in the book after reading a review by the Blogger Named Ernest, but I probably wouldn’t have bothered if Jobs’ mug on the cover hadn’t stared right at me from the ‘New Books’ shelf at the local library. Even then, I figured I’d read just a few chapters, but I found myself hooked. The book isn’t heavy on tech information(as it’s for the general reader), and besides, Jobs’ forte was in salesmanship, management, and design than in minute details of computer science. Trumped as a genius of ‘intuition’ than ‘intellect’, he’s the sort of person to give hope to millions of people who think they might make it with ‘charisma’ and ‘spark’ as substitute for the truly high intelligence that they lack. Of course, the real selling point of Jobs’ story is his personality and how it did and didn’t jibe with the cult of personality surrounding him. Even if Jobs had achieved less, he’d be interesting simply because he had more of a ‘personality’ than, say, Bill Gates who, at least publicly, doddles around like a turtle without a shell. Watching Jobs and Gates side-by-side is like watching Han Solo and Jabba the Hutt. But, there would have been no cult of personality if there hadn’t been a power of personality, a kind of ‘will to power’—though this concept has been done to death—, something central to Jobs’ success given his Achilles’ Heel, a limited knowledge of computer science.

Before I get on with the book, let me first confess I probably know and care less about computers than most people. Being more of a nature person, I’ve never much paid attention to technological advance. In the 80s when everyone was moving from LP album to cds, I was one of those who held out. When most record stores stopped selling albums, I stopped buying music—not that I missed much since the music scene got worse in the late 80s. I only began to use cds in 1993 when I got a cd player as a gift. I got a cell phone much later than most people and, outside the home, only use it in an emergency. Not that I’m a Luddite; I just happened to find most new technology unessential to life; and I happen to be allergic to hype of any kind, and so I naturally developed an aversion to Apple with its ‘1984' and ‘Think Different’ nonsense. (I must say though, ‘Apple’ is a pretty clever name. Apple in American as Apple Pie, Apple as in Eden and the Forbidden Fruit, Apple as in Isaac Newton and gravity, etc.) Also, my personality draws me to the past and resists ‘progress’, especially because the pace of change is ‘too fast’, wiping things out even before we’ve had time to absorb their full significance. We’ve had over a 100 yrs to think about what the telephone and film mean to us as a society and as individuals, but the advance of high-tech keeps handing us new things even before we’ve under the full implications of what we just had. It’s like being served a stream of new dishes even before we’ve done little more than have a little taste of the dishes in front of us. (Interestingly enough, Jobs’ approach to food in restaurants was rather like this according to the book. He’d taste a little of something, complain, order another and then another, as if his pleasure derived less from any one meal than from the process of meals constantly coming and going. In real life, I’ve always wanted to punch people like that.) When I return to places of my childhood, the rational part of me can accept and appreciate the changes—new buildings replacing old buildings and the like—as necessary improvements, but I still feel an acute sense of loss. I’m not the only person to feel this way, but I’m probably more sentimental in this regard than most. Though the superiority of the cd to the LP was pretty obvious, I’d grown accustomed to the ritual of handling and playing the LP—pulling it out of the sleeve, wiping the dust, cleaning the stylus, setting the stylus down on the grooves, the sound of stylus lifting after the end of one side, etc. And of course, the cover art really mattered with LPs. I also liked the idea of Side A and Side B. Even so, I can’t say I ever hated the music cd.
Such hostility was reserved for the computer, especially the personal computer. Foolish as it may seem now, I couldn’t stand computers for the simple fact that the ugliest, dorkiest, gimpiest, and most annoying geeks and nerds in school were obsessed with them. In high school, there was the ‘computer room’, and most of the kids—nearly all of them boys—looked like creatures from another planet. I also didn’t see how computers could be of much use to someone like myself. I didn’t like video games, had no interest in computer-related fields, and the so-called dos system looked Greek to me.

According to Isaacson’s book, the first Macintosh was truly an impressive product in the early 80s. Was it? I first saw a Macintosh when the younger brother of a friend showed it to me; he got it as a birthday present at the tender age of 10. It looked like a clunky piece of junk as far as I could tell. Even at the ‘beginning’, I failed to see anything that was so amazing about the personal computer and its operations. So, you could play some third-rate versions of arcade games. So, you could write stuff and make some graphics. So, what was the big deal?
I’m almost certain I wouldn’t own a personal computer to this day had it not been for the internet. When I first experienced the internet in 1996, I, in full agreement with everyone on the planet, knew THIS would change everything and was indeed a fantastic tool. This wasn’t like going from b/w TV to color TV, or going from LPs to Cds. It was going to change the way we think and live.
There has been many changes to the internet since, of which we’ve all been a part whether we like it or not. Internet has multiplied choices to the nth degree for the user, but one choice we no longer have is the choice not to change. Even if you own the same computer for several years, the Google you’re using today is not Google that you were using few years ago. Facebook keeps changing its formats and applications. You change as it changes, and you really don’t have any choice; but because the change happens so constantly, subtly, and ceaselessly, you come to accept it as the natural flow of life. Consumer technology is no longer just a gadget with fixed operations but something that keeps evolving through a gadget programmed to download ever new applications and services.
Even so, I’ve had little interest beyond the basic services and tools of the internet, which is why I know so little about recent Apple products. If a certain technology is indispensable, I will use it in a way that it suits my needs, but that’s about it. I’ve never felt a need to own something for its brand, iconic status, or whatever. As far as I’m concerned, a $19 dollar cell phone bought from Target does all I need with a cell phone. Sure, an iPhone may look better and all, but the only function I care about in a cell phone is to call someone. I feel the same way about watches. Watches, for me, is a device for telling time. I would have any use for a Rolex watch. Does it tell time better than Timex or even Mickey Mouse watch? Some people are crazy about cars, but for me, a car is something that takes you from place A to place B. So, if a car is decently priced, had good gas mileage, and will do what it’s supposed to, that’s my car. Of course, if I had all the money in the world, I might be tempted to buy something better, but status symbols have never been a passion of mine. The only kind of car that would truly amaze is one that can fly or go underwater. Otherwise, no matter how fancy or expensive a car, I see it as a four-wheeled vehicle that goes on place A to place B.
So, I never saw any reason to get an iPhone or iWhatever.
But there’s another reason why I tend to be allergic to such things. It has less to do with the products themselves—which may well be amazing as people say—but what’s becoming of our culture as a result of them. And nowhere is this problem better demonstrated than on vacation travels. I stopped going on trips with some people because they just have to bring this gadget and that gadget. What’s the point of going to different places if one feels a constant need to be connected to the familiar? On a car trip, I can understand listening to music, reading a book(for the passenger of course), having a conservation, etc. But watching movies on computers or playing videogames or fiddling with the internet? I mean enough already. While driving through the Rockies, a friend of mine just had to watch TOY STORY—a movie I especially detest. Another thing that drives me crazy is people who go on trips and talk on cellphones incessantly, upload every thought and photo instantly to whatever sites and pages they have, and so on. It’s one thing to own an advanced piece of equipment that can do amazing things. But why not wait til you go home to assemble them properly and then share with friends and families. Though Apple alone cannot be blamed for this—and I suppose it is only giving consumers what they want—, what we’re witnessing is the Rise of the iPodpeople. This constant need to be and feel connected cannot be healthy. Nor will it make people ‘think different’. How can they when they’re always connected or hooked to something or someone else, mostly to feel as a member of a cyber community or to stay linked to friends/family members at all times? (Needless to say, I HATE TWITTER!) The global connection made possible by the internet is profoundly important, but no less important is the sense of one’s individuality, separateness, and privateness. But if technological and consumer trends continue in the direction they’re going, then we can kiss ‘difference’ goodbye. There is a natural need for all people to want to belong to a community, to connect with others and share ideas. But for this to be a truly rich experience, people also need to maintain a wall between the social and personal, the private and the shared. It’s like in any restaurant, there’s the kitchen and the dining area. The chefs prepare the food in the kitchen, and it is served in the dining area. You don’t get rid of the wall between the two areas and allow diners to just grab and eat what the chefs are cooking. This isn’t to say one must think alone at all times; after all, much of Greek philosophy begins and ends as dialogues. Rather, certain ideas and thoughts can be fully explored and organized properly only when one maintains the barrier between the me and the we. I fear this is eroding with devices like iPhones, iPods, and iPads. It makes people so busy connecting and ‘sharing’ that they don’t learn to fully develop the autonomous I; they share and serve their ‘ideas’ and ‘opinions’ even before they’re fully cooked. Without such devices, one is likely to feel and turn ideas inside his or her mind, carry forth a conversation with oneself, and develop some semblance of thought before finally expressing oneself. Now, with Apple devices and services like Twitter and other social networking sites, people are shooting off impressions even before they form in any coherent opinion. Thinking and expression have become more of an attitude and style than presenting a substantive set of views, and we can see this events such as Occupy Wall Street. It’s as if anyone with a snarky witticism is an instant philosopher and revolutionary. It is the intellectual and political equivalent of the hook-up culture. Just as modern dicks and poons of the new generation connect and disconnect at breakneck speed without much in the way of social or emotional development or commitment, ideas and views shoot back and forth like ping pong balls with ever fewer people having the patience to gather and shape their feelings and opinions into anything resembling thought. (Maybe the devices should be called wePhone, wePod, and wePad.) Thus, experience of life turns into a kind of collage of snippetry of views, feelings, images, sounds, etc. Everything is a clip of something. This has, of course, been a problem ever since the advent of the remote control and cable TV. With the remote, even if everything on TV was rotten, one just kept flipping channels like playing a slot machine in the mindless drone-like hope that something good will pop up. Thus, one doesn’t so much watch TV as play TV. But prior to hyper-connected hand-held devices, channel surfing was a problem in the home. One was a free autonomous person outside, in the streets, library, park, etc. But devices like the iPad and iPhones—and other products by other companies of course—have made it possible for people to be hooked up all the time. Many people seem to think this is hip and liberating, but is it really? Isn’t there something infantile about the need to be/feel connected, umbilical-cord-like, to familiar places, people, and voices wherever one goes? When I see some foreigners with cellphones stuck to their ears in American malls, I think they’re using their devices like security blankets or teddy bears. Being in another country, the fact that they hear a familiar voice from 1000s miles away has a calming effect; it makes them feel like they’re still at ‘home’. When the entire world is turned, emotionally and socially, into one’s living room or bedroom, there is a kind of reality warp. It’s like people bringing dvds and video games on camping trips. I can understand this emotional need, but maybe we need to resist this over-dependence; and kids need to be reminded that the world is not their ‘home’. When I went on a camping trip alone last year, there were moments when I was overcome with disorientation in the wilderness. There were times when I wished I could watch some TV, even junk TV, just to feel some sense of familiarity. But had I given into such temptations, what would have been the point of the trip?

Despite Apple’s ad motto of ‘Think Different’, many people seem to be flocking to Apple products to own a piece of sameness, not only in iconic hipness but in feeling connected to ‘home’ and ‘friends’ at all times. Connected via Apple products wherever one goes, one can always be in the same state of mind. Of course, Apple users will be connected to different people, but they will all share the sameness in their sacrifice of private autonomy for the buzz of the linked community. Thus, Apple devices may look sophisticated and advanced, but what they’re pandering to the infantile need for people to cling to and suckle on something. .

The problem posed by Apple products is an extension of the dilemma plaguing mankind since the very beginning: namely that something of great value when used intelligently will almost certainly not be used intelligently by the multitudes—worse, it may be used to cause great harm to the very fabric of society. In the modern world, given the social, economic, and/or political benefits of popularizing certain concepts, icons, and values(or counter-values) for the mass consumer, even intelligent people cannot resist profiting from the vulgarization of their ideas. Of course, smart original people often despair of what have become of their visions or arguments. In the 60s, many smart people in arts & culture argued for more sexuality and violence in cinema on grounds of fuller artistic expression; since sexuality and violence are part of reality, why should important artists be denied the freedom to express their vision? American cultural commentators often invoked the artistic superiority of European/Japanese cinema with greater leeway for sex and violence. Thus, more violence and sexuality became nearly synonymous with better art and social truth; heightened sex and violence were associated with Ingmar Bergman(in films like VIRGIN SPRING, SILENCE, and PERSONA), Antonioni, Godard, Resnais, and the like. And one of the most violent directors of the 50s and early 60s, Akira Kurosawa, gained the status as one of the premier film-makers in the world. Compared to the fuller expression of these ‘foreign films’, American cinema’s do’s and don’ts seemed quaint, even downright repressive. When greater violence and sexuality were finally given the green light in American cinema, they were famously conveyed in landmark films such as BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE WILD BUNCH, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE GODFATHER, and etc. The collaboration of the Italian filmmaker Bernado Bertolucci and the American movie star Marlon Brando in a film made in France, LAST TANGO IN PARIS, seemed to seal the international consensus that more freedom and candidness would lead to greater art and truth. In those heady days, there was still important debates about sex and violence, their implications and possibilities; most cultural commentators seemed to be on the side of freer expression. But what eventually became of most of this freedom? In sexual expression, it meant the mindless porn-ization of culture(to the point where even cartoons seen by young kids are filled with porn references and where our pop music culture is essentially soft-core interracist kiddie porn). In terms of violence, it meant mindless bloodbaths, sock-em-chop-em beat-up-fests, and lots of things blowing up for the sake of blowing up. And all too often, even genuine works of art go misunderstood by the audience who can’t tell the difference between GOODFELLAS and SCARFACE. (When A CLOCKWORK ORANGE inspired copycat crimes in England, Kubrick had the film pulled from theaters. He made it as a thought experiment, but many young people saw it as a manifesto of nihilism.) I suspect John Boorman made THE GENERAL as a counter-GOODFELLAS, not so much because he thought Scorsese got it wrong but because most people, being what they are, would get the movie wrong. Scorsese’s intention was to show the allure of the gangster life while, at the same time, unflinchingly fixing our gaze at the petty cruelty and sociopathic thuggery of organized crime, but there were too many people in the theater laughing at it all. (Though Americans are more sarcastic than ever, they don’ t seem to be very keen on irony, which isn’t the same thing. For example, all those people who worship Jobs and Apple seem to be blind to the irony behind the campaign of ‘Think Different’. And all those secular liberal rationalists seem to miss the irony of their near-religious devotion to Obama. But then, conservatives aren’t any better. Don’t they note anything weird about praying to Jesus for more wars in the Middle East?) During the 60s, there was the problem of drug use. Initially championed by cautious intellectuals like Aldous Huxley in the 50s and then taken up by Harvard psychologists like Timothy Leary, it soon unleashed mass lunacy among young people who thought instant enlightenment came with pot smoking or tripping on LSD to the Grateful Dead. Worse, many kids began taking drugs not for any higher, spiritual, or creative purpose but simply to party. What Huxley had hoped would serve as the anti-soma(mind-numbing drugs in BRAVE NEW WORLD)became a kind of hyper-soma. And even some serious people, for whatever reasons—arrogance, vanity, power, madness, etc—, chose to embrace the vulgarization of what had originated as a serious idea. By the mid 60s, Timothy Leary became the pied-piper of the Counterculture.
This is as true of guns and religions as with drugs and art. Make guns available to a whole bunch of Negroes, and there’s going to be perpetual civil war. Give religion to the masses, and it will often degenerate into mass lunacy, which is one reason why the Catholic Church insisted on a strict hierarchy whereby Church doctrine would be decided at the top and not be vulgarized by the ever changing passions/fashions of the masses. (The problems of the Catholic Church highlight the dangers of the ultra-elitist approach as well.) Make available lots of prescription drugs to the masses, and every insipid clod with trivial aches and emotional ‘problems’ will demand more drugs. In many cases, smart people know there’s a lot of abuse of legal drugs by people who shouldn’t take them, but smart people also know they can make a lot of money by investing in and inventing such drugs. Who cares if it’s good or bad as long as it can make you rich? Perhaps the willingness of super-rich people to fund philanthropic causes betrays their sense of guilt regarding how they made their money: vulgarizing their products to the point where they do more harm than good for society. Is there really any great pride in having concocted expensive but essentially useless drugs marketed to the gullible masses who wanna take anything to feel better? But then, mass consumers deserve a lot of blame too. Many don’t seem to be interested in finding a real cure; instead, they take some perverse pleasure in knowing they’re so ‘fuc*ed-up’. Having aches and pains conforms to the values of our victimological age, and being ‘neurotic’ and needing drugs means that maybe you’re sophisticated and complicated, even cool. After all, many famous artists and celebrities seem to have emotional problems and be dependent on drugs(as well on psycho-analysis).
The vulgarization-dilemma also plagues the high-tech industry, perhaps more acutely than in other areas. Social commentators often express anxiety about ‘rich getting richer and poor getting poorer’; some say the poor are getting poorer because the rich are getting richer. (Personally, I don’t see the poor getting poorer since they keep receiving government benefits that increase every year—under Bush and Obama. Besides, the poor pay no taxes, and many show no desire or will power to better themselves. They seem to think they are entitled to ever expanding litany of ‘rights’, which means they should receive more free everything. The sector of America that may really getting poorer is the middle class and the working class, much of it owing to globalization, which has vastly enriched the upper class and the government class; status and statism are what the new economy is about.) Similarly, one could say the smart are getting smarter and dumber are getting dumber; paradoxically, it could even be said the dumber are getting dumber because the smart are getting smarter. It’s often been said one of Jobs’ main goals was to make computers-and-related-devices simpler to use. In one part of the Isaacson’s book, we hear of some illiterate kid in South America picking up an iPad and learning to use it on the spot though he’d never touched a computer before. (I suppose it’s kinda like the Moonwatcher ape-man in 2001 coming up the monolith.) On the one hand, it’s an inspiring story of how Apple produced something that can bring the world together, something that can be understood and used by just about anyone. (Something similar had been said of the AK-47, a rifle so easy to use that even a child can learn to disassemble, clean, and reassemble in 15 minutes.) Imagine the access to the world of knowledge for any child around the globe with something like an iPad. And most of us, who know little or nothing about computers, can only marvel at the ultra-fine and brilliant engineering and design that went into creation of such devices. Apple might as well change its name to Appeal. But the downside of the ease of use means a whole bunch of dummies will be ‘empowered’ with so little input on their part. Should so much information, fun, and even power be made available to so many people, many of whom are useless and anti-social? This is not an economic question. I’m all for the right of Apple to make whatever it wants to make, and I’m all for consumers freely choosing. Rather, it is a moral question. After all, the number of people involved in—indeed are capable of—hightech research and innovation are relatively few in number. As their knowledge and smarts in their special field increase by leaps and bounds—to the point where most of us have absolutely no clue what they’re doing and probably wouldn’t understand even if we spent years studying the subject—, we are left with no choice but to be mindless and uncomprehending consumers whose lives have become intricately linked and inseparably bound to technology created by a neo-Brahmin class. I fear the IQ differences between the super-smart and the very dumb might gradually become like the difference between man and ape. Cerebral may become the new racial, or cerebracial; indeed, it already feels as though we are all ruled by the elite of super-intelligent Ashkenzai Jews with control over just about everything. Though Jews are generally smarter, not all Jews are very smart, so the new elite is made up of super-smart Jews, super-smart whites, and some super-smart Asians. Though smart people always had an edge over most people, the power/tyranny of intelligence was checked in the past by the role of Church, military class, and political class. In the End-of-History triumph of liberal democracy, economic power accrued from social freedom is the real source of power. More freedom means more power of the super-smart over the less smart. (To be sure, democracy allows the masses of dummies to vote for higher taxes to ‘take from the rich and give to the poor’, but even the government has now come under the control of the Jewish oligarch class. People like Cass the ass Sunstein basically wanna use government to control us like guinea pigs. Given that Obama the ‘socialist’ is essentially the creation of super-rich Jews, it cannot be said that democracy represents the power of the masses, especially since most people will think what the mass media tell them what to think; who owns the mass media? Super-rich Jews.) With rise of high-tech, super-smart people have a tremendous advantage over dumb people. Also, when science and technology weren’t so advanced, a man like Henry Ford or Thomas Edison—very smart men but not super-geniuses—could use their ingenuity and pragmatic intuition to do great things. But as technology becomes ever more advanced, it’s gonna be survival of the fittest at the top—along with token well-connected people like the Clintons, Gores, and Obamas, who will serve as public relations people for Silicon Valley Jews. In this sense, Jobs, though hailed as a futurist visionary, may be one of the last of his kind, for his strengths were more akin to the intuitiveness of an Edison or Ford than the super-genius that defines the Google Kids, Brin and Page.

There was a time when only a few could read while the vast unwashed couldn’t. So, the ability to read was almost a sacred power. In ancient India, only the Brahmin could read stuff like the Rig Veda. Today, most people can read, but how many can read computer codes, which is like the new Sanskrit of the hightech age? Though computers have become more user-friendly and easier, their codes have become more complex. For most of us, the study of the advanced science of computers is like learning to read DNA codes. It’s only for the experts. Super-smart people who understand computers are out to make a lot of money by offering products to the masses, and since the masses are dumb, easier the device the better. Things like iPod, iPhone, and iPad may look cool and smart—and one might feel cooler and smarter to have them—, but their appeal is they can be operated even by a dumbass. Since the super-smart keep inventing, producing, promoting, and marketing things that assure us that we can stay dumb—and become even dumber—and still enjoy the latest in high-technology, one could argue that, in an odd way, smarter our technology becomes, dumber the rest of us become. The creativity and genius needed to make these products demand higher intelligence at the top, but the childlike ease of these products means that we can be like that illiterate Latin American kid.
Now, of course, the objective of any company is to create products that are friendly and useful to the consumer. Who would build a car that requires the user to know lots about cars? And most people, including myself, wouldn’t want a ‘difficult’ car. And of course, making our lives easy in one area frees us to invest more time to be more creative in our own respective fields. If cars can easily take us from place A to place B, we can use the saved time and energy for whatever we need to do. Imagine if Einstein had to spend hours every day cooking and going from place A to place B. So, for people in the high-tech field, creative field, or innovative field, technology that makes their lives and activities faster, easier, and more efficient is a great boon. Where would much of American economy be if everyone owned a Model T?
But what applies to the elites doesn’t apply to the masses, many or perhaps most of whom will never have a knack for achieving anything in life. The most obvious example of the problems caused by the easy availability of services and products like social networking and cell phones is black flash mobs. It’s almost like apes equipped with high-tech gadgets. When a dumb Negro kid holds a cell phone in his hand or takes part in social networking, not an ounce of thought is involved. Instead, it just riles up his ego to go wild, and the extent of his ‘creative’ use of such devices is to hook up with a bunch of other thugs to go robbing stores and beating up people. When a Negro kids look at something like an iPhone, he doesn’t for a minute wonder how it was created or what kind of effort, ingenuity, and brilliance went into its development. He just sees it a cool toy to fuc* with so he can fuc* up more people. It only makes him more ‘niggerish’.

But even among non-violent kids, there’s something pathetic about their robotic fixation with such devices. You can see them everywhere, the mindless drones who sit for hours staring at their iPhones or iPads, sending insipid texts back and forth, as if they need to feel connected to familiarities at all times. Given the reality of the IQ gap and the fact that most people will never play any meaningful role in an innovative or creative field, the mass availability of devices such as Apple products may dissolve the souls of young people in a pool of goo. Of course, one could argue that if such devices didn’t exist, the dummies would simply be dumb in other areas. If Negroes didn’t have iPhones, they’d dribble a basketball, watch TV, or shake their booties to rap music all day. If white trash didn’t have high-tech devices, they might just go outside with BB guns and shoot squirrels, which would actually be worse than being an Apploid drone. It’s not as if, in the absence of high-tech devices, most people are gonna take music lessons or read THE DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Even so, I find something disturbing about countless young people so devoid of thought having access to things created with so much intelligence and brilliance, especially when the technology of genius is too often used for idiocy, violent or non-violent. If TV was called the idiot box, iPad might be called the idiot plate.

But there’s another problem. Though the top talents in Silicon Valley are surely many times more intelligent than most of us, there is something queasy about so much wealth, power, and influence flowing to the geekocracy or nerdocracy, many of whose members are tawdry and insipid outside their narrow field of genius. According to the biography, Jobs was special as a kind of insider/outsider in the computer community. He didn’t fit the image of the hacker geek that comes to mind when we think of computers. His expertise wasn’t in computer engineering; he was more a leader of geeks than a true geek. Indeed, one of the running themes in the book is Jobs’ aesthetics, taste, and dream of synthesizing science with the humanities. So, if most geeks have brains but no taste—with Bill Gates being a typical example—, Jobs and his proteges represent the cultivation of science as art.

But, here’s the problem. I don’t see what was so special about the Macintosh even in the context of the 80s computer scene. Okay, so it looked better than other computers, but I still don’t much artistic merit. It turns out Jobs’ position became more tenuous at Apple, until he was finally ousted from the company altogether. And this might have effectively ended his career as a key player in the industry. His next company, fittingly called NeXT, didn’t go anywhere, not least because Jobs had a poor grip of reality in terms of what was possible and practical. What made Jobs’ second act possible owed to luck—and the total lack of taste among the American public in my not-so-humble opinion. It was the success of Pixar. George Lucas, embroiled in divorce proceedings, needed cash and sold his computer animation company to others, among whom Jobs was the most prominent. Thus, John Lasseter, who started working for Lucas, ended up with Jobs, and the company they built together, Pixar, made (computer)animation history, delivering one blockbuster after another. This is what made the second coming of Jobs possible. Typically, Jobs expounded on the success of Pixar movies as proof of the importance of creativity and taste in technology. My views on Pixar movies probably relegate me to the dissenter’s corner since both critics and the masses seem to love Pixar movies. I still say Pixar movies are utterly tasteless. Every character looks like a bouncy-wouncy and rubbery digital gumby or goofy Stretch Armstrong. Though some Pixar movies are made with lots of wit and razzle-dazzle, the overall impression ranges from ugly to overly cute. And for all the fireworks, there’s little wonder and magic. When you watch a Disney classic, the beauty of the story and images lingers long after it’s over. But when a Pixar movie ends, it really ends. They are like roller-coaster rides with lots of thrills—some of them executed with dizzying brilliance—but no real vision. It’s like being caught inside a pinball game, bouncing all around, but without any narrative or emotional coherence. TOY STORY strikes me as one of the ugliest children’s movies ever made. I skipped most Pixar movies, but praise for FINDING NEMO was lavish that I gave it a chance. It was like just obnoxious from beginning to end. The action, as in AVATAR, was so non-stop, thrill-a-minute, and insane, I wished the barracudas had eaten Nemo too. I will admit INCREDIBLES and UP have their moments, but they don’t leave any lasting impression. Pixar movies are incapable of delivering the kind of emotional climax to be found in SLEEPING BEAUTY or LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY.
There have been two main schools of animation: the beautiful and the grotesque. Disney generally made its name with beauty while Warner Brothers Looney Tunes were the masters of the grotesque. (Disney did produce characters like Donald Duck, but they were ‘safe’ and adorable compared to the truly wild characters like the great Daffy.) Though I can admire the greatest achievements of Disney, I prefer Looney Tunes with its wild and grotesque characters, especially Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Sylvester, and of course the king of them all, Daffy Duck. One could say there’s a stronger Jewish element in the grotesque form of animation; one may even find parallels between Looney Tunes with Jewish vaudeville comedy and modern art with its distorted shapes(and subversive irreverence). Generally, grotesque-animation has depended on wit and inventiveness while beauty-animation focused on purity and vision. Beauty-animation may also be said to be elitist while grotesque-animation is populist, but this isn’t exactly true since wit is a rare attribute. So, while grotesque-animation, in its irreverence and identification with the underdog, may seem to represent populist sentiments, they could also be said to represent the supremacy of elitist Jewish wit over the pretty but dimwit goyim. After all, Bugs Bunny the Jew-like rabbit is always puling a fast one on goy archetypes like Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, and the Tasmanian Devil. In contrast, though beauty-animation appears elitist in their emphasis on prettiness, there are probably more attractive people than smart people. Also, smarts usually trump looks, which is why so many ugly Jews, with their higher IQs, own pretty goy actors and actresses in Hollywood, sports, music, porn, etc. Generally, it’s not pretty people who have power over smart people but smart people who have power over pretty people. (I suppose if you’re pretty and smart like Natalie Portman and Paul Newman, you can have the best of both worlds.) An ugly guy with lots of money has greater mating power than a pretty boy with little money. A poor pretty white girl with a poor handsome white boyfriend will run off to an ugly rich Jew at the drop of a hat. And these fears are reflected in some Disney movies based on fairytales such as SNOW WHITE, CINDERELLA, and the like. In both stories, the pretty character is oppressed by the less pretty or downright ugly; it’s as if a pure-hearted and pretty but not-too-bright goy girl is dragged through the mud by powerful ugly Jewesses, which would have fitted into Disney’s general dislike of Jews and their cultural influence. As America grew freer, less inhibited, more rebellious, and wilder, the culture of grotesquery overshadowed the power of beauty. Bob Dylan was like a walking, talking, and singing Looney Tunes character. Disney experienced steady decline since the late 50s. Without the guidance of Disney, the rising costs of animation, and changing tastes, it became less and less relevant. Of course, all animation studios faced the same problem, and few classic animation of any kind was created in the 60s. Even so, the two most successful animation works of the 60s, FLINSTONES and JETSONS were on the grotesque side. One of the advantage of grotesquery over beauty is the former allows for greater wit. Beauty has either a fragile or stiff quality; it breaks if mishandled or it is unyielding in classic poise; so, it has to be handled with great care or left alone in its narcissism. (The femme fatale is interesting as a kind of dark beauty whose shadow belies its outward appearance.)
But since the grotesque is ugly to begin with, you can play with it like playdo and do lots of strange things. (This is why so many movies adapted from serious works tend to fare worse than movies based on trashy works. In awe of a serious novel, the filmmaker dutifully goes into stiff respectable mode, whereas free-wheeling creativity may be unleashed when handling trash.) Since beauty, especially the generic kind in popular culture, can be boring and since TV entertainment called for new thrills for restless viewers, wit became essential to entertainment. Also, if people enjoy anything, it’s to laugh, which is more instantly pleasurable than staring at beauty or feeling moral(with stuff like THE WALTONS or LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE). Humor, in its orgasmic pleasurableness, is like porn for the belly.
Though Jews saw the cultural advantage of favoring witty grotesquery over pure beauty—since Jews were known for their wit and grotesqueness than for beauty and dignity—, they were smart enough to hedge their bets. While many Jews gained prominence in the area of wit and irreverence, another bunch of Jews wallowed in the neo-fascism of American superhero comic books. By creating techno/mytho-fascist superheroes like Superman, Batman, Ironman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, and the like—most of whom were ‘Aryan’ archetypes—, Jews also came to own the appeal of ‘will to power’. But since these techno-mytho-fascist superheroes were often and officially at war with the Nazis and fighting for democracy, they were said to be anti-fascist. They were fascist tropes employed either to battle fascism or to enable Jews to own fascism as a iconic weapon and cash cow. The Jewish creation of Obama as a kind of superman messiah isn’t dissimilar to how Jewish comic book artists created the superheroes. Actually, Obama is all the stranger for he is the beauty-Aryan-supermanization of what used to be considered ugly-and-grotesque. He is the product of a disgusting African radical having humped a disgusting leftist race-traitor mudshark. But since the biggest agenda of the Jew is to drive a wedge—in the form of the Negro penis—between the unity of the white man and white woman, the Jews have taken this putrid and grotesque creation of miscegenation and propped him up as a utopian ideal of what all Americans should shoot for. It’s the Jew Frontier. It is the Jewish Will to Destroy White Power. Thus, the jug-eared tarbaby who looks like Louis-Farrakhan-lite has been hyped and promoted as the new look of American beauty. And white liberal women, brainwashed by all the pop culture and public education, are trying so hard to make themselves believe that Michelle Obama is really smart and pretty. Jewish power over white people is indeed incredible.

Generally speaking, the lower-budget grotesque-entertainment dominates TV while beauty-entertainment(often fascist in style)dominates the big screens. It’s SIMPSONS and FAMILY GUY on TV and AVATAR and BATMAN on the big screen. Thus, Americans laugh like retards watching fat slobby characters spouting vulgar-witty dialogue in zany situations in TV cartoons and gape & gush in ecstatic awe at the mega-spectacles of Cameron, Spielberg, and Zemeckis. Be cynical with SOUTH PARK and be redeemed with LOR. Given that people want variety in entertainment as in anything else, this shouldn’t be surprising. But, it is somewhat unsavory given the extremes of our culture. While Looney Tunes were wild and crazy, they weren’t anti-human and disgusting, and while people loved grand Hollywood spectacles of yesteryear, they were understood as fantasy. So, the cultural divide between irreverence and reverence wasn’t as wide in the past as it is now. There is something a bit perverse about someone who laughs like a retard at the foulest jokes and situations in a putrid show like FAMILY GUY and then mushy-gushy weeps and believes in the redemptive power of FORREST GUMP or GREEN MILE. It’s like our emotions are geared to flip on and off between the polarities of extreme cynicism/misanthropy and extreme faith/devotion. And in the case of Oprah, you get the whole contradiction in one package. Oprah is a funny-looking woman, a fat hippo-like creature, indeed little more than an updated mammy act. Her fans seem to be drawn to her easy accessibility as something like a cartoon caricature. Yet, she has been hyped as a neo-spiritual figure second only to MLK himself. It’s almost as if Aunt Jemima has become the new god of Americans. Such stupidity couldn’t have been possible without the triumph of a debased pop culture, and there’s no question that much of this debasement was pushed by Jews—and because conservatives, in their creative mummification, had nothing to counter it with.

Anyway, if one looks at the general trajectory of American animation, it has emphasized grotesquery over beauty, wily wit over mythic posturing. Also, in the cases where the new Disney favored mythic beauty/poise over grotesquery, it’s been to serve multi-cultural agendas in works such as THE LION KING(wherein white children are made to identify with blacks as their soul parents), LITTLE MERMAID(where the white sea water enchantress boogies to Jamaican jigger-jive beat), BEAUTY AND THE BEAST(which, like SHREK, slips a miscegenationist message about how a white girl should go with some giant Negro-looking creature), POCAHONTAS(where some American-Indian woman sings likes a Negress), and MULAN(with a Chinese heroine and cross/dressing gay-feminist message). But even in these beauty-animations, notice how the looks are different from the more ‘Aryan’ model of original Disney works. The characters are either non-white or made to look more ‘ethnic’ or exotic. It’s as if Jews controlling popular culture are reluctant to showcase white beauty as white beauty worth preserving.
Now, for white beauty to survive in the future as white beauty, the white princess must go with the white prince and have white kids. But Jews want beautiful white women to hate white men and go with hook-nosed/hairy Jewish men or with mighty Negroes. So, new Disney is different from old Disney. Given this has become the new cultural standard, even white gentile filmmakers and animators don’t dare to create animation with proud Aryan princes and princesses. (300 the movie was an exception, but Hollywood probably approved it as neocon war porn directed at Iran. To be sure, there is an element of white mythic pride and power in the LOR series where shining white knights beat up and destroy literally millions of non-whites warriors and black Orcs, but then its main narrative focus is on the midgety Hobbits than on upstanding warrior heroes.)
Oddly enough, the main source of white beauty-mythic animation is Japan. In the late 80s, many cultural commentators noted and even criticized that Japanese animation characters looked ‘Aryan’. Some say Japanese animation or anime is a form of anti-miscegenationist propaganda, sort of pop-geek-Nazism. Yet, given that Japanese consumers of anime and manga(Japanese comic books often made into anime)consider the ‘Aryan’-looking characters in anime to be Japanese—and some characters, as in AKIRA seem to have both Asian and European features—, one could say anime is miscegenationist in the Eurasian way than in the mulatto way. Even so, given that the official cultural policy has been to uphold white/black race-mixing as THE highest ideal—with the Rock and other mixed-race wrestlers having replaced the likes of Hulk Hogan and Big Boss Man—, the popularity of anime has been upsetting to many liberals. (Anime is somewhat shielded from overt criticism since it’s created by non-whites, just as the ‘misogyny’ of rap music is overlooked because rap is black music. If anime were mostly created by conservative white males, it would probably come under far more cultural critical abuse.)

Japanese, being what they are, tend to be deficient in the wit department. If you compare Japanese ads—you can find tons on Youtube—and American ads, you can tell Japanese ads tend to be crazier than American ones. Since Jews dominate American advertising, the ads tend to emphasize design and wit. Since Japanese lack advanced wit, they rely more on sheer ‘nonsensu’ zaniness. Being deficient in wit, anime tends to favor heroism, beauty, and action. For some American viewers, this may seem ‘fascist’, ‘elitist’, and anti-human. (It also seems a bit pathetic since most Japanese look nothing like the characters in anime.) A Jewish friend of mine once told me his mother rented out MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO to show to her grandkids but turned it off in 20 minutes because she found it ‘evil’. Now, ‘evil’ is a strong word. Why would anyone find something ‘evil’ about a cartoon about two girls befriending a big lovable monster named Totoro? Could it be the suggestive element of pedophilia in Miyazaki’s work, something which I’ve detected too, by the way? (Miyazaki’s female characters up to PORCO ROSSO teeter between adorable innocence and blossoming womanhood, and there may even be an excessive fetish for girly panties and suggest camera angles—which once led to a debate as to whether Nausicaa wears an underwear beneath her skirt. In LAPUTA, the villain says Sheeta, the young prepubescent heroine, is to be his wife so they can start a new whole new race of Laputaeans. In PORCO ROSSO, the pig pilot hero fights a full grown man for the right to own, presumably sexually, some young girl. I wonder if Miyazaki was fighting his own demons in a way.) Or, was my friend’s mother offended by the fact that MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO emphasizes natural wonder and human beauty over wit and cleverness? (I was told she really loves HARRY POTTER. Now, I find THAT evil.) Did she find in the paganist nature worship of TOTORO something akin to the nature-worshiping Teutonism of German culture? I don’t know, but I can see how Jews would not be too crazy about anime, even as they admire its certain aspects. (There are some pretty good works of anime from the 80s, especially GUNBUSTER, NAUSICAA, LAPUTA, BUBBLEGUM CRISIS, URUSEI YATSURA ONLY YOU, SPACE ADVENTURE COBRA, and few others, but the creative well dried up by the early 90s and nearly anime since should be avoided like a plague. Oddly enough, Miyazaki reached his greatest fame and acclaim in the 90s and 2000s with MONONOKE HIME, SPIRTED AWAY, and HOWLING WOLF CASTLE, but I say MH is a misguided failure and SA and HWC are absolute disasters. Eventually Disney bought the right to distribute Miyazaki movies around the world, but I wonder if Disney did this to bury Miyazaki, for none of his movies was properly promoted, which is especially upsetting with NAUSICAA and LAPUTA, which, in terms of vision and imagination, are perhaps the greatest works in animation history. LILO AND STITCH is a near-perfect melding of the best of American wit with Japanese imagination; it’s like an irreverent and endlessly inventive twist on TOTORO.)

The works of Pixar, as far as I can tell, tend to be bigger on grotesquery than beauty. I found most of FINDING NEMO way too ugly. And the fat China boy in UP made me sick, as did the big fat nosed and massive drooping jawed old man. I don’t mind caricatures as caricatures but I must protest when animation asks me to feel human emotions for what are incredibly ugly, weird, funny, or gross-looking creatures. (For one thing, animation lacks the moral/emotional depth of HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME to humanize grotesqueness, which, in animation, is used to primarily make us laugh.) Though I’m aware of the wit and cleverness of THE SIMPSONS, I could never stomach the ‘humanization’ of its repulsively retarded characters. The episode where Krusty the Klown turns out to be Jewish, which then elicits a moral lecture from Bart(from all people!)about tolerance just made me feel sick; it’s like madonna yammering about spirituality. Or when we are asked to sympathize with the gross Homer as a real character with genuine feelings, it’s like asking us to hold a blanket of shit and pretend it’s a baby. I hate SOUTHPARK too, but at least it has a certain consistency: it’s shit made by shitheads. Ugly and grotesque can be funny and amusing, but it just doesn’t work when it begs for empathy. This isn’t to suggest that we shouldn’t love or sympathize with ugly people, deformed people, mangy homeless dogs, etc. Life is filled with misfortunes and accidents, and human dignity isn’t just about looks; the film ELEPHANT MAN made this point eloquently. For Christians, there’s the story of Jesus going among the lepers and saving a whore from self-righteous people who would stone her. But, in total contrast, ludicrously ugly characters and gross creatures in animation were made for the purpose of amusement; so, when ‘artists’ create such figures for fun but then ask us to emote with them as if they’re real people with three dimensional feelings, it just doesn’t work. This is why I love BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD. They are ugly and grotesque and meant to be taken that way. They never tug at our emotions. And though I’m not a big fan of KING OF THE HILL, I can see how that works too. It engages our emotions, but then, its characters are recognizably human. They are not disgusting freaks of THE SIMPSONS.

As far as I can make out, John Lasseter, the top creative figure at Pixar, doesn’t have an ugly soul like the smug Matt Groenig, the trashy Trey Parker & Matt Stone, and the foul creatures behind FAMILY GUY. Watching THE SIMPSONS is like smelling the ass-fumes from Groenig’s crack. Parker and Stone’s infantile brand of libertarianism mistakes mere bad manners and rudeness for honesty, courage, and truth. FAMILY GUY is cartoon comedy as porn. The works of Pixar have a certain sweetness—though way too sweet for my taste—, and I can see why so many parents and their children love them. (Besides, there isn’t much decent and ‘safe’ entertainment for kids, which also explains why something as stupid as HARRY POTTER has been vastly overpraised.) And given the amazing cutting-edge visual fireworks of Pixar works, I suppose there’s something for adults too—though it’s precisely the kind of graphics I don’t much like.
That said, Pixar works are too grotesque to be beautiful and moving, and too sweet and cute to be really fun. We are back to the problem of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, the creations of Disney that I never liked. When it came to beautiful or lavish fairytales and children’s fantasies, Disney in its heyday was second to none. But when it came to far-out funny stuff, it couldn’t hold a candle to the madhouse antics of Looney Tunes. With Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, you knew anything was possible. With Mickey and Donald, you knew everything ultimately had to cute and cuddly, inoffensive. For Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck—odd-looking critters—to really work, they needed to be wilder and crazier(as with Popeye characters). Mickey Mouse may remain one of the great icons of 20th century popular culture, but no one wants to see Mickey Mouse cartoons anymore whereas classic Looney Tunes remain as popular as ever—and still ahead-of-its-time in many ways. The problem of Pixar movies is they are, at once, to ugly-crazy and too cute-sweet. I couldn’t stand to look at the chubby gooey-looking Chinaboy and the repulsive-looking old man in UP and feel anything for them. Also, the inventive cleverness—in which UP abounds—turns into a kind of clutter as there’s too much of a good thing, never allowing the narrative or any emotion to set into gear. LAPUTA has lots of crazy action, but there are moments when time stands still, giving us a chance to take in the grandeur or wonder of it all : consider the scene where the girl’s necklace stone lights up minerals of the cave rock like galactic constellations; or when the boy, navigating the glider through a thunder storm, hallucinates the apparition of his lost father; or, when the girl, facing the arch villain at the end, explains why the civilization of the sky castles failed. These moments are not just beautiful but linger long after the movie is over. Pixar movies, in contrast, certainly offer lots of bang-for-the-buck, but there’s no emotional payoff at the end of the rainbow. When they’re over, they’re really over. Remember at the end of TRUMAN SHOW, how right after Truman’s saga is over, a guy glued to the TV switches to something else? The emotions of Pixar movies work the same way. It’s full of movie magic, but there’s nothing really magical; it’s like watching kiddie cereal commercials that go on forever. (“Silly Rabbit, TRIX are for kids!”) And though they’re packed with wit and ingenuity, there is no sense of strangeness and mystery. Mere weirdness is not same as strangeness. Though Disney’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND is far from perfect, it really takes you places. It’s like an adult story for children, whereas Pixar movies are, at best, children’s stories for adults. Works like ALICE IN WONDERLAND, LAPUTA, and PINOCCHIO offer children a glimpse of a reality(psychological no less than physical)beyond the familiar comfort zones of the kiddie realm. In contrast, for all the wit and brilliance, Pixar movies only serve up comforting time-worn cliches, albeit via the graphics of new technology.

People make such breathless claims about Pixar movies’ state-of-the-art-cutting-edge-ness, but this is to mistake technology with vision. Needless to say, better technology allows greater realization of vision. When used properly, it can produce masterworks like 2001, BLADE RUNNER, and TRON LEGACY. Those are movies with vision + technology. But when technology itself becomes confused with vision, the result is something as dreary as Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS and Cameron’s AVATAR. I think a lot of people were fooled by their scale and/or the hype surrounding the new technology. Images of 100,000s of gigabyte warriors clashing and non-stop big-screen video-game gimcrackery of LOR were enough to impress not only millions of moviegoers but movie critics who should have known better. They mistook visuals for vision; worse, I don’t think the visuals amounted to much except in the final installation, RETURN OF THE KING, but more for the sheer scale than quality. It’s like the battle scenes in the Soviet version of WAR AND PEACE are impressive for the mere fact that they were and still remain the biggest production of their kind.
AVATAR was considerably worse than LOR trilogy, but hey, it offered a new kind of 3D experience(from the man who made TITANIC), so all the suckers lined up to see it again and again. I If you want real vision, go with EXCALIBUR and 13THE WARRIOR.

I detect a psycho-cultural link between the great success of AVATAR-LOR-Pixar-movies and Apple products, the mindset being that nothing is hipper than ingenuity for ingenuity’s sake and technology for technology’s sake. This is all the more weird, even offensive, when we consider that these movies and products are promoted as counter-cultural, organic & pro-nature, and visionary objects. In truth, AVATAR is a complete perversion of real nature, Pixar movies are too busy manipulating the audience to settle into real storytelling and character-development, and LOR is European-pagan mythology reduced to dungeons-and-dragons arcade game. Not having used Apple products, I’m willing to accept that they are indeed works of engineering genius.
Also, there is a crucial difference between Apple products and so-called ‘visionary’ movies. Apple produces technology as technology whereas creative people like Jackson, Cameron, and Lasseter pretend to use of technology to convey higher truth or deeper emotion. Technology can succeed for technology-sake, and one could even argue that Apple products go beyond technology and possess, in their design and elegance, artistic value, a view I’m willing to accept. But, movies are not merely about technology but about using technology to put forth a poetic, mythic, or spiritual vision. But when one watches stuff like AVATAR, LOR, and Pixar movies, one gets the impression that the prevailing ‘taste’ among many culture critics and the audience is to conflate technology with vision. This problem is actually nothing new but has been made worse by the fact that we’ve become more tech-obsessed than ever—not least thanks to the promotional hype of companies like Apple. When RETURN OF THE JEDI was released in 1984, there was a heated debate on Nightline(then hosted by Ted Koppel)between Roger Ebert & Gene Siskel on one hand and John Simon on the other. Though I disagree with Simon on many things—probably most things—, how prescient he was about the future of cinema.

Simon agrees the technology of RETURN OF THE JEDI is amazing but fears the dazzle may blind the audience to the movie’s lack of meaningful vision, story, and characters. Siskel and Ebert, on the other hand, were uncritical cheerleaders of the blockbuster mentality, painlessly adapting to new cultural outlook of the late 70s and 80s. Nowadays, most young people go to movies to the latest offering in ‘cutting edge’ special effects. Never mind IRONMAN, TRANSFORMERS, and SPIDERMAN movies are awful in most respects. If they zap the audience, they’re THE cool thing at the moment. (On the other hand, with the prominence of youtube vlogs, cell phone cameras, reality TV, and the like, we also seem to be drifting into a new primitivism. Could the wild success of movies like BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITIES indicate a growing preference for personal expression? Or, are they, in their own, no less techno-centric than the big spectacles? After all, the real main character of BLAIR WITCH is the camcorder, as if to say technology is now so cheaply available that it goes wherever we go. And PARANORMAL ACTIVITIES isn’t so much low-budget horror movie as but a low-budget horror concept about how technology permeates every aspect of our lives, even to the point of videotaping ghosts in middle class suburban homes. And, the new primitivism also confuses technology with vision. The makers seem to bestow value on something for the simple fact that it’s been shot. “I shoot, therefore I create.” It’s like the creative process has been reversed; technology isn’t so much servicing an idea/vision as the idea/vision is ‘created’ by the simple use of technology.)
Again, this isn’t to knock technology itself. A master like Spielberg knows how to use technology in service of a vision. The scene where the paleontologists fix their gaze on dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK is as magical today as when first screened. The technology doesn’t just call attention to itself. The latest installment of INDIANA JONES series—KINGDOM OF CRYSTAL SKULL—works for the same reason. Hacks like Michael Bay have no grasp of film grammar and no sense of wonderment; they are merely effects drive, mechanical than organic, and their film language consists of visual texting of ‘wham’, ‘bam’, ‘pow’, etc. In a way, the rise of 3D movies is only a natural extension of prevailing trends. I do not attack the technology per se, but it may be that for most people, 3D is less a creative possibility as the fulfillment of virtual connection with the fantasy itself, regardless of how tawdry the fantasy may be. So, the feeling of being directly connected with the world of AVATAR has its parallel in the need for people to feel directly linked at all times to the global network through devices like iPad; they’ve become iddicts. Connectivity has become a kind of addictivity. The problem was never with Jobs melding software and hardware into a seamless unit. The problem, even danger, lies in the power of new technology to dissolve the barrier between reality and fantasy into a kind of zone called ‘virtuality’, which may not be so virtuous. Who knows? As artificial intelligence and seamless organic designs making machines more lifelike, maybe we, in turn, will become more machinelike with implants and the like, equipping us with the sixth sense or inner-dream-sense powered by artificial software. If such day arrives, Apple will have played a role in paving the way. And we’ll be so amazed by the technology and its possibilities—and companies will be so thrilled by the money to be made—that we won’t give much thought to its full implications.

Anyway, the second coming of Steve Jobs probably wouldn’t have been possible if not for the misfortune of George Lucas(with his costly divorce proceedings), the talents of John Lasseter(the real brains and creative spirit behind Pixar), and the sheer incompetency of people who ran Apple during Jobs’ absence. For these reasons, the stars aligned perfectly for Jobs’ triumphant return. Having being ‘exiled’ from Apple, maybe it also allowed him to approach and understand technology from more angles than he’d been used to.
Of course, he also had a great asset in the force of his personality. Mean and demanding personality without talent merely offends people and drives them away. But many tech wizards knew that Jobs was smart and a man with vision. So, when challenged by Jobs’ hostility, they were driven to excel even harder to win his alpha-male approval. This psycho-social dynamic is actually quite common. If a teacher is lazy and mean, you just despise and hate him. But if a teacher is serious, dedicated, and mean/demanding, you wanna work harder to prove your worth and win his respect. Jobs had a personality that was quirky, strong, and fascinating enough that many smart people not only felt the magnetic pull but wanted to prove their worth. Though Jobs’ arrogance and meanness could sometimes drive them away, his powerful vision thing had a way of pulling them back—to offer better ideas to win his respect and approval.
But there was another logic to Jobs’ managerial madness. It’s as though Jobs understood the revenge factor and knew how to harness to his own end. In boxing, the loser wants another chance to take on the champion. One wants to be a contender fighting the best, not a palooka fighting other palookas. Since Jobs played the champ and beat up on everyone, they wanted another chance to take to take on Jobs. But the only way they could beat Jobs was by offering better ideas. But when Jobs heard those better ideas, he, judo-like, grabbed them and used them to his own advantage. So, trying to beat Jobs by out-thinking him and coming up with better stuff only made Jobs stronger since his role was to take the best ideas of his workers and use them to develop new products—and even claim the ideas as his own. In a way, what Jobs did with his subordinates and colleagues was like what the shepherd did with the collie. Dogs have a natural instinct to attack sheep, but in the case of sheep herding dogs, the instinct to hunt sheep has been turned into an instinct to chase and herd sheep. Similarly, the natural instinct of his workers, after being abused by Jobs, was to take their revenge and attack Jobs, but their creative/innovative proposals to outdo Jobs merely allowed Jobs to take those ideas and use them as his own. Jobs knew how to harness their hostility toward creative ends. Whether Jobs understood what he was doing on an intellectual or intuitive level, we’ll never know.

The first third of the book is mainly about Jobs’ body odor. It could be called STINK DIFFERENT. We are told Jobs heartily embraced the Counterculture and its ideals, and this led to him to all sorts of weird diets. He thought if he ate only vegetables and certain fruits—and performed regular enemas—, his body would be free of odor, something his colleagues seriously disagreed with. The most disgusting part of the book involves Jobs walking around at work barefoot and then dipping his foot in the toilet for to relieve foot pain.
This is one of the great paradoxes of Jobs. He did so much to purify his inner body—by eating fresh organic fruits, fasting, and through intestinal purgation—, but he seemed to have been oblivious(for a time at least) to the grimy, sweaty, and stinkiness of his outer body. It seems he felt so clean inside that he thought his purity would naturally radiate outward without having to wash—except to dip his foot in the toilet bowl. Maybe there is a parallel between this side of Jobs and his overall business personality. It could be he was so outwardly offensive because he felt so righteous and pure on the inside. He felt so psychologically right that he failed to see how he could be wrong(to so many people)in the social realm. Jobs saw himself as a blunt person unafraid to speak the truth; it was as if his soul had been cleansed of deception and lies. Since he was on the side of truth, how could he really be offending people? If they felt offended, it was not his fault but their own. They felt offended because his pure truth exposed their compromises and lies. Jobs may have felt this way, but according to the book, he as often as not fooled himself and lied to himself as well as to others.
But his spiritual conceit(premised on Buddhism) and the power of his vision made him blind to the extent of his own deceptions and compromises. People who feel so right often do much wrong. But there was an another aspect of Jobs that prevented his defect from becoming fatal. If Jobs had been a political dictator raised with conservative values in the Middle East, his vanity might have gotten the best of him. But, though Jobs was born with a tyrannical personality, he grew up under the influence of 60s counterculture and underground-ism. It was the creative tension between his tyrannical and his rebellious nature that made him flexible when he needed to be. On the one hand, he could be a micro-manager like Stalin or Hitler(at least during WWII). But the difference is that while Hitler and Stalin could never admit they were wrong or give much credit to others, there was always a voice within Jobs that said, ‘keep your mind open’. So, even though the tyrannical side of Jobs did push his underlings around and he often took credit for work done by others, he also had a keen appreciation for talent and profusely rewarded many people around him as integral to the success of Apple. And at Pixar, he wasn’t going to argue that Lasseter wasn’t the real creative talent. So, in this way, the counterculture valued served Jobs well in business.
While it’s true that the biggest rebels often make the biggest tyrants, certain rebel-tyrants are wise enough cling to the spirit of rebellion even after they’ve amassed power, and it seems Jobs always reminded himself of where he came from. Of course, the nature of capitalism forced him to be open-minded and to adopt change. Jobs couldn’t just lean back like Castro and Gaddafi(once their power seemed secure) and coast on past achievements. Castro and Gaddafi, through their control of government and media, could take their power and righteousness for granted. But no business in an free economy can expect to win forever. It’s sink or swim, and Jobs was smart and energized enough to want to keep swimming.
Even so, one gets the impression that Jobs was not an emotionally rich or deep person. In the book, he often seems shallow and callous. And even his ‘taste’, though real enough in design, seemed to have been rather limited. There is something to be said for his preference for minimalism, but it’s almost as if Jobs had a near-phobia for the fullness of life’s experience. This partly comes through in his eating habits, often eating just one thing for days on end. He would go to a restaurant and taste just a little of this or that like a finicky cat. At its best, Jobs’ ‘taste’ and sensibility could be nimble enough to design elegant, smooth, and fine products made by Apple, but at its worst, it could be an intolerance for the fullness of life and reality.

Jobs’ preference for the ‘closed system’ seems partly to be an extension of his psycho-philosophy of life. Jobs dietary habits generally preferred one set of foods over another. He insisted on organic purity, and he generally disdained meat products. He insisted it was good for his health, but it wasn’t. If anything, his protein deficiency would worsen his problems with cancer. (Maybe his lack of proteins made him hungry to gnaw on his employees.) It was as if Jobs saw his body like a temple, and only good and pure things could enter the temple and nothing else. He was something of a dietary-xenophobe. And one might say his approach to computers was techno-xenophobic. He wanted the Apple system to be pure, a world unto its own. He didn’t want Apple products to be invaded by ‘foreign’ technology; he didn’t want the purity of Apple codes to ‘miscegenate’ with non-Apple programs. He wanted the internality and externality of Apple products to be of a unique whole incompatible with ‘impure’ systems lacking in ‘taste’.

Though Macintosh computers were heralded with an a 1984-themed anti-Big Brother TV commercial, Jobs’ vision of apple was a technological version of ‘racial purism’. Jobs wanted to maintain strict borders between Apple and other computer programs. And Jobs was furious when he thought the pure beauty of Apple systems were stolen by impure people. When the Google Kids came up with Android, an open system, to compete with iPhone, Jobs erupted much like the white supremacist who killed a Jewish plastic surgeon for ‘stealing Aryan beauty’ and grafting them onto non-‘Aryans’—a hot news item in the 90s.
When Jobs had no choice but to allow integration with non-Apple systems, he insisted it be done his way, with Apple setting the standards and policies, i.e. with Apple as the sun of cyber-solar system. It was kinda like Hitler’s idea of a united Europe where Germans would set the policies for all other nations to adhere to. Since Hitler knew some European nations were non-or-less-‘Aryan’ than Germany, he had no choice but to tolerate and work with them; but it had to be on his own terms; thus, Romania would be allowed to sell its agricultural produce to Germany but it would not be allowed to build its own industry; it would have to buy machine products from Germany.
Thus psychologically, despite his liberal politics, Jobs was something of ‘xenophobic purist’. In a way, his view of technology was rather like that of his biological grandfather. In the book, we are told that the grandfather could not accept his German-American Christian daughter having a kid with some Syrian-Muslim guy. Jobs, socially and politically influenced by counterculture, didn’t have such views on race and nation, but there was an element of exclusivist personality in his approach to food, health, and technology. To be sure, this aspect of Jobs could have been purely cultural and not genetic. Perhaps, it had something to do with his having grown up as a spoiled kid adored by his adoptive parents. Used to having everything his way, maybe he never developed a tolerance for things he didn’t like. (In a way, one could say Apple is essentially a toy store for adults. Though Jobs made a lot of noise about beauty and art, his approach to computers and related devices had some of the excitement that kids have with toys. Maybe Jobs loved to play with toys as a child and then later found new toys in computers and the like. Though I’m sure that some people use iPads for serious reasons, it appears many people buy them because they want something to constantly fiddle/toy with. Since it won’t do for adults to play with dolls anymore, why not putz around with an iPad for hours on end? In this sense, Jobs’ whole life has been one big Toy Story.)Or maybe it was the influence of Buddhism with its emphasis on shedding all falsehoods to embrace the one pure truth.

Though Jobs rejected his biological parents just as they had rejected him, he seems to have absorbed some of their personalities. If his obsession for the purity of closed system seems inherited from his maternal grandfather, his bohemian nature seems to be have been inherited from his mother(if indeed she was accurately portrayed in ANYWHERE BUT HERE the movie—I haven’t read the book), and his knack for salesmanship seems to have been inherited from his Syrian father. It turns out his biological father gave up academics and went into the restaurant business, and few times, they’d even unknowingly crossed paths when Jobs ate at the man’s restaurant. It seems Middle Eastern people—perhaps most famously Jews but Arabs too—have haggling in their blood, and one of Jobs’ biggest assets was in the area of salesmanship. Interestingly enough, Jobs’ salesmanship style tended to be aggressive and wild than smooth and mannered in the Anglo style(exemplified by Sculley who ran Apple for a time). Like an Arab businessman, he relied not only on verbal skills but on getting in the faces of people. Though he could be charming at times—so can Jews and Arabs—, his default approach to business was to make a lot of noise. At times, Jobs’ business style could have been like in those movies where hook-nosed Arabs gesture wildly to sell their trinkets and slaves.
In this sense, Jobs very much exemplified the melting pot ideal. His character, soul, and personality was like a hodge-podge of Germanic insistence on thoroughness and purity, Arab-Jewish haggly-waggliness, Japanese Zen and some Hindu stuff too, suburbotopia(shared by Steven Spielberg), and on-the-road counterculture bohemianism, though in the end, he pretty much ended up living and dying around where he was born.
Perhaps he saw himself in Bob Dylan because Dylan too was an amalgam of so many different cultural strands: various forms of American music, small town America, big city America, hostile cynicism and rebellion, spiritualism and traditionalism, European poetry, and etc. Dylan took all those different strands and created a new kind of style, attitude, and music. Similarly, the wholeness of Jobs was the sum of various cultural strands and biological strains. While the blending of various cultural and racial elements doesn’t guarantee success—after all, most Latin Americans are racially mixed, but most are no more special than pure blooded people—, the different elements may have coalesced in a unique special way in the case of Steve Jobs.

It also probably helped that he was smarter than his adoptive parents. Had he been raised by highly intelligent(and emotionally stable)parents, he might have come under their authority and been more likely to do as told; even as a smart kid, he would have been in awe of his smart parents. But as a young boy, it hit Jobs that he was a lot smarter than his (adoptive) parents. This made him feel special. Feeling special, he thought HE should run the house and do as he wanted. And his parents seem to have conceded to a lot of his demands because (1) as adoptive parents, they kinda felt sorry for him and maybe even a bit guilty since they were not his real parents (2) they didn’t know how to handle such a smart kid.
When a child begins to feel, from a young age, that he’s smarter than his own parents, the world turns upside down. Kids grow up thinking, ‘my parents know everything’. Of course, eventually, kids discover their parents only know so much. Jobs learned this at a pretty young age, and that may have led to the Kid Emperor Complex. In a way, it is a variation of the Yid Emperor Complex. Jews growing up among goyim learn that they are so much smarter than gentiles. Even Jewish kids, at a tender young age, discover they are a lot brighter than their goy teachers and goy adults. Thus, from a young age, Jewish kids feel a mixture of contempt and arrogance in regards to goyim; they also feel resentment and hatred because the dumb goyim outnumber them and might unite to stand in the way of Jewish power. In a way, the history of American immigration can metaphorically be seen as Anglo-American parents adopting Jewish immigrant kids. Anglo-American settler parents thought Jewish immigrant kids would become good little Anglo-Americanized adults like Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, and etc. But, the Jewish immigrant kids discovered that they are a lot smarter than Anglo-American settler parents. Just as Steve Jobs’ adoptive parents, in their decency and awe, allowed Steve Jobs to run free and do as he wanted, Anglo-American settler parents allowed the smarter Jewish immigrant kids to run free. But if Jewish-Americans are filled with contempt and hatred for Wasp-Americans who first founded and created this nation that made Jewish success possible, Steve Jobs had a deep appreciation for his adoptive parents. For one thing, the adoption wasn’t just metaphorical, but personal and close. His adoptive parents were really there for him ever since he was a baby.

Even so, his family story may have unnerved Jobs in certain respects. At Apple, Steve was a ruthless perfectionist. He favored and promoted the best of the best—the A workers—and made sure that lesser workers understood and accepted their lower status or got fired. So, one part of Jobs was intolerant of ‘dummies’ and the inferior folks. But the fact was his smarter biological parents had dumped him while lesser intelligent ‘dummy’ parents did so much to take care of him and provide him with a decent and stable middle class life.
Maybe, his biological parents, as high IQ college kids, thought they were entitled to full-fledged ‘creative’ freedom and saw baby Jobs as an obstacle to their brilliant liberty. According to the movie ANYWHERE BUT HERE, Jobs’ biological mother was an eccentric who just followed her whims wherever she went. And Jobs’ biological father seems like a man whose main thing in life was following his dreams, even if it meant divorcing his wife and leaving his kid(s). Jobs’ personality seemed to have a lot in common with those of his biological parents; he too was willful, self-centered, eccentric, and uncompromising. He too got some woman(a real weirdo)pregnant and abandoned his own kid, though he later helped her out some. It may have occurred to Jobs that though he was, personality-wise, closer to his biological high-IQ parents, the people who did the most for him for ‘ordinary Americans’ with square values. Though he loved being a free-wheeling cosmopolitan, the fact is his free-wheeling cosmopolitan biological parents didn’t do much for him. So, when he later became a parent, he was probably torn between the temptations of his true nature—to ignore his family and pursue his own excellence/freedom—and a sense of moral obligation to family out of appreciation of his square Middle America parents who may not have been ‘cool’ but were there for him. According to the book, Jobs seemed to have been dualistic in his parenting, at once caring and callous.

Despite his liberal political views, Jobs’ personality was closer to some of the nutty characters in Ayn Rand novels, especially Howard Roark in FOUNTAINHEAD who is ruthlessly and self-righteously committed to his vision and doesn’t care how many people he might offend in its realization. (Of course, one could say modern liberalism is really a form of narcissism than generosity. To claim that one is liberal is, as often as not, to show off how noble, caring, decent, compassionate, and blah blah blah one is. It’s a form of Jesus/saint complex, a form of moral exhibitionism. It’s like Bono wanting the whole world to know that he cares about black babies in Africa. Liberalism also serves as a kind of intellectual vanity. While it is true that most top thinkers, intellectuals, and artists are liberal/leftist, the fact is most liberals are no smarter than conservatives. But by making a big deal of the fact that one listens to NPR and supports ‘gay marriage’, even a dumb liberal comes to feel ‘sophisticated’ and ‘intelligent’ by association. Liberalism is less about being empathetic than showing off that one is empathetic. It is a form of cultural and moral vanity.) If Jobs hadn’t grown up with his adoptive parents, he might have had more of a sneering attitude toward dumb square Americans. But because he grew up under the care of decent people with limited intelligence, it might have tempered his natural arrogance; it may have reminded him that intelligence and talent aren’t everything. And to his credit, once he did get married and had kids, he stuck with them to the end. (In one chapter, we learn that Jobs’ liberal wife refused to meet with Rupert Murdoch when he came to discuss matters with Jobs. This just kills me. According to one account, Jobs’ wife had secretly ‘stalked’ Jobs and harbored intentions to marry him even before they met. And before that she was an investment banker. So, she was a rich bitch who wanted to marry a super rich famous guy. She wasn’t an egalitarian committed to marrying some salt-of-the-earth Mexican lettuce picker but an elitist who wanted a super rich mate and have intelligent kids with him to be raised in privilege. Now, I got nothing against people who love money and success. But when these people act like they’re paragons of equality and act hostile toward conservatives because the latter supposedly “don’t care”, I just wanna puke. Jobs’ liberal wasp bitch wife is just as foul and shitty as hypocritical liberal Jews who want the entire pie but lecture to us about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’. I’m sure Jobs’ shitty wife would gladly have welcomed George Soros to her house. You see, the billionaire Jewish moneychanger is a ‘caring liberal’ too, just like her precious self! Jobs was something of a political jerk and hypocrite too. Though willing to cut a deal with Murdoch, Jobs admonished his new business partner to cut out the negativity on Fox News. According to Jobs, politics was no longer a matter of right vs left but ‘constructive vs destructive’. Now, I do not say this in defense of Fox News, which I don’t watch—except a few clips here and there on Youtube. Furthermore, I have no respect for creatures like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and other lying sons of bitches who are more than willing to be whores of Zionists and Wall Street Jews. But the idea of Jobs preaching about the evil of ‘destructiveness’ is just too funny. I mean here was a guy who mercilessly chewed out so many people, a person given to insulting everyone around him 24/7. And I wonder how Jobs felt about people like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Mike Dyson, Tavis Smiley, Stephen Colbert, Lawrence O’Donnell, and other creeps on the Left who are no less obnoxious, dishonest, and repulsive than the blowhards on the Right. But of course, rage on the right is ‘destructive’ while rage on the left is ‘constructive’. It’s wrong for conservatives to have strong opinions, but it’s cool for liberals to have strong opinions. It’s wrong for conservatives to associate with extreme figures but it’s okay for Obama to associate with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and nominate a scum radical Jewess like Elena Kagan and appoint a Maoist like Anita Dunn. It would have been one thing for Jobs to say, “Rupert, I hate your news show because I’m liberal.” At least it would have been honest. But for Jobs to have said he’s offended by Fox News because of its destructiveness, what a lot of shit. It’s like how American Jews bitch and whine about Joseph McCarthy’s ‘destructive’ ways but not minding the far more destructive power of political correctness. So, the issue is not ‘destructiveness’ but WHAT it is that is being destroyed. Jobs really hated Fox News because it attacked some of the holy cows of the Left. But speaking of destructiveness, what has been more destructive than open borders? Just consider what illegal immigration has wrought on California in terms of finance, crime, and violence? What has been more destructive than globalism that shipped millions of American jobs overseas? What has been more destructive than enforced egalitarianism in lending, which led to the massive housing boom followed by a massive housing/financial bust? What has been more destructive than Section 8 Housing that shipped millions of Negroes into working-and-middle-class white neighborhoods, leading to increased black-on-white violence? What has been more destructive than rap music, where dumb ‘nigga’ thugs rant on and on about beating and shooting people and express contempt and hatred for humanity and refer to women as ‘hos’? What has been more destructive than the porn industry, where vile venal liberal Zionist Jews exploit poor white women and train them to be cumbuckets of gross ape-like Negroes? What has been more destructive than Jewish control of Wall Street that brought down the world economy and then used their boy Obama in the Oval Office to receive ‘bailouts’ at the expense of Middle America? What has been more destructive than the cynical, ugly, and disgusting shows on TV like FAMILY GUY, SIMPSONS, and even worse, all made by liberals? What has been more destructive than gay culture that set off the AIDS epidemic and now, working in tandem with powerful Jews, wanna destroy the institution of marriage by conflating gay sex as the biological and moral equal of real sex? Yet, Jobs seemed to have nothing to say about any of that. Oh no, the biggest enemy of America is Sean Hannity! Hannity is a Jew-ass-kissing tard, but he’s a nothing compared to the real power-wielders in this country. That said, Jobs doesn’t seem to have been a typical liberal. When it came to foreign aid, he tended to be skeptical. He’d come from a working class family and worked hard all his life to make his own money, so why give it away to losers? Just as Dylan couldn’t stand the conformist mindset of the folk protest movement and went off to do his own thing, Jobs seemed to have possessed a contrarian and independent streak that didn’t sit well with going along to ‘save the world’. Even though he adopted the counterculture of the sixties, he seemed to have been appreciative of his square middle class parents; he didn’t see Middle America as the root of all evil. Maybe it also had something to do with the fact he once spent some time in a tough school and was bullied by rough kids—some of whom may have been appalling Negroes. Maybe the fact that he appreciated his square middle class parents, devoted himself to counterculture, and was interested in computers/machines had a balancing act on his political views. If most counterculture people steeped in the cult of nature/spirituality saw IBM/computers as the enemy, Jobs was among the first of a new breed to see computers and technology as an aid to freedom, i.e. if computers are owned only by big companies and the government, they can serve to oppress people, but if computers could be personalized and if millions of people could use computers for their own interests, computers could serve the power of individuals. Jobs also seemed to have gained valuable lessons from certain counterculture figures, especially a venal Jew who ran a peach orchard and exploited naive hippies by saying one thing while doing another; he’d put the hippies to work on the orchard to harvest peaches, but he raked in all the profit. Also, Jobs’ personality was too blunt and candid—notwithstanding his ability to be charming and deceitful when necessary—to be suited for feel good liberal goo-goo-ness. In the book, there’s a part where Jobs tells Obama that American companies need to be regulated and taxed less if manufacturing is to remain in America. When he says things like that, he sounds like some Reagan-Republican for whom the solution to everything is less regulation and less taxes. Jobs also blamed America for not producing enough engineers and wanted Obama to allow more foreign engineers to get visas to work in America. And we know Apple developed very close relations with China to assemble many of the parts there. All this indicates that Jobs had a libertarian streak, but this may not have been anything special in Silicon Valley. It could have been Jobs was more forthright than most. After all, Microsoft and Google play the economic game very much like Apple, doing whatever it takes to win the globalized economy. Most of these liberal bigshots say one thing in public, but when it comes to competition it’s all about the money and market share, and they’ll do anything to expand their turf. But given that the financial sector is the biggest in America and so many people got rich doing nothing but moneychanging like dirty George Soros and Bernie Madoff, one can’t but admire Jobs for investing his energy in creating products that produced real jobs, even if many of the jobs are ‘over there’ than over here. Besides, even if many Apple products are assembled ‘over there’, they need to hire people over here to market and sell them. Purely in economic terms, the world would do better to have more Jobses and fewer Soroses.)

According to Isaascson, Jobs had a ‘binary’ way of seeing the world. Everything was either totally great or totally sucky. Jobs supposedly made comments like this all the time at work. He would praise something as great or shitty; or he would say it’s shitty one day and then great the next day—as if he’d never thought otherwise. I suppose in political terms, it’s like seeing the world in Manichean terms of good vs evil; or, it’s like the ‘us versus them’ mentality. While this kind of hot/cold or black/white view of things seems to have been intrinsic to his personality, it could have been no less cultural in origin or tactical in purpose. Jobs, steeped in counterculture, was obviously used to exaggerated praise and sardonic putdowns. According to hippies, something was ‘far out’ or ‘uncool’. In Timothy Leary’s mind, humanity was divided between bold beautiful people who opted to turn-on-tune-in-and-drop-out and conventional squares who clung to the same old same old. Though some people who use LSD develop a keener sense of the interconnectedness of all things, in the case of Jobs, LSD may have made him see reality in terms of groovy people and boring people, in terms of enlightenment vs boring reality. Also, the virtue, as well as the vice, of youth culture is simplicity. When one listens to loud rock music, it works or it doesn’t work. It’s not a culture that demands or requires much in the way of patience or ambiguity. Rock fans expect the music to turn them on right away; if jt fails to, it sucks. A song is a hit or it’s nothing. In its most basic form, binary-mentality can be found in Beavis and Butthead, for whom everything is either ‘cool’ or ‘sucks’. For dumb kids, reality may be comforting filtered through such simplicity, but among more intelligent people, such binary-ness might serve as a kind of shield against accusations of pomposity. Jobs was into hallucinogenic drugs, Hindu stuff, Buddhism, and humanities. His interest in that stuff appeared to have been genuine. But people into such stuff can also be accused of being pretentious, flaky, and phony. Since Jobs wanted to be a tough guy, he may have developed two sides of himself. The inner-self remained mostly private; in that realm, he may have been a far subtler thinker of great nuance than he ever let out. But in his public persona, he played the tough guy, something of a cowboy who knows who’s good and who’s bad. For him to win in business, he had to play hot and cold. If he played warm, his workers might feel relaxed than edgy and see him as a softy paralyzed by ambiguities. But if he alternately poured hot and cold water on his colleagues and employees, they would know he was boss and there was nothing soft, warm, fuzzy, or ambiguous about him. It’s like a detective going after criminal may privately aware of the social and psychological complexities of the criminal. He may consider the tragic factors that condemned the criminal to a life of transgression; the killer too could be a victim of circumstances in some way. But the role of a detective is not to play psychologist but to catch the criminal; when it comes to doing his job, he had to think and act ruthlessly. Life is never simple, but the system of justice must deal with ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent’, even if such ‘binaries’ are ‘unfair’. Similarly, to win in business, Jobs had to have a hard instinct for what would work and what wouldn’t. There couldn’t be any ‘in between’. Nevertheless, I suspect that beneath the veneer of his famous binary-ness, there lay a keen mind with a grasp of complexities and ambiguities. After all, Apple products weren’t created simply as ‘this’ as opposed to ‘that’. Rather, they were created by integrating various ideas and functions that outwardly seemed contradictory or conflicting. Jobs’ great achievement was to harmonize the binary opposites, the things that many of his colleagues and employees told him were ‘impossible’. So, while one part of Jobs tended to see things in terms of ‘cool’ vs ‘sucky’, another part of him saw possible connections between what most people deemed to be irreconcilable concepts, values, or forces. This then is the paradox of Steve Jobs. In one way, he insisted on purity of simple design and the closed system, yet the seemingly holistic unity was the product of melding different ideas and functions into one. He may have gained insight into such processes by brainstorming through LSD sessions. According to the book STORMING HEAVEN by Jay Stevens, a person under the influence of acid senses something like the unthreading of one’s mind. Under normal consciousness, a sound is a sound, image is an image, taste is a taste, etc. But under LSD, one becomes aware of the complex mechanism of sound. One doesn’t so much hear something as hear the hearing of something; under higher dosages, maybe one hears the hearing of hearing of something. And one doesn’t merely taste something, but one tastes the process of tasting something; one might even become aware of the process of digesting and etc, which may explain why Jobs became so obsessed about eating clean organic foods. LSD also produces synesthesia, where different senses blend together. Thus, one comes to understand that the five senses, though seemingly separate under normal consciousness, are all threaded to a common sensory root. Through LSD, one may be able to probe into the core of sensation/perception/consciousness. In such states, Jobs may have become acutely aware of dense layer of complexity beneath the semblance of surface simplicity; and it might have made his intelligence more sensitive to the inter-relatedness and inter-connectedness of seemingly separate things, thereby more intuitively aware throughout his career of the possibilities in technology. While most geeks pored over one problem or another, Jobs perhaps possessed a kind of hallucinogenic ability to see more than others were seeing; he could see the bigger picture of science as art, and art as science. On the other hand, given the tendency of LSD to turn people into New Age flakes or solipsistic vegetables, maybe Jobs reminded himself to always resist the temptation to drift irretrievably into belly-gazing lotus land. This willful resistance to LSD’s beckoning him to ‘surrender to the void’ might actually have made him tougher. The natural tendency of spiritualism is to let go of material desires; the natural tendency of materialism is to be skeptical of spiritual demands. Though Jobs loved John Lennon, he didn’t wanna end up the same way. Beginning in 1966, Lennon began to use LSD and pretty much lost himself. He went off the deep end, and Apple Corp, the company founded by the Beatles, was a total disaster. (In the book, we learn Apple Corp’s lawsuit against Apple computers for using the name netted $500 million in 2010. Looks like Jobs did more for Apple Corp than the Beatles ever did, and all because of a stupid name.) LSD may have a way of ‘waking’ the mind to higher consciousness, but it could also turn off the body—just look at the zombies in GIMME SHELTER(concert movie). According to Albert Goldman’s LIVES OF JOHN LENNON and Bob Spitz’s THE BEATLES, Lennon spent much of his time in the late 60s lounging around on his sofa on drugs. And it got even worse with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. Jobs, being 15 yrs younger than Lennon, was a late boomer, and as such, he might have been keenly aware of many of the failings of the 60s. He loved the counterculture but he couldn’t have been blind to how so many ideas and figures of the 60s burned out and faded in relevance. So, it appears there were two sides of Jobs. One part wanted to carry the torch of the counterculture, but another part wanted to resist its dangers, solipsism, and pitfalls. So, one part of him used LSD and was into stuff like Whole Earth Catalog. But another part of him knew that the ‘dream was over’—as Lennon sang in the song ‘God’ in the album PLASTIC ONO BAND. Though the 80s are remembered as the Age of Reagan and the resurgence of conservatism, in truht, many of the young leading lights changed the economy were people like Jobs who, rather being ‘conservative’, were neo-counterculture-ites. They didn’t so much reject the 60s as take what they deemed to be its best qualities and integrate them with the real world of business and technology.

So, to say that Jobs was binary-istic in thinking doesn’t do justice to his real mental strengths and intuitive ‘genius’. In one part of the book, we are told Jobs visited a Sony plant in Japan and inspected technologies that were later used for creating Apple products. In other words, Sony had many of the basic materials that could have been integrated and assembled together to create great products, but no one at Sony have the vision, imagination, and boldness to pull all the pieces together. It reminds me of the TV documentary CONNECTIONS—written and narrated by James Burke—where, in one episode, Burke says the Chinese had so many of the basic ideas and inventions—weaving, gun powder, compass, paper, printing, etc—that could have led to great scientific and technological revolutions, but the Chinese were never able to grasp their full potential. Sony, once a cutting-edge company in electronics, seem to have lost its way. It became an overly bureaucratized company where top executives manage but don’t lead. But then, many giant high-tech companies seem plagued by similar problems. Indeed, the same thing happened to Apple after Jobs was left in 1985. Under the management of Sculley, Apple became more about business than about products. Jobs made a distinction between caring about profits and caring about products, which kinda sounds ridiculous, even hypocritical. After all, don’t companies make products to make profits? So, in the end, the desire to make better products means hunger for more profits. True in a purely business sense. But, caring more about product than profit means to have a kind of work ethic(and creative ethic). The difference between a person with work ethic who works hard and a person without work ethic who works hard is the former believes in the goodness and virtue of work whereas the latter works only because he has to. If the latter were given a million bucks, he may well be content to laze away the rest of his days by a swimming pool. But if the former were given a million bucks and could quit his job, he would still believe in putting his energies to productive/creative use.
Similarly, a product-person had a passion for ideas and designs whether profits are involved or not. So, even if someone like Jobs were to end up in a prison cell for the rest of his life, he would still probably dream about making nice things—and work at certain hobbies. But a profit-person has no passion for whatever he’s doing; he’s managing or investing just for the cash flow. The difference between product-person and profit-person can be seen in the difference between Spielberg and Michael Bay. While Spielberg loves money and success, he has a genuine love for movies; it’s been his dream, religion, and obsession from childhood; and no matter what project he’s working on, he pours 100% of himself because it’s as much about pride as about profits. Even if Spielberg hadn’t made it big, we know he would be involved in movie culture one way or another. Bay, on the other hand, seems to be the sort of hack favored by Hollywood moneymen who only care about making hits and money. (Sad to say, Bay has also worked for Spielberg. While Spielberg the product-person seems to be personally and emotionally involved in his own directorial projects, Spielberg the profit-person will hire hacks to direct movies like GOONIES and TRANSFORMERS.) A profit-person has no special love or passion for what he happens to be involved in; his main interest is ‘how much money can I earn from this’? Though he may make smart decisions in finding and coordinating the right talent, more often than not he will blind to the kind of people and ideas really needed for great breakthroughs; also, profit-persons don’t make inspiring leaders to people who really care. Product-persons who believe and take great pride in what they are doing wanna be led by someone who shares and appreciates their passion. Sculley at Apple was a profit-guy, not a product-guy. Though I don’t much care for Pixar movies, there’s no doubt that much of the success owes to the fact that Lasseter is a product-person; he really believes in what he’s doing, and indeed he would almost certainly still be involved in computer animation even if he’d never had much success.

In many cases, product-people don’t succeed because of their purist devotion to vision, principle, and ideals. Generally, we tend to divide the world between the unsoiled starving artist devoted to something of higher/deeper value and the gluttonous moneyman who will sell anything to the vulgar masses to rake in lots of dough. In cinema, there’s long been a dichotomy between the Hollywood movie and foreign/independent art film. But there are cases like THE GODFATHER and MIDNIGHT RUN where great talent and popular appeal meld into one. (And of course, some genuine artists are also masters of self-promotion and marketing, which is why Picasso died a rich man. The example of Warhol shows one could suck as an artist but be a great self-promoter and make lots of dough and gain lots of respect.)

Given the relatively modest lifestyle of Steve Jobs—though lavish by the standards of rest of us—, it seems Jobs was less about money than about power. And not just power for power’s-sake, but power-as-an-instrument-for-new-possibilities. Since more money funded research and innovation, money was what Jobs wanted. This was different than some people wanting lots of money just to have lots of money. Many Wall Street sharks don’t seem to be interested in anything but using whatever tricks to make more money. Thus, much of the finance industry has turned cannibalistic, with moneymen feeding off other moneymen, and when that well runs out, they use the government(which they control through campaign contributions) to be ‘bailed’ out, as happened in 2008 and 2009 under Bush and Obama. Wall Street Jews hold a gun to our head and rob us and then display a bomb-vest around their waist and say unless we give them more money, they’ll blow themselves up and kill us too in the bargain. Though Zionists warn us about Muslim suicide-bombers, the Jewish kingpins on Wall Street are economic suicide terrorists. Nearly all Jews in 2008 and 2009, liberal and conservative, insisted that super-rich Jews on Wall Street had to be bailed out—and spared from prosecution—because if they went under, they would take the whole economy down with them. (If anyone wants to understand why there was so much antisemitism in the 1930s, they should just study the situation we are in today. What’s really strange is not the antisemitism of the 1930s but the sheer lack of it today given that many powerful Jews are now far more repulsive than their ancestors had been in the early part of the 20th century. Given the Jewish hand in globalism, open borders, radical gay agenda, interracism and porn, foul music industry promoting the hateful rage of rap, politically correct censorship of free speech, financial robbery, anti-white public education, media monopoly, tribal networking at the expense of gentiles, and much else, antisemitism, or more accurately counter-Jewism, should be the mode of most gentiles, especially white folks. (‘Antisemitism’ implies that ALL Jews are at fault and/or ALL problems are caused by Jews, which is, of course, not true. Many Jews have done good things, and many problems are caused by non-Jews, especially wild Negroes and stupid Christian Fundamentalists. Therefore, we’re better off with counter-Jewism which counters and confronts Jewish power where it does wrong, not simply because it’s Jewish power.)

Money can mean pleasure, power, or potential. It seems a lot of Latin Americans love money for pleasure. They have a hedonistic streak. They wanna dress well, look fabulous, and show off. But some cultures are less ostentatious and nakedly narcissistic. Thus in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, Mr. Potter wants more money because he wants more power, not because he wants to show off his wealth. Jobs too seems to have been obsessed about power. But not all power is the same. There is Scroogy power, as that of Mr. Potter, and there is Nietzschean power. If Scroogy power tends to be conservative, Nietzschean power tends to be visionary and revolutionary. It strives to create something new; it tries to change the world, turn it upside down. To be sure, a bit of Scroogism and Nietzscheanism can go hand in hand. Both Jobs and Hitler had elements of both. On the one hand, Hitler was a visionary-artist-as-leader. He didn’t just want to rule Germany but radically transform it into the 1000 YR REICH owned and dominated by beautiful noble ‘Aryans’. But at the core of Hitler was a petty Scrooginess with a very limited concept of creativity and beauty—a kind of postcard neo-Classicism. And his concept of humanity was morally and culturally limited, to say the least. ‘Aryans’ were supposedly the only truly creative people while others ranged from pretty decent to downright subhuman. Similarly, Jobs was visionary in his boldness to create and market new products, but he was almost obsessively stingy in his insistence that Apple share as little of its programs and applications with others as possible. He believed in the closed Apple system and was dismissive of anyone who didn’t share his ideas. (Jobs wasn’t much of a charity person either.) He was the very opposite of Steve Wozniak who believed in the open system and sharing things for free(whenever possible). It must be said, however, that there is a paradox about Wozniak too. A hacker is a what? He’s a thief who breaks into other systems and steals files. A thief could be said to be greedy in ripping off something that isn’t his. So, it’s interesting that Wozniak was both a grabber and a giver; maybe he was willing to give so freely precisely he stole so freely(as a hacker; “I hack and give it back”). In contrast, Jobs was not a hacker and didn’t believe in sharing anything Apple produced.

Speaking of Nietzscheanism, there are many folks in the so-called Alternative Right community who make a lot of stink about ‘superiority’. In fact, however, superiority doesn’t amount to much as an abstract ideal. One is truly superior when he is superior at something, and this is what almost everyone in the Alternative Right community lacks. Given the mediocre nature of most Alternative Rightists, they would do better to stress the HUMANITY than the purported superiority of white people. Invoking superiority smacks of arrogance and contempt, but it’s downright laughable when those making the most noise do not possess superior qualities. Anyone can say they are superior or wanna be superior, but most people cannot prove or demonstrate that they are superior because they’re mediocre. Since most of us are mediocre, we should be embracing humanity of the white race, which isn’t to deny the humanity of other races. But given that each race has its own uniqueness in terms of history, culture, and achievements, each race has a right to preserve its own version or variation of humanness. This isn’t to say each race or nation must only consist of like-minded and like-shaped people. Interaction with other peoples/cultures and having some minorities can be a blessing in many areas of life. But each people have a right to maintain their own strain of humanness. Thus, Jews have a right to insist on Israel remaining a nation for Jewish humanity, Japanese have a right to maintain Japan as a nation of Japanese humanity, and etc. The reason why this form of humanity has come under assault owes to the ideological fanaticism of the ‘anti-racist’ Left rooted in Christian universalism. And Jews promote this form of globalism because Jews, being minorities in most nations, depend on loose borders to ply and expand their powers. Germans are powerful in Germany, and Japanese are powerful in Japan; in contrast, Jews are powerful by crossing back and forth among borders. Thus, while gentiles see borders as protection of their power, Jews see borders as an obstacle to their power. Of course, gentile elites have gained great profits from globalism, and they too have been Jew-ized in this way, but the gentile masses have not gained much from globalism, and in the case of white people in the West, globalism may lead to permanent destruction of their culture and race(which is part of the vengeful Jewish agenda against the white Christian West. The Jewish id can be seen in Jewish-controlled porn. Jews want white men to be pussified and white women to be humped by big muscular Negroes and give birth to mulatto babies, which is what the Jewish-supported Obama presidency is REALLY about). Faced with such problems, the New Right or Alternative Right community should be defending white people as a humanity, but the stupid vain clods who run sites like Alternative Right and Cross-Currents are always yammering about ‘superiority’. But talk is cheap. Joe Louis didn’t go around saying he was the greatest boxer; he demonstrated his superiority by knocking out everyone—Max Schemling in round one for example. Jews don’t go around saying how superior they are in intellect—though they know this privately—, but they’ve amply demonstrated their superior smarts in science, medicine, computers, culture, economics, and so many other areas. And Steve Jobs demonstrated his superiority by actually devoting his life to create amazing products. Given most white people are not superior, they needed to be defended and led as a humanity, not pumped with idiotic cult of superiority. Of course, one could make a case that Western Civilization dominated by white folks achieved more than all other peoples/cultures combined, and this something to be proud of. But pride and arrogance are different things. Too many on the Alternative Right are in arrogant mode, which is rather amusing since white people who’ve succeeded most in the last 200 yrs tended to have been liberals than conservatives. Besides, why invoke Nietzsche if one’s major theme is collective superiority? Nietzsche’s ideal of superiority was individualistic and shamanistic; it transcended national and racial borders. He even sounded like a self-loathing German at times, and he had a rather high opinion of the subversive power of Jews in overturning conventional values and assumptions. Though Nietzsche may be useful to creative forces on the modern right—though, to be sure, the modern Left made more creative uses of Nietzscheanism in philosophy and popular culture as in the ‘fascist anti-fascism’ of New Hollywood—, most white people are not creative, and therefore, their humanity need to be stressed since they are victims of massive non-white immigration, black crime and violence, and Jewish globalism.
Indeed, suppose it were true that white people were even less intelligent than Negroes. Would that mean white people should accept rule of Negroes? Of course not. Though the insistence on IQ differences in the Alternative Right community is necessary for the simple fact that it’s true and explains much about social phenomena, that alone doesn’t address white people’s needs. After all, it may well be true that many black Africans know that whites are smarter, but they still insist on black African nations being ruled by black Africans because they believe in the autonomy and power of black humanity. Suppose it could be demonstrated that Chinese-Americans are smarter than white people. Does that mean white people should submit to Chinese-American dominance? Of course not. Humanity is about a people, race, and culture; it’s not just about superiority or ability. A white rightist should care about a fellow white person with an IQ of 90 as much as he does about a white person with an IQ of 140; only thus, will there be a united sense of white humanity; and I don’t see much use in pumping low IQ whites with ‘Nietzschean’ superiority complex; all it leads to are swastika tattoos on their buns.
Though a functional modern nation allows individual freedom and benefits from the achievement of smart people regardless of their cultural or race, it’s also true that the majority of any nation will naturally want to maintain some kind of political, cultural, and racial dominance over the destiny of the nation. So, there’s no problem with Jewish-Americans succeeding and doing great things in various fields. But when Jews use their power to gain political dominance and media monopoly to undermine the very survival and dignity of white humanity, they need to be challenged and brought down a peg, or several pegs. It is war, after all and one that happened to be waged by Jews against whites. But the fools at Alternative Right are blind to white humanity and only keep yammering about white superiority.
Yet, most white people with genuine superior qualities don’t even share the political views of Alternative Rightists. Furthermore, superior people in many fields wanna feel decent and generous, not haughty and arrogant 24/7. Besides, it’s also good public relations for a superior or powerful people to show that they ‘care’. It’s all very amusing when white people with genuine superior abilities and qualities tend to be more humble in their ideology than Alternative Right white guys, most of whom don’t own an ounce of genuine superiority. It’s like the difference between a man with a big stick speaking softly and a man with a small stick barking loudly.
It’s long been my suspicion that the Nietzsche cult of superiority is appealing to Alternative Right types because they are not superior at anything real, substantive, or specific. They are not good at sports, in looks, in science, in math, in technology, in business, in arts and music, in charisma, in thought, in etc. Since they are not superior in actuality, they need to wallow in superiority as an abstract cult. By invoking Nietzsche, they can feel special even though or precisely because they possess nothing concretely superior to present to the world. Thus, Alex Kurtagic, the in-house master idiot of Alternative Right, claims superiority of rightwing rock music; not because the music is any good—the music released by his label stinks to high heaven—but because it bellow themes about white superiority. This is also called ‘judging a book by its cover’. If you’re not superior as an athlete, artist, politician, economist, filmmaker, musician, thinker, writer, poet, scientist, mathematician, computer engineer, or anything specific and concrete, just use the cult-of-superiority as a crutch. Thus, you can be mediocre in every way but feel superior because... uh... you’re into the Nietzschean stuff about the Overman or Superman or whatever. Thus, Alternative Right spends an inordinate amount of time yammering about its superiority while demonstrating its inferiority—as well as imbecility—with the very things it promotes as superior, such as Jonathan Bowden’s dreadful ‘paintings’ and Alex Kurtagic’s abysmal taste in music.

In a way, the difference between superiority and achievement is like the difference between profit and product. In the case of the product-person, the profit is the reward for his passion for product. Similarly, for an achievement-person, superiority is the reward for his ability and commitment to achieve something. A superiority-person, like a profit-person, got it backward. He is so obsessed with the babyish need to feel superior that not only is he blind and dismissive of the superiority of others but too lazy to work hard at achieving anything of worth. Consider how Alternative Right bemoans the popularity of black dominated sports. If Alternative Right is so obsessed about superiority, why is it so hostile to black athletic superiority? Shouldn’t people who go on and on about superiority admire what blacks have achieved in sports?

Personally, I’m not a great fan of black superiority in sports either. Though I can admire black athletics, I’m far more worried about their social implications. If blacks are physically tougher, it means blacks are gonna whup a whole lot of white folks in the street and public places. It means white women are gonna turn into mudsharks since women, for all the official egalitarian crap of feminism, gravitate to Men of Power. But you see, I’m honest, and as such, I stand for white humanity than for the putzy ideology of white superiority. I admit Jews are smarter and Negroes are tougher; and for those reasons, I say whites need to emphasize unity as a common humanity whose origins arose in Europe. But there’s no such honesty in the Alternative Right community. Though time is running out, fools like Richard Spencer can’t help sucking on the teat of cult of superiority like pitiful little babies. If white rightists really wanna own a piece of superiority, they need to earn it. They need to do something great as Steve Jobs or Steven Spielberg has done. But all they can come up with is playing a little Wagner before their silly little podcasts. Wow, that sure takes a lot of brilliance and brain power, doesn’t it? Play a little LOHENGRIN or DIE WALKURE before some hee-haw interview with a goofy nut. Of course, I’m generalizing. There are people in the Alternative Right community with a measure of humanity and honesty, such as Paul Gottfried, but they are the exception than the rule.

Though Jobs proved his superiority in his field, his story offers valuable lessons on how a relatively inferior person can hold sway over superior people. After all, Jobs didn’t have an extensive grasp of computer engineering, and many of the famous Apple designs were actually the work of Jonathan Ive than Jobs himself. Jobs made a big deal of A players working with A players, but he must have been well aware that when it came to the nitty gritty workings of computers and electronics, he was no match for the A players. In contrast, Bill Gates understood computer engineering. Sergei Brin and Larry Page of Google are said to be among the most intelligent people in the industry. Jobs, though plenty smart, is no match for super-smart people, especially the Jews. And of course, Mark Zuckerberg wrote the codes that made Facebook what it is. It was the Jewish Steve Wozniak who wrote the codes for the original Apple computers, not Steve Jobs.
There’s something to learn by comparing Jobs/Apple and Zuckerberg/Facebook. Jobs the less intelligent gentile, from day one, took control of Apple and busily made his presence felt to everyone(perhaps a bit too much that he was kicked out in 1985). But when he returned, he also made sure he was boss and left his mark on everything, even if it was in the form of criticism and advice than innovation. Thus, with the sheer force of his personality, workaholism, and manic ego, he gained and maintained control over many people many times smarter than him. In contrast, consider the relations between the Winklevoss twins and Zuckerberg in SOCIAL NETWORK. Based on the movie(I haven’t read the book), it seems the Winkles took things in stride; they offered an idea to Zuck and then sat back and waited for the smart Jew to deliver what they had ordered. Winkles were too busy with sports and big-man-on-the-campus-ism to really check up on Zuckerberg and look over his shoulders(as Jobs did with all of his A players). Maybe, the history of Facebook would have been different if the Winkles had stalked Zuckerberg every day, kept watch over him, and hounded him constantly about the progress. But they just put all the trust in Zuckerberg, and Zuck the brilliant and clever Jew just took and used the whole idea for themselves. If the Winkle twins were Jobs twins, they would never have let Zuckerberg out of their sight. Even with Zuck doing most of the grunt work, the hypothetical Jobs twins would have made their presence felt. And Zuck, feeling the sheer pressure of the Jobs twins, might have relented, and Facebook would then have been the joint-venture of Zuck and the Twin Jobs. But the twins in question were not two Jobses but two Twinklevosses who didn’t know how to be real bosses.
On the other hand, maybe even Jobs twins couldn’t have maintained control over Zuckerberg. Maybe, Zuck is like Wozniak and Jobs rolled into one. He has the coding genius of Wozniak and the will-to-power of Jobs. Maybe if Wozniak had been more like Zuck, he and not Jobs would have been the shining light of Apple.
There are two kinds of Jews: the Hobbity and the Nibenlungenish. Wozniak the Hobbity Jew took things in stride, was in it for fun, and wanted to be liked. He was not obsessed about power and money. I don’t know the real Zuckerberg, but the one we see in Fincher’s movie is a Nibelungenish Jew to the max. He’s resentful about being an ugly short asocial Jew, and so he vengefully plots to take over the world. To be sure, the difference between Woz and Zuck could be generational. Woz grew up in the 60s and was shaped by counterculture values; being five years older than Jobs, he would have been more familiar with the 60s spirit of being groovy and such. Zuck grew up in the 90s when the talk of the town was, “wow, that guy became the new gazillionaire with such-and-such start-up company.” And of course, when we look at guys like Cameron, Spielberg, and Lucas, it seems like the boomer generation produced some of the biggest materialists around, and so why shouldn’t their children be any different?
Same goes for Jobs. He may have been into 60s culture and all, but when he first tasted success and power, he knew he had to have more of it to ‘change the world’.
In the 60s, some lovey-dovey folks thought they could change the world with love, peace, drugs, and music; they tended to shun money, technology, and power as all part of industrial soul-destroying capitalism. But as the boomers grew older and couldn’t rely on their parents allowances anymore, they discovered the only way to change the world is to have money and power. But once they kept making more money and gaining more power, it became a pissing contest of who had more power and more money. And their children who grew up in the Reagan 80s and Clinton 90s thought, ‘yeah, yeah, lots more power and money to change the world’. Thus, ‘greed’ got justified with ‘change-the-world-ism’, and ‘change-the-world-ism’ got infected with ‘greed’.

Anyway, if you’re very smart but not super-smart but wanna maintain control over super-smart people, it wouldn’t hurt to ponder the difference between Jobs and the Winklevoss twins. Maybe Winklevoss twins would not have been so lax if they’d grown up in a working class milieu as Jobs did. Born to privilege and members of the most prestigious club on the campus, they thought things would work out their way simply because. But in fact, they found themselves spinning out of the orbit of Zuckerberg, the real sun of Facebook. Generally, inferior forces orbit around the superior force. There was a certain Ptolemaic aspect to what Jobs achieved. He should have revolved around smart people, the real innovative sun of Apple, but he made them revolve around his forceful personality. (He had the power to gain control over other people’s minds, like Jedi knights in Star Wars.) There was something odd even in the way he forced engineers to comply with aesthetics of the design. Some might call this a form of Procrusteanism, but it worked; Apple products don’t look like technology crammed into design but technology and design evolved into an single organism.
Of course, many super-smart people end up taking orders from less intelligent people for the simple reason that not all super-smart people have balls or strong personalities to lead. Many of them are social gimps and prefer to work at geeky tasks.
There are also charismatic ‘leaders’ who are really little more than frontmen for conniving and ruthless smart people. In 2008, liberal Jews came up with Obama. Jews publicly fawned on him as ‘impressive’ and possessed of ‘staggering intellect’(according to New Republic), but super-smart Jews liked him because he was their musical wind-up monkey toy. In a way, Obama was like an Apple product, which may explain the appeal to many SWPL folks. Obama is an integration of various symbols, hopes, fears, tropes, and fantasies in American culture and history: there are elements of jungle fever interracism, black radicalism, Oprah-ism, Kennedy-ism, MLK-ism, neo-racialism, beyond-race-ism, black masculinity-ism, effete gayishness-ism, etc. It’s all there in one simple package. (His book should really be called DREAMS FROM MY POWERFUL JEWISH HANDLERS.) In reality, he’s just a clever and reasonably bright Jafro-jiver, but the packaging and marketing fooled a lot of people.

Finally, though I’m not qualified to judge the quality of Apple products—I’ll take it on faith that they are amazing—, I think the whole cult around Apple has been on the ridiculous side. Isaacson mentions the legendary launching of the first Macintosh with the 1984 ad directed by Ridley Scott, but I hated it then and I hate it now. If it’s interesting in any way, Scott may have been one of the pioneers of what might be called ‘fascist anti-fascism’, though, to be sure, 1984 by George Orwell was more anti-Stalinist than anti-Hitlerian, not least since Nazism was history when he was working on the book.

In the ad, the bald-headed conformist drones outfitted in same uniforms are liberated from Big Brother by what looks like an ‘Aryan’ heroine from a Riefenstahl movie. Indeed, Goebbels could have used it as propaganda extolling the heroic courage of the mighty hammer-wielding ‘Aryan’ against the drab collective mentality of Soviet communism. Though Scott has put down fascism in interviews, his aesthetics, along with that of Michael Mann, James Cameron, George Lucas, and many others, owes something to fascist imagery and visionariness. The ad championed Macintosh as the heroic underdog taking on the big computer companies, but the implication is that Apple, the underdog, should destroy the status quo and become the new master of the computer universe. Apple was not saying it’s better simply because it’s stacked up against bigger computer companies; it was saying Apple must be the new topdog. The ad is less about ‘fight the power’ than ‘will to power’.
In a way, the aesthetics/message of the ad both revived and betrayed the spirit of the 60s. The hippie generation said power should be countered with flower, hate with love. The Beatles and so many other groups sang about love, love, love, love, love. But there was another side of the 60s calling for radical violence; and if some rockers played it mellow and sang of peace, others sang loud as if they could slash-n-burn the world with their shamanic power.
The Macintosh ad is very MTV-ish in it slick packaging; it revives the 60s spirit of rebellion but also favors slick formulation over organic authenticity. It’s rather like Jefferson Starship’s music video “We Built This City”. Just as the once abrasive and unique Jefferson Airplane morphed into a slick music machine called Starship, Jobs as the computer salesman changed with the times. Though the Macintosh ad promised the consumer something ‘rebellious’, it was appealing because the message was so simple: if you buy a Macintosh, then you are ‘rebellious’. Why work hard at being rebellious when you can own it simply by plunking down some cash? Even back then, Jobs was trying to package and sell ‘difference’ and ‘rebellion’ as marketable commodities.

Yet, the irony is the Apple computer was appealing for their easy accessibility to people who understood nothing about computers. It didn’t demand much of the consumer except pushing a few buttons. Of course, we wall want products to work well and easily, but the more most of us become dependent on such products, the more we become like everyone else.
Maybe the simple-minded brashness of the Macintosh ad was just what the people wanted and needed. With the 60s having burnt out, Watergate dispiriting Americans, Carter presidency disappointing the nation, late 70s and early 80s music culture being so hokey, and economic problems mounting in the early part of Reagan presidency, Americans were hungry for something new. What the Apple ad offered was something that was both new and familiar. The simplicity of the narrative and message could be understood by anyone: forces of good against forces of evil, 1984 turned into a MTV video. Yet it was ‘different’ in how the brazen quasi-fascism of the video declared something revolutionary. And within the context of the Reagan presidency and the ongoing Cold War, it could even be seen as triumph of capitalism over communism.
Wittingly or not, it somehow fit in with the culture that would give us the ‘Morning in America’ ad, RAMBO movies, ROCKY IV, and Springsteen’s BORN IN THE USA(which, for all its progressivism, wrapped itself in the flag). Personally, I don’t have fond memories of many 80s products, though I suppose anything was better than the culture of late 70s and early 80s when the air waves was dominated with disco, Journey, the Knack, Styx, Olivia Newton-John’s “Physical”, and etc.
Though many people came to define 80s as the antithesis of the 60s, this wasn’t really true, not least because there were two 60s: the optimistic Kenney era 60s that lasted until 1966 or maybe 1967, the Summer of Love, and the other 60s(gaining full force in 1968 with RFK and MLK assassinations)that were defined by massive anti-war protests, social radicalism, and other craziness that finally came to a close with end of war in Vietnam and Watergate. Though Kennedy died in 1963 and there major race riots as early as 1965, much of the 60s up to 1967 was defined by optimism and high spirits, a sense that everything was getting better, and a happy kind of materialism. The Kennedy era 60s was slick and polished, with 007 movies, Beach Boys music, Beatles, Vidal Sassoon hair cuts, Italian fashions, and shiny cars; and much of these good feelings extended well into 1967. The concert film MONTEREY POP teeters somewhere between the optimism of earlier 60s and the wilder tendencies of late 60s and early 70s.

In this sense, Reagan 80s was not so much channeling the Eisenhower era but the early 60s era. Reagan himself had more in common with Kennedy than Ike, especially in style and charisma. So, in a way, much of the 80s optimism was a replay of the 60s but with the good guys winning. If the Kennedy 60s of the New Frontier crashed-and-burned into the Nixon-Woodstock-Altamont-Watergate 60s—with US finally losing the war in Vietnam and fall of presidency from scandal—, the Reagan 80s of Morning in America stood firm and won the Cold War; and Reagan, unlike Nixon, managed to survive a scandal, the sordid Iran-Contra affair, that could have been potentially far more damaging. So, in a way, the success of the Reagan 80s was like the redemption of the lost hopes of the Kennedy era, not least because Reagan did precious little to curtail the welfare state. And like it or not, many liberal boomers were at the center of the Reagan Revolution.
One of the glories of the Reagan 80s was the replacement by new industry—such as computers—of old rust-belt industry. In this sense, there was a symbiotic relationship between Reaganism and Silicon Valley-ism, despite the fact that most Silicon Valley people were politically and culturally liberal. It was a time when Reagan won California twice.
Because Reagan pushed government policies favorable to the rise of the new economy, many observers thought the new rich made up of boomers would be pro-Republican for many yrs to come. But a seismic political shift of the boomer rich toward Democrats happened because Clinton in 1992 was savvy enough to understand that the old Democratic party dependent on blue collar working class could no longer be a viable political force. For Democrats to be in the game again, they had to be pro-business. Since the boomer entrepreneurs tended to be culturally liberal, the new Democratic Party that was both culturally liberal and economically pro-business was irresistible to them. And so Clinton was able to win two terms with solid support among the boomer rich. If Clinton in 1992 had run as an old-style Democrat, many of the boomer rich might have gone with Bush for the simple fact that they were into ‘free trade’ and economic liberalization that was making them richer. But once Clinton ‘stole’ the thunder from the Republicans, the boomer rich were bound to lean Democratic, and ever since then, the Democratic Party became more and more the party of the boomer rich. (The fact that the GOP got culturally dumber by pandering to Deep South Christian Fundie dummies also drove many educated rich to the Democrats. Who wants to go to a cocktail party and sing hosannas to the likes of Bush II and Sarah Palin?) And in 2004 and 2008, Democratic candidates raised more money from superrich folks than did Republicans. This new reality may lead to major political alignments in America, perhaps as important as when the South went from Democratic to Republican, but the GOP hasn’t yet learned to adapt to the new order. Instead, it still talks of lowering taxes for the superrich, most of whom are liberal and/or Jewish. What a bunch of dodos.

Anyway, when Jobs returned to Apple in the late 90s, the culture had changed. If America stuck in the doldrums of the early 80s needed to be jolted awake, a rush of something ‘new’ like the 1984 Macintosh ad and RAMBO, most Americans were feeling pretty good in the late 90s with massive economic growth and rising stock values; Clinton presidency was like yet another successful replay(following Reagan’s) of the Kennedy era New Frontier-ism, albeit with post-Cold War and post-Great Society overtones in the New World Order; in a way, it was more significant since the Boomers, exemplified by Clinton himself, were now firmly in control, politically as well as economically. Also, the Cold War seemed like a distant memory, and US was the only superpower and as the undisputed leader in high-technology(with paralysis that overcame the Japanese economy). With consumers being saturated with new things all the time I the internet age of the ‘New Economy’, Apple could not regain the spotlight with the smash-and-torch boldness it used in the early 80s. An ad like ‘1984' in the late 90s would have been shrill and embarrassing given the dot.com era was abuzz with newness.
This is when Jobs’ Buddhist shtick served him well. His “Think Different” campaign, though promising something new, was quiet and subtle. It has an air of calm. If the ‘1984' Macintosh ad exclaimed the arrival of a new era, “Think Different” seemed to say that newness has become a cliche, and so the true way to be special was to step back and reflect . And if the Aryan-like hammer heroine in the 1984 ad was like a creature from the future—like the bodyguard warrior in THE TERMINATOR—, the icons of the “Think Different” were not only figures of the past but many were not even associated with science or technology. When everyone was talking about computers, technology, and machines, Jobs of the new Apple seemed to be offering something other than technology. Initially, there wasn’t much Apple could offer in product line to take on the competition, so it relied on the Look. The new Macintosh machines weren’t anything special, but they looked ‘different’. But in time, new Apple products didn’t just offer better technology but technology-as-something-different. In a way, it was fitting that some Avon woman, Andrea Jung, served on the Apple board because there was something almost effeminate about Apple products. An iPod or iPhone has elements of cosmetic products. Take the compact case in the film L’APPARTEMENT or WICKER PARK; it’s more than just a powder case with a mirror but a thing of beauty with special meaning for the owner. Perfume is potent even or especially in small doses. Apple products would use energy like fragrance. Many Apple devices, according to Isaacson’s book, don’t even have a on/off switch button. The energy that turns on or off is subtly sensitive to touch of the user.

Be that as it may, I think it would be foolish for us to regard Jobs as any kind of guru. Personally, I found the commodization of historical figures by the ‘Think Different’ ad to be rather ridiculous if not offensive. Besides, ‘Think Different’ assumes people are thinking at all, which is less true thanks to political correctness. So never mind ‘think different’; it’d be nice if people could just think. Besides, good thinking has nothing to do with ‘different’ or ‘same’. It has to do with guts and truth. Truth may against the grain of conventional wisdom or prejudices, but then it might not. Furthermore, how ‘different’ were some of the people on the Apple ‘Think Different’ ad(a kind of Jobs’ own SGT. PEPPER cover)? Michael King, aka Martin L. King, was hardly a thinker. If anything, our nation is drowning in MLK worship to the point where anyone critical of that hypocritical cretin has his career destroyed faster than any ruined by Joseph McCarthy. So much for ‘think different’. Recently, Ron Paul—the only candidate to think differently about anything—was attacked for what his newsletter had said about MLK in the 80s. MLK is the icon of ideological and political sameness, not least because both liberals and conservative kiss his big fat ass. Even in the 60s, King didn’t present honest debate and discussion of racial matters but shamelessly promoted himself as prophet-guru whose bogus soulful yammerings were to be accepted as the truth and nothing but the truth. The fool spoke in cliches, and his blubbery sermons that made you wanna puke, and indeed, he wouldn’t have amounted to much if not for Jewish money and support(and had he not been shot by some idiot). Though Einstein was a true intellectual giant of the 20th century, what is so special about using him as an icon of ‘difference’? EVERYONE recognizes and admires him. Same can be said of Picasso. ‘Think Different’ also featured John Lennon of the Beatles, but again, how ‘different’ were the Beatles by the late 90s? They had long been established as international stars. And Dylan’s long been institutionalized as the ‘spokesman of his generation’, and boomers had been marking just about every Dylan anniversary since the 70s. If Apple really wanted to emphasize ‘different’, it should have featured Velvet Underground and other such bands. For the hype about ‘different’, most of the figures used in the ad campaign were generic icons. A big deal was made of various mugs not being named, but only an idiot wouldn’t be able to identify Gandhi, Einstein, Lennon, Dylan, MLK, and the like? (Even so, I found it less detestable than those milk ads featuring celebrities with wet white marks under their noses—a perfect metaphor for the infantilization of Americans.) There’s something a bit queasy about a corporate company turning thinking into a commodity. If Apple of the 80s tried to turn ‘rebellion’ into a corporate product—later magnified by MATRIX movies and other Hollywood blockbusters hyping slick narcissism into ‘rebellion’—, it’s as though Apple since the late 90s sought to trademark thought itself. But, owning an iPod, iPhone, and iPad isn’t thinking. And maybe iPod turns kids into ipodpeople hooked to endless pop songs. With the song-centrism of iTunes store, one can even say the Apple’s way of selling music has destroyed the album as the central form of expression of rock musicians, which is rather ironic since 60s rock, one of Jobs’ biggest passion, reached their artistic peak in album form. Prior to acts like Dylan, Beatles, and others, the pop album tended to be a collection of few hit tunes and filler material. That changed when Dylan and the Beatles used the album to convey a larger vision. Thus, songs on RUBBER SOUL and BLONDE ON BLONDE came to be unified by theme or concept. Individual songs, in relation to one another became integral to one another, and so the rock album became more than the sum of its parts—in the way that Apple products combined different technologies to produce a more profound technology.
The way iTunes works, listeners can forgo the wider vision of the artist and pick and choose only what they wanna hear. It’s like being allowed to eat just the cherries from bowls of fruit cocktail. Given the nature of the internet and the changing trends in the industry, we can’t blame Jobs for having done what he did. If anything, iTunes didn’t so much create the new reality as find a way to adapt and survive, what with free ‘illegal’ downloading wreaking havoc on the music industry. Even so, I don’t see how this did anything to facilitate better or different thinking. There’s nothing wrong with a company selling iPods, but there’s something goofy about linking the selling of consumer electronics with thought. Worse, there may actually be some people who think they ‘think different’ because they happen to be Apploids. The mere fact of using Apple products may give them the sensation of thinking because of brand associations. But this is like someone with a gold crucifix necklace thinking she’s close to God through the symbol itself. It is a form of idolatry.. or ipodatry.

PS. In Adam Lashinsky's INSIDE APPLE, he argues Steve Jobs belongs in the 'productive narcissist' personality type as opposed to, say, the 'erotic' or 'obsessive'. An 'erotic' personality feels a great need to be loved, and people in that category tend oto excel in social work, teaching, and nursing. According to Lashinky, Jobs as CEO was incredibly tough on his employees and colleagues, not caring if he hurt their feelings or lost their affection. He fought for the power to lead, and he ruthlessly carried forth his vision. But, there may be two kinds of 'erotics': those who need to be loved by close ones and those who need to be loved by the larger public. Paradoxically, Jobs' rudeness to close associates was to make Apple create great products so that people around the world would love him. So, I think he was as much an 'erotic' as a 'productive narcissist'. He didn't play hard just to win in power but to win great affection from a world full of strangers. He sacrificed the love of people close to him to win the adoration/adulation of millions of people he didn't know.

Neo-Fascist Review of Amy Chua’s BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER

2012-01-24T16:56:00.000-08:00

Among books I read last year were the biography of PAULINE KAEL: LIFE IN THE DARK by Brian Kellow and BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER by Amy Chua. I thought to write about the Kael book, but I could go on forever about Kael, and so I decided to save it for another day. On Chua’s book I have only a few things to say, so I might as well get it over with.

I hadn’t heard of Amy Chua until last year when I came upon a post by the Blogger Named Ernest, which led to a spirited discussion among regular readers. Blogger Named Ernest seemed more approving than critical of Chua’s approach to education. Though a member of the liberal elite, Chua, it turns out, tends toward political incorrectness—or as such things are possible within her community. Like Camille Paglia, she’s something of an odd fit, a kind of insider-outsider. Married to a Jewish man, maybe she feels a certain rapport with Jews who’ve long defined their position in white gentile society as insiders/outsiders. Anyway, what follows is not really a review of the entire book but observations on certain aspects of Chua-ism or Chualogy. The approach is more psycho-social than anything else.

For those who haven’t read the book, just go to any search engine and look up ‘Amy Chua’ and ‘Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother’ for the summary. Having watched some of her interviews regarding her recent and earlier books on Youtube, I got the impression that Chua is a high-spirited and energetic woman, more vivacious than vicious. She admits she can be aggressive and demanding, but it seems more a matter of personality and attitude than deeply rooted hostility and rage. She can be hot-tempered and say hurtful things, but she’s also quick to forgive, make up, and hug & kiss and all that—or so she says. Her personality, unmistakable in the interviews, comes through the pages as well. She doesn’t seem to have much to hide. Some might say she’s a counter-stereotype of the demure and submissive Asian woman, but I wonder to what extent this stereotype is real, ideal, or exotic. It could be Asian societies long upheld the ideal of the demure woman, but given that most Asian women were stinky peasants or haggling merchants, most of them could not have been all that polite or nice. (It could be also be that traditional Asian women tended to act ‘nicer’ and ‘gentler’ in the presence of foreigners, leading many Westerners to think Asian women are like that all the time when they might be far more casual and direct among their own kind, even the males.) Also, given the merciless and cruel history of the Orient, smarter women probably learned the lesson of having to be cunning, calculating, and shrewd to find the right man, gain special connections, and etc. And to do this, they needed to turn on their charm; thus demureness could have been as much an act as a feminine ideal—to be sure, this has been the case in most traditional societies and still applies in modern society in cases where good-looking but less intelligent women try to attract the attention of rich good-looking men. Since they couldn’t openly be power-women in the modern feminist sense, they had to rely more on personality. They had to use the style of submissiveness to gain advantage in society.
In any society, there are women who, no less than the men, desire power, privilege, and riches. Since power-lust wasn’t supposed to be on women’s minds and agenda, it had to be nestled within their charming femininity; they had to perfect the art of hiding their fangs behind their smiles. In modern times, with the erosion of traditional values, it seems more Asian women, not least in China, have been more open in their desire for power and wealth. In America, women like Chua have little to hide or mask. They can openly strive for the best of everything, and no one will look on them as lacking in virtue as had been the case in traditional Asian society. (Even so, since Chinese society tended to be cruel and merciless, an ideal Chinese mother had to focus her energies on amassing power for the family, if not for herself. Since a woman didn’t amount to much in traditional China, the path to power rested with the success of the son, which is why it was so important to have sons and to make them rise up in the world. Since family was key to Chinese society, a successful son wouldn’t just go his own way but take care of the entire family. His power/honor would thus be power/honor for the whole family. Since Chua has two girls instead of two boys—and since the girls are half-Jewish—, her story is an odd modern twist on the age-old Chinese theme. It’s especially interesting because while Asian femininity is much-valued in America, Asian masculinity is not. For many Americans, the notion of ‘Asian masculinity’ is even a oxymoron, as the typical image of the Asian male is a Star-Trek-novel-reading geek who makes a Jewish kid named ‘Eugene’ look buff in comparison. So, if Asian males have long been favored in Asia, Asian females are favored in the West as iconic images of exotic beauty, cuteness, and the like. Thus, Chua’s girls’ Chinese-ness could be an asset, whereas it might have been a deficit if they were boys. Since ‘Chinese’ + ‘male’ doesn’t get much respect in America, had Chua’s kids been boys, maybe she would have less emphasized their Chinese-ness and steered them more toward identifying with their whiteness/Jewishness.)

Though understated in her book, I believe that the three main themes of the book is (1) Amy Chua’s lifelong repressed anger at her own father (2) her sense of smallness when faced with the power of the Jewish intellect and (3) her sense that she is something of a traitor to the Chinese race. Readers may not pick up on this because Chua says she’s filled with love and admiration for his father—who, though mean at times, was being strong for the family—and because she seems to a happy and well-adjusted member of the liberal elite community.

But if one reads the book closely, it goes something like this: the Chua clan is member of the ancient and proud Chinese people. Chinese are a great people. Chua clan settled in Philippines and made a fortune, proving their Chinese superiority over the dumb Filipinos. Chinese, through their intelligence, wisdom, family loyalty, work ethic, and sacrifice, can do anything and win if they just put their mind to it. Chua was among the best students in her highschool. She applied to the top university in the nation and was accepted. Sky’s the limit, she thought. Sure, she knew many smart white kids, but Chinese would rise higher since Chinese have a longer history, greater will to study and suffer. But... it kinda came crumbling down. Not that she flunked out of college and became a loser. But at Harvard she realized the limits of her intelligence. She was smart but no super-genius. But the bigger culture shock was she felt dumb around super-smart Jews. Of course, she doesn’t exactly say it in quite this way. Instead, she relates how being surrounded by people of higher intellectual caliber, she felt tongue-tied and slow-witted. For most of her student yrs prior to college, she had towered over all others; and her lively personality dominated many situations with peers. But among the sharp, aggressive, wily, and brilliant Jews, she felt like something of a Suzie Wong bimbo. Though Chua is many times smarter than Michelle Obama—as well as more pleasant as far as I could tell from Youtube videos—, how one feels about oneself is a matter of context. As Michelle Obama felt as an outsider at Princeton where most students—mostly white—were a lot smarter than her, Chua found herself in a situation where she was nothing special. It was like a white athletic star who goes to college and finds out he ain’t nothing special when compared to faster and stronger Negroes. If Michelle Obama was filled with resentment all her life—rather like the film critic Armond White—, Amy took a different tact and approach to her dilemma. For one thing, even if she was less smart than Jews, she knew she had every right to be at Harvard; she wasn’t admitted via affirmative action like the Obamas and most Negroes. Also, if blacks harbor feelings of ideological and historical animus against whites—even against liberal whites with ‘good intentions’—, there is no particular history of Jewish vs Chinese hatred(though things may change with tensions arising between China at odds with America dominated by Jews who may resort to ‘yellow peril’, not least to direct gentile hostilities outward and away from themselves). Another thing is the Asian personality may be more willing to bow down to those deemed superior than the black personality be. Though Asians have their own brand of power-lust, it may come more naturally for Asians to kowtow before Great Power. Blacks, more self-centered, prefer everyone to suck up to them EVEN WHEN blacks are well aware of their intellectual inferiority vis-a-vis Jews and whites. (The way blacks see it, ‘white intelligence’ is just a cold calculating machine without style and coolness. Just as a computer can process information faster than man but man has control over the computer, the Negro feels that the ‘creative’ sun people should have authority over the ‘calculating’ ice people. Whites and Jews may add and subtract better, but Negro has the ultimate vision and style. The white man may have the superior factual know-how to create advanced musical instruments, but the Negro really how to make the music. White genes may produce the beautiful white women, but only the masterful Negro dude can give her full sexual pleasure that the flabby, bland, and dull white boy simply can’t deliver. Incidentally, this sort of attitude isn’t limited to just Negroes but to many whites as well, which is why so many white liberals are crazy about Jazz, worship MLK and Oprah, revere Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali, and voted for Obama. Though white liberals deny that blacks have lower IQ, the likelihood is that even if they were to be convinced of racial IQ differential, their admiration of Negroes would remain the same because, physically-musically-and-soulfully, the Negro seems more powerfully and authentically ‘human’ and ‘alive’ than bland white boys. After all, some white rightists think East Asians have higher IQ, but they don’t have any particular awe of East Asian folks; if anything, their attitude toward East Asians is rather similar to black people’s attitude to white people: grinds who may be better at learning stuff but not as ‘original’, ‘creative’, and ‘expressive’. Of course, no bunch of white folks are as bland as SWPL dorks, but their self-conscious lack of color and flavor is paradoxically what leads so many of them toward worshiping the Negro. Many white liberals know that Obama is no great genius, but who needs geeky high-intelligence when you got style, charisma, and soul? Obama doesn’t have to ‘think’ like most people do since he just KNOWS through his superior and cooler Negro intuition. It’s like we know that pigs are smarter than tigers/lions, but most people admire the latter more. Pigs, for their higher IQ, are piggish whereas tigers/lions look noble, beautiful, and tough—though, in fact, they are just like any other animals in doing anything-to-survive.) If Chinese act like they are members of the greatest civilization in the world, each Negro acts like he or she is the greatest being in the world. Despite Chua’s individual ambition, her Asian nature wants to belong to the Great Group. When she realized that Jews are greater than Chinese, she wanted to be a member of the Jew Clan. In contrast, because EACH black person thinks he or she is the greatest thing since sliced watermelon, he or she is bound to feel resentment unless he or she is regarded by others as the biggest dude or ho in town. If Armond White—the black NY movie critic—were Asian, he might have been content to rub shoulders with smart Jewish critics who dominate the scene. But that’s never been enough for Armond White. He had to the top dog among NY critics, and if anyone dared to call out on his pompous jive-ass self, he would accuse his critic of ‘racism’. Blacks like Oprah, Obama, and many others have a typical black personality of boundless self-regard and narcissism. It’s there with Spike Lee too. Many filmmakers much greater than Spike Lee don’t make a big deal about their talent and show generosity toward others, but Lee’s been promoting himself as the greatest filmmaker of his generation and accusing everyone of ‘racism’ for not funding his projects, not giving him awards, not watching or liking his movies. With so many insufferable jerks like this, it’s no wonder that the black community is so dysfunctional. Though blacks bitch and whine about whites, they should be relieved that there’s white people to ‘oppress’ them because without such, not only would there be no white wealth to be funneled to the Negro community but Negroes would all be whupping each other for the title of ‘biggest baddest mofo there be’.

Anyway, Amy Chua had a rude awakening that her smarts weren’t such great shakes in the realm of the super-smart Jews. She was good at learning and memorizing things and putting them to practice. But she couldn’t juggle the things inside her head with the brilliant ease of the Jews. Though naturally bright, she has to work hard to master things whereas the minds of Jews seem to be work with less labor. Chua had a great mechanical mind, but Jews had the great computer-like minds. Her mind was hardware, the minds of Jews were software. Her mind dealt with objects, Jewish minds could turn objects into liquids and gases and spin them around and turn them into new elements. She felt like Mickey Mouse in SORCERER’S APPRENTICE. In the film PAPER CHASE, we see the difference between the merely excellent mind and the truly brilliant mind. Some people have the ability to work hard and master something. Others not only master it with less effort but discover new ideas and connections that go beyond established knowledge; no people are as good at this as Jews are.

With her book on the history/nature of superpowers, Chua demonstrated that she has a superior mind—I haven’t read the book but watched her interview on the subject on Youtube—, but as with Francis Fukuyama, her ‘findings’ are hardly original. Her intellect is superior to that of most people, but it comes nowhere near the super-superiority of Jews. It’s insightful but not groundbreaking.

Her other book, dealing with the problems of globalism, seems to lean toward political incorrectness, but this is understandable because if lesser intellects have one card to play against smarter people, it is the courage of honesty. Though we like to think in terms of greater intelligence = greater truth, it so happens that very smart people gain lots of power, and they would like to keep that power, and that means not rocking the boat of current social and political taboos. Look what happened to James Watson when he dared violate the taboo. No matter how smart or distinguished you are, your reputation and career can be destroyed if you say or do the ‘wrong thing’. Since smart people rise high, they have more reason to be fearful of losing their power/privilege since they have more of it to lose. So, though they have the intellectual power to attain the truth, they end up using their great talents to suppress the truth and promote the lie. It’s possible that there is a part of Bill Gates that understands the reality of IQ differences among races, but imagine what he would lose if he said so? Probably worse than what happened to Larry Summers. Summers, being Jewish, at least had the protection of the Cabal network, and though a rich guy, he wasn’t as rich as Gates and so didn’t have as much to lose. If Gates were say something ‘racist’, his entire empire would be boycotted, and many of this top talents—white and liberal Jews—would leave ship, and then there would be calls to boycott Windows, and millions of people would dump Microsoft shares. In this sense, the powers-that-be in the West are no more honest on certain issues than the communist leaders of China. Both parties dare not say things that will undermine their power, and so they continue to adhere to the official ideological faith/narrative of their respective nations—and use their powers to suppress all heretical thought. So, Gates uses his considerable power and wealth—created by his intelligence—to maintaining a great lie.
But, Jews have another reason for using their high intelligence to maintain the lie. It isn’t merely out of fear of political correctness; after all, Jews control the terms of political correctness. Jews promote and maintain the official lie of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ because it serves their tribal interests. If most Americans were to wake up to the reality of racial differences—blacks, being stronger, pose a physical threat to the white race, and Jews, being smarter, will be the permanent overlords over the white race and treat whites like cattle or guinea pigs—, white Americans may finally begin to see Jewish power for what it is and unite to challenge it. So, in America, it is not the case that greater intelligence = greater truth. If anything, the best and the brightest in America—especially the Jews—are using their great intelligence, wealth, and influence not only spread lies as official truth but to purge and root out all politically incorrect elements from positions of influence. Thus, the Democratic Party has become the party of Jews, blacks, feminists, illegal aliens, and gays lording over working class white Americans. And the GOP has become a den of neocon sharks who’ve purged the party of Paleocons.
Political Correctness is far more dangerous than McCarthyism. If McCarthyism lasted a few yrs, political correctness has been with us for decades and, if anything, seems to be growing stronger and taking over all of media, government, courts, and media. Few more people like Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, and we can kiss freedom of speech goodbye. In its stead, the Orwellian notion of ‘Hate speech is not free speech’ will be branded into the minds and soul of all the impressionable young Americans—who’ve also been brainwashed to think ‘gay marriage’ makes biological and moral sense. Sad to say, high intelligence, which should be the friend of truth, has often been the enemy of truth. (And the powers-that-be indoctrinate and recruit the Best-and-the-Brightest to perpetuate the ‘official truth’. The Catholic Church have done this for over a thousand yrs. Since the smartest children were trained to think inside the box of religious orthodoxy, they used their talents to stamp out all heretical thoughts and ideas, such as those of Galileo. The Turks forcibly recruited the smartest and strongest Greek boys and shaped their talents to serving the Islamic agenda of the Ottoman Sultans. Himmler recruited the handsomest, toughest, and smartest Germans to serve in the SS. Cuban and North Korean communist parties recruit the smartest people to run many of the operations of the state. Even if some of these smart people come to realize the lie of the state, they bend to the law of carrots and sticks. Why bother with the truth when it can get them killed and why not perpetuate the lie when they are rewarded handsomely?) The main goal of Jewish high intelligence is to hoodwink white goyim into accepting the official lies of the Jewish elites. Of course, these Jewish lies appear to be true, rational, and scientific since Jewish intellectuals—supported by Jewish controlled institutions and foundations—come across as so rational, knowledgeable, and kindly. Listen to Jared Diamond, and he seems like the nicest guy, a modern day wiseman. Or take the soft-spoken Steven Pinker and many others. And there was Stephen J. Gould. And there’s no denying that some of their ideas were not only correct but thought-provoking, even profound. But just as we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, we shouldn’t save the bathwater with the baby. The fact is that on the fundamental question of race, these men are liars through and through, and it’s not just a matter of differences of opinion or misreading of data but the product of a willfully mendacious agenda of Jews to preserve their supremacy over everyone else. When Jews express shock at certain ‘racist’ ideas, it’s not because they are offended by ‘racist lies’ but because they are confronted with the truth that they don’t want any of us to know or think about. This is why Jews associate ANY discussion of race and racial differences with Nazism and the KKK. Ironically, the very people who condemn McCarthy for having conflated liberals and moderate leftists with communists—guilt by association and implication—are now associating anyone who discusses the truth about race with elements of the crazy right. And it’s bemusing how these people who take such pride in their rationalism speak of such things as ‘sin of racism’. Isn’t ‘sin’ a religious concept? So, you see, if you have certain views, you’re not only factually wrong but you’re spiritually evil, just like the term ‘homophobia’ implies that if you oppose ‘gay marriage’, you’re not only socially misguided but mentally, psychologically, and clinically sick. But, I’m sure the politically correct left is working to conflate homosexuality with spirituality, so that if you oppose the radical gay agenda, YOU will be the ‘sinful’ one.

Anyway, the one advantage of high intelligence being allied with political correctness is it gives lesser intellects an opening in the intellectual debate. If the smartest people in America were to honestly and openly discuss matters such as racial differences, they will, of course, dominate the debate. But if they refuse to touch the subject—except to stomp it with their iron boot—, then it’s up to lesser intelligent people to explore, discuss, and own the subject. And that seems to have happened in the West. Though there are exceptions, most people who discuss matters such as racial differences are not the brightest folks on the planet. But what they lack in super intellect, they compensate with courage and honesty(though I must say some tend to be on the crazy side). Of course, the problem is political incorrectness tends to attract a lot of dummies who don’t much care for the truth but merely want to counter one form of correctness with another, their own. Take Alex Kurtagic. He bitches and whines about leftist political correctness, but his thoughts on culture and politics suggest he simply wants to replace Jewish-dominated PC with a form of neo-Nazism. And it is because the discussion of racial differences attracts so many dummies—especially the clowns at Stormfront—, that it’s been difficult to win intellectual respect for the subject. Jared Taylor does no favor to the movement by giving interviews to morons like Don Black’s son, a slacker version of KKK idiot.

Whenever super-smart and powerful socio-political forces ban certain ideas—out of fear or to maintain control—, the less smart but more courageous/honest have an opportunity to make a mark on society. Suppose the smartest and most powerful people in society denied that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Since they won’t explore or express ideas on this truth, the less smart could claim the truth by daring to do studies that do indeed show that Earth revolves around the Sun. Now, this is purely a hypothetical and not an allusion to Galileo who was truly an intellectual giant. But all throughout history, there many been many times when the most intelligent people, seeking entry or continuance of the social/political status quo, invested their superior talents and energies to maintaining the myth over unearthing the truth. Though such political conditions can be oppressive and dangerous to people committed to truth and courage, it can also provide lesser lights of society with the opportunity to become ‘great minds’ merely on the basis of having the guts to say it like it is. In the story of the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, the kid who says the Emperor is near-naked isn’t smarter than other townsfolk. He simply has the gall to speak the truth. (My guess as to why some conservatives think Thomas Sowell is such an intellectual giant has little to do with his supposed ‘genius’. Sure, he’s a smart guy, but his main advantage has been a willingness, especially for a black man, to observe and write about obvious things that sound startling ONLY BECAUSE most of us, like the townsfolk in EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, are not supposed to notice. If one is not allowed to notice or say that it’s raining when it’s raining, the person who dares to say it may seem like a truth-teller of genius. In DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, the eponymous character says of a certain patient that he’s suffering from a disease that ‘does not exist in Moscow’, which is starvation. Since everyone ‘s supposed to be well-fed in a socialist state, how can people be starving to death? To say the obvious can either get him killed—by the state—or admired as a great truth-teller—by us, the audience—when, in fact, all he did was say what everyone knows but isn’t allowed to know.)
Amy Chua’s book on the problems of globalism seems to be, to an extent, meant to confront certain politically correct assumptions. Since Chua cannot match Jewish thinkers in areas of brilliance—even lies can be brilliant whereas truth can be prosaic and dull, or maybe one can be more brilliant with lies than with truth because whereas the latter has to stick to facts, lies can spin new realities with all sorts of mind tricks, and this is nowhere near as obvious as in advertising where the objective is to hook people to the look and vibes of the product than for its actual specifications and qualities, and given that most people wanna belong to a group than truly be different, the art of lies and hype requires a great deal of brilliance, as was the case with Apple’s ‘Think Different’ strategy which fooled a lot of people into buying the same gadgets to own a piece of the brand of ‘being different’, which is to say the gullible fools thought ‘difference’ was something they had to purchase with hard-earned cash because, deep down inside, they knew they couldn’t develop it on their own—, her strategy has been to take note of certain obvious facts that happen to be politically and/or ideologically inconvenient to the elites. If she pushes too hard with political incorrectness, she could be branded as a heretic, shunned by her colleagues, and exiled from the elite community. So, Chua tries to steer as politically incorrect as possible within the orbit of PC. She’s too much of a lover of being a member of the elite to risk everything in the name of truth, but to the extent that the daring to mention certain truths does make one stand out as ‘different’ in elite circles defined by the orthodox ideology of PC, it can serve as her claim to fame IF she plays tactfully enough not to go all the way and connect the dots showing that some races are messed up and hopeless in the globalist order because of their naturally lower IQs or greater proclivity toward violence and jivery. She sort of pushes the envelope but knows well not to stuff it.
So, it’s possible that Amy Chua’s somewhat politically incorrect contrarian quality is a kind of strategy to stand out among the people she hangs with. She cannot spin ideas as brilliantly as many of her Jewish colleagues, but she can say things others dare not say. There seems to be an aspect of this in Camille Paglia as well. Though she was smart enough to attend Yale, she surely realized she was no intellectual equal of people like Susan Sontag and the like. She also couldn’t land a teaching gig at one of the top schools. So, her claim to fame was to make a lot of politically incorrect noise and say things that others, though much smarter than her, were afraid to say. But then, Paglia played it ‘smart’ in blaming all the problems of PC on puritanical wasps than on radical Jews. In fact, her shtick is that Jews were originally great and radical in the 60s but then turned into prissy politically correct commissars because they came under the influence of flavorless and dull wasp ideological culture. Yeah right, I suppose Jewish commissars of the early Soviet Union turned into cold ruthless killing machines because they took pointers from American wasps who were really behind communism.
Anyway, the downside of political-incorrectness-as-claim-to-fame is it can lead one to make a fetish of contrarian-ness, whereby one comes to mistake something as true or truer simply because it offends polite or correct society. And so, Paglia has said really dumb stuff such as ‘Sarah Palin is really smart’. In her knee-jerk opposition to what she calls ‘elitism’, she relishes championing every populist figure. But in many cases, she’s practicing just another form of correctness: contrarian correctness, something Christopher Hitchens was often guilty of as well.

So, what’s politically incorrect about BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER? For starters, it makes no apologies of Chua’s elitism. Her point is Chinese care deeply about success, her father drove her to succeed, she finds great pride in success, and she wants her children to succeed too. If Bill Gates and other members of the elite act like their main concern is ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’, Chua makes no bones about success being her main obsession. She bemoans the days when her immigrant family vacationed by staying at the Holiday Inn and the like. She loves quality stuff, fancy hotels, and rubbing shoulders with the best & brightest. Though NPR is the favorite radio show of the elites—and elite-wanna-be’s—, it’s very SWPL-ish in packaging liberal elitism as a kind of egalitarianism. The news stories are read with an air of sophistication, but there is also an air of hipness and casualness(a very affected one at that). There are many stories of good decent intellectual types going to poor places around the world brimming with compassion, conscience, and concepts to improve lives of suffering people around the world; NPR listeners love the fact that they CARE, which also allows them to love themselves.
Fancy jazz is the main form of music presented on NPR, but jazz also has the pedigree of being Negro music, music of the streets, of rebels, etc. The whole thing is very Ken Burnsy. It touches on many subjects and topics of non-elitist nature but in an elitist tone.
And since NPR also features interviews with rock stars, celebrities, and etc—but of course in an ‘intelligent’ and ‘erudite’ way—, it’s for cool people and not just for snobs. It’s a hip-haute form of snobbery. It’s like rich people like to wear casual clothes by fancy designers, thereby having the cake and eating it too: they are one of the people but different, though in a subtle way that only people-in-the-know would know.
Now, I don’t mean to denigrate what is good about NPR—it is better than any talk radio program though I haven’t been a regular listener since around 2003—, but it has a bogus air of having it both ways: elitist and egalitarian, classy and edgy, bland and colorful, inoffensive and different, staid and fresh. It’s really a cross between Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street for adults.

Amy Chua doesn’t exactly play by SWPL-NPR rules. Her shtick is not “I want power and privilege because I’m hip and caring and wanna save society and raise IQ scores for Negro kids.” It’s not “Waiting for Superman” bullshit peddled by Michelle Rhee, who is more the hope-springs-eternal SWPL type. Though Chua doesn’t explicitly talk about IQ or race, it’s quite obvious from the book—her mention of her famously intelligent father, her marriage to a very smart Jew, her obsession with elite circles, her goal of raising her girls to attend top schools, etc—that she knows well enough that some people are naturally smarter than others, and there’s nothing you can do about it. After all, though smart herself, she wasn’t as smart as her father and could not, despite all her effort, to succeed in the field of hard science and math. And though she studied very hard, she admits she felt intellectual small when she met the really smart people at Yale. So, though Chua believes hard work can do wonders, she knows it can’t do anything.
She went to a top school to be around smart people, to marry a smart guy, and to have smart kids. The difference between Chua and SWPL type is Chua is more forthright about her dreams and preferences whereas SWPL types, though ambitious and wanting of the good life(and seeking intelligent mates to have smart children with), will officially claim that they believe in and are committed to ‘equality’.
Perhaps, part of Chua’s forthrightness owes to her immigrant background. She couldn’t take things for granted since the good life had to be earned the hard way by her parents—and along the way, maybe her contact with the lower elements didn’t endear her to them; maybe she met white trash, black trash, and brown trash calling her names; maybe she wanted to rise above dumb Chinese-American kids who were only good for making and delivering chop suey.
Take the movie LOVE STORY. Oliver(Ryan O’Neal) was born rich and feels burdened by his social status; he wants to show the world that he isn’t some privileged child of the Barrett fortune but a good guy who made his own way in the world. He seems to be doubly burdened by his family legacy. On the one hand, there’s the expectation for him to be as distinguished a student and athlete as his father had been, but there’s also the anxiety of being perceived by others as having been shoed into Harvard Law School thanks to family connections. Anyway, he falls in love with Jenny Cavalleri(or Cavallieri)and wants her to know that he doesn’t give a crap about privilege and all that. In the sequel OLIVER’S STORY, he even works pro bono for poor folks. Jenny(Ali Macgraw) was born to an Italian baker, and being a Radcliffe girl really means a lot to her. She knows she made it purely through merit, and no one thinks otherwise. It’s a great honor for her, and since her father is a baker, she is burdened by the baggage of ‘guilt of privilege’. (I must say though, rather unrealistically her devout Catholic father allows her to call him ‘Phil’ and acts in most regard like some proto-hippie Jew.) And she admits to Oliver that one of the reasons for his appeal is what he is than merely who he is. She’s an Italian-American girl from a humble background, and she is thrilled in love with some rich wasp guy from a distinguished family. Though she doesn’t marry Oliver for his money—the fool disowned his father when the latter suggested, not entirely unreasonably, that he put off the marriage til he finishes law school—, the fact is he’s a smart guy, bound to graduate near the top of his class in law school, and make a lot of money; she wouldn’t have married him if he was the college janitor. Jenny’s directness makes her special, especially in contrast to the reserved manners of the wasp elite. Though Oliver rebels against his father, they both share the inability to express themselves openly.

Amy Chua, like Jenny, has the guts to express her real feelings, to rock a little the paradigm of the established liberal elite that plays to win but preaches ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’. (The irony of the liberal elite is it sneeringly looks down on Red State ‘white trash’ as vulgar and crude but pretends to understand and appreciate and sympathize with the even trashier and lower culture of the black trash. The liberal elite professes to care about the poor and be committed to raising the bar of ‘social justice’ for everyone, but it also takes great pleasure in looking down on rednecks and poor white folks as crude subhuman neanderthals. The very people who sneer at country music culture and NASCAR find rap culture to be important and meaningful. The very people who decry the dumbness of our culture seem to be blind to the fact that liberal Jews mostly own, control, and profit from trashy Hollywood, music industry, TV, and porn. They won’t face up to the truth that so much wealth of the liberal elites has been produced by feeding trash culture to the masses made dumber every year. But instead of looking in the mirror at their own moral/cultural corruption, they blame the masses—especially white conservatives—for all that’s wrong with popular culture and society. Perhaps, the liberal elites are willing to overlook and/or make apologies for black stupidity and craziness since the grand narrative says blacks were damaged by centuries of oppression and ‘racism’, whereas ‘white trash’ have no excuse for being so dumb, poor, and/or worthless since they not only hadn’t faced racial discrimination over the centuries but practiced it against non-whites, especially blacks. So, while one could argue black trashism resulted from victimization under white trashism, white trashism is just pure and simple trashism of people who freely chose to be trashy. In a similar vein, we are told that Jewish greed is somehow less evil than white greed. White greed is pure and simple greed whereas Jewish greed was something Jews were historically forced into since Jews, not having been allowed to own land, had no choice but to excel in professions like money-lending and money-changing.)
Amy Chua is also politically incorrect in not making noise about American racial discrimination against the Chinese. In this regard, she is different from Obama—and Iris Chang, the worthless celebrity historian. Obama’s white lineage goes back to white slave-owners in the South and his black lineage goes to black slave-owners in Africa. But being the shameless Jafro that he is, he acts like he’s the rightful heir to Selma, MLK, and all that. Though his power base has been mostly Jewish, he acts like the second(and mellower)coming of Malcolm X, one who has put aside rage and violence in favor of peace with white folks(as long as white folks provide him and his disgusting wife with everything, because if white folks don’t accept the bargain, he’s gonna get pissed and promote black rage, in which case there won’t be any hope of racial peace forever; it’s a kind of social black mail, which might as well be called ‘African-American mail’; either accede to Obama’s offer or there will be ‘fire next time’). Though Amy Chua is surely knowledgeable of the bad treatment meted out to the Chinese in American history, she seems to prefer living in the present than dwelling on the past. (This is either gracious or naive on her part, or maybe both. Maybe in her ‘let bygones be bygones’ attitude, she is simply blind to the advantage of playing the ‘race card’ for the sake of ethnic power. Or, maybe she has no taste for such politics since Chinese minority was hurt by the politics of resentment in the Philippines. Furthermore, maybe she understands that Asian-Americans playing the race card cannot complete with Jews with Holocaust cult, Negroes with slavery and Jim Crow jive, and Latinos with sheer numbers. Or, maybe she has a natural aversion to bullshit, at least compared to most people in her elite community.) And maybe she feels it would be presumptuous on her part to wrap herself in the banner of Chinese who suffered in the past. After all, historical-collective victimology is a really a form of grave-robbing, something that’s been turned into a science by Jews and into a performance art by Negroes. Rich and powerful Jews invoke the suffering of their ancestors to make never-ending demands on the white gentile community. Negroes today run riot and act like stupid wild apes, but they use the history of slavery to turn themselves into automatic saints: since my great-great-great-great-grandparent was a slave, that makes me a noble victim too though I’ve done nothing in life but commit crime, talk shit, drop out of school, and have babies at tax payers’ expense. It’s like the Jena Six are thugs but have been turned into saints—sadly without any political/ideological/moral opposition from mainstream conservatives who are a bunch of pussy cowards. It’s one thing to remember historical tragedies; it’s quite another to morally rob the graves of one’s ancestors to wrap oneself in sanctimonious self-righteousness. But Jews and blacks do it because they are utterly shameless. Jews do it to preserve their great power—Holocaustianity forbids any criticism of Jews—, and blacks do it to gain power they don’t have(due to their lower IQ and craziness). When the discussion involves Jews or Negroes, it soon degenerates into hand-wringing about the Holocaust or slavery or some shit that’s been over-exposed and over-exploited to death. There are surely some Asians—along with Hispanics and Muslims—who wanna take this route. I mean, hey, it has paid off very nicely for Jews and Negroes. No one dares to criticize Jews, and blacks get lots of favors from government and businesses. But Chua doesn’t seem to have a stomach for that sort of thing. She doesn’t play by the liberal narrative of “my people were and will always be victims of white racism.” She mentions how some kids made fun of the way she talked as a young immigrant student, but she doesn’t moan and groan about it as ‘racist bullying’ that traumatized her for life and for which the entire white race must atone. Instead, she says the teasing only made her learn to speak better English.

Hers is a story of an immigrant family with a strong sense of priorities that never complained but pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. Liberals often whine about how poor Negroes and Hispanics can’t make it because they don’t have this or that. But Chua says her parents went through winters without heat to save money. One gets the sense that Chua has no use for excuses as long as one has the basic needs in life: roof over one’s head, water, food, family. If you want more than the basics, you gotta work for it, and one should never complain or make excuses. In America, Negroes and Hispanics—even illegals—have more than the basic needs of life, and indeed they all eat better than most white people in the 1950s. I dare say a middle class white family after WWII didn’t have all the amenities that Negroes have—and for free. But what Negroes do with it? They burn things down, they punch holes in walls, the beat up teachers, and act like apes. And faggoty white liberals and venal Jews keep making excuses for the Negroes, not least because if the truth about genetic differences were ever to be known officially to most people, much of the liberal paradigm will just crumble. (Of course, most Americans do know and sense certain aspects of racial differences, and indeed such is okay as long as it’s not explicitly or officially stated. For example, all sports fans must know that blacks have an advantage in speed, explosive power, and rhythmic coordination. And we all know that Jews must have higher IQs. We know, and popular culture can even indulge in such stereotypes as long as the reason are not officially or explicitly stated. So, TV shows can give us the commanding-voiced Negro and the demure Asian women, and we can enjoy them as stereotypes, but we’re not supposed to say such things reflect actual racial differences. On the occasion that some ‘anti-racist’ people do raise questions about stereotypes, the liberal explanation is the media are merely responding to widely held assumptions of most viewers. In other words, news programs prefer Asian females over Asian males and the comedy industry favors Jewish comics over Mexican comics not because Asian females are more feminine while Asian males are less masculine and not because Jewish comics are funnier than Mexican comics but because the media industry is pressured to give the prejudicial public what it wants. So, the ‘fault’ is not with racial reality or with the Jewish-controlled media but with the bigoted assumptions of the gentile masses. Though I’m not sure how many people are actually dumb or naive enough to fall for such lies, they do serve as acceptable ‘official truths’ to justify the status quo where stereotypes seem to continue.) This is why political correctness is so crucial to the left. Unable to face facts, liberals seek to silence dissent and debate by categorizing a whole bunch of ideas and information as ‘hate speech’. It’s be foolish to think of Chua as some kind of closet-conservative. She says she is very much a cosmopolitan who’s taken her kids around the world to appreciate the rich diversity of mankind and cultures, and all that. However, her emphasis on success and privilege makes it clear as day, intended or not, that such cosmopolitanism can only be afforded by highly successful people, perhaps the top 5% of Americans. (Personally, I would have considered it a great privilege in my youth had my family went on trips staying at the Holiday Inn. It was always campgrounds for us.) Perhaps on an ideological level, Chua filled her daughters with MLK worship, but that is not the focus of the book(as it might have been by other liberal authors). Rather, there’s an emphasis on the importance of success, status, money, prestige, and privilege: the stuff that most liberals REALLY want but pretend not to.
Chua’s message seems to be anyone in America—even non-white immigrants—would do well to concentrate on matters of intelligence, work ethic, family values, constructive attitude, and ambition to succeed. The implication of such outlook is that liberals are fundamentally wrong about white ‘racism’ keeping everyone down, especially minorities and women. If so, how did Amy Chua, a non-white woman, rise to prominence so fast? Despite her liberal politics, her views seem to be at odds with prominent Asian-Americans who’ve decided to jump on the PC bandwagon for either opportunistic, sincere, or drone-like reasons. The opportunism could be based on Asian-American calculation of where this nation is headed. With the decline of white numbers relative to the rise in black, Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian numbers—due to higher birthrates especially among blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims(though not for Asians) and massive immigration—America is said to be ‘browning’. Thus, even for Asian-Americans who personally tend toward ‘conservatism’, it’s smarter in the long run to gravitate to the Democrats. The future of America is written on the wall. Most Asian-Americans will have noticed by now that (1) most white Americans not only lack the will to fight for their racial survival but they seem to worship MLK and welcome ‘diversity’, and this is as true of the GOP as of the Democratic Party. Why bet on a dying horse? When Brits used to rule Hong Kong, native HK elites sided with the British. But as the fateful year of 1997 drew nearer, Hong Kong elites switched their allegiance to the Mainland Chinese—though Hong Kong had developed in ideological, political, and economic opposition to what the communist mainland stood for. Since Asian-Americans will never have the numbers or power to dominate America, their best bet is to side with that forces that will dominate America. Indeed, that future may already be here, what with the near-total control that liberal and neocon Jews have over all the powerful institutions in America and the fact that close to half of white Americans—and an overwhelming number of young white Americans—, along with nearly all blacks and Jews and huge share of the Hispanic and Asian population, voted for Barack Obama. Today, most white men are pussyboys who worship MLK and most young white women dream of being pummeled by some big-penised muscular Negro. Though massive immigration and affirmative action are destroying the white race, most white people have been brainwashed or cowered to remain silent or to blame all the problems on ‘socialism’. (Libertarians will have us believe that Detroit is what it is due to statist policies! Yeah, I suppose that is why all of Vermont is just like Detroit. Too much gubment.) People without power gravitate toward people with power for survival. When Spain was ruled by the Moors, Jews worked for Muslims. When Moors were kicked out, Jews tried to ingratiate themselves with Christian rulers. There have been cases of minorities ruling over the majority, such as British rule over India, French rule over Algeria, and Dutch-Anglo rule in South Africa. But, as they say, demography is destiny. The most successful minority rule is the Jewish domination of America, but Jews, being clever, rule officially as a ‘powerless’ than a powerful minority. Though Jewish-American power is the greatest the world has ever seen, Jews use the smoke-n-mirrors of Holocaustianity to make themselves out to be an eternal victim-race. Thus, officially at least, Jewish-American power is not the power of the powerful but of the noble/righteous powerless. Based on where America is headed, one could argue nothing is as dangerous as the paradoxical phenomenon of ‘powerless power’. It appears Jews may have perfected it, but it might have its origins in Christians using the victimization of Jesus and early Christians as the justification for their power to crush all opposition; even as Christians became very powerful, their power was morally justified in linkage to a time when early Christians had been powerless victims of pagans and Jews. This is why Jews are so eager to associate their power with blacks and Hispanics. That way, Jewish power is morally justified and ennobled as a force of helping the weak-n-helpless.
Asian-Americans, though reasonably successful, are no intellectual match for the Jews, and Amy Chua’s book makes that abundantly clear—at least if you read between the lines. Also, Asian-Americans cannot melt into elite circles as seamlessly Jewish whites can. Some Asians enter the circle, but there remains an air of ‘outsider’ about them. (Asian success may even seem as something of an affront to blacks, Hispanics, white liberals, and white conservatives. Even if Asian-Americans have made it meritocratically, the grand narrative says it’s black people’s turn to reap the rewards of America since they’d been denied for so long. Thus, it may appear that Asian-Americans are cutting in front of the in front of African-Americans even if Asian-Americans played by the rules. Latinos, with a longer history in the Americas, may feel the same way. As stated earlier, Asian-American success may be an affront to white liberal ideology that insists most non-whites, especially women, cannot make it in ‘racist’ America without special help. Furthermore, white liberals may not be too crazy about themselves and their kids having to compete with Asian-Americans for good jobs and privileges; it’s one thing to be liberal and generous when one’s on top and looking down on others, but quite another to be surpassed by others who don’t seem to be as ‘liberal’ as oneself and one’s own people are. Thus, some of Chua’s ‘illiberal’ comments may offend white liberals on two levels. Not only are they borderline ‘conservative’, but it suggests that Asian-Americans like Chua shows no appreciation for white liberalism, i.e. white liberals, full of selfless compassion and high-minded conscientiousness, had reformed and improved society so that Chua’s ilk can make it but all she cares about is more power and privilege for herself and family without much altruistic concern for helping others. Given that many Americans feel this way about China as a whole, Chua may serve as a kind of microcosm of the fears held by many Americans about the changing power structure of the world.) And while most Americans are comfortable with the idea of Jewish elites(noble people of the Book and/or survivors of the Holocaust) and Negro elites(the people of MLK), they may not be so comfortable with Asians in elite roles, and this is as true among liberals as among conservatives. A political poll on race and elections revealed that 98% of Americans were fine with a Jewish president or black president, 40% of Americans were okay with a Mormon president, but only 2% of Americans were okay with an Asian- or Muslim-American president. And such attitude is perfectly acceptable. Imagine if the findings had revealed that 98% of Americans said they couldn’t vote for a Jewish or black person to be president. The Jewish media and NAACP would have used that as reason for a ‘national discussion on antisemitism and racism’. Also, because the Chinese-American and Japanese-American experiences haven’t been victim-hyped—plus the fact that Asian-Americans, like their racial cousins American Indians—haven’t been very vocal on such matters, there is less historical/political consciousness about ‘white guilt’ pertaining to Asian issues. Also, rise of Japan and China—plus the stuff about ‘Japs’ killing dolphins and Chinese eating dogs—haven’t endeared Americans to Asians. Especially the rapid rise of China has filled Americans with fears of Fu Manchu.
Also, as Patton said, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” To most Americans, there’s nothing special about Asians who outwardly look and sound like a bunch of losers. White people are deemed to possess natural beauty in physical/facial form and cultural/expressive beauty in music. Blacks are deemed to possess musical power, athletic power, and sexual prowess. Jews are deemed to be funny, witty, brilliant, original, and genius. Gays are deemed to be creative and expressive. But Asians are deemed to be physically scrawny, sexually timid, musically stiff, and diligent grinds than genuinely creative minds. Blogger Named Ernest often refers to Mexicans as ‘boring’ and ‘mediocre’, and to most Americans, Asians are just smarter versions of Mexicans. At least, Mexicans have the numbers, and certain groups of Hispanics—especially Cubans—have some fun music. Asians are seen as dull, dull, dull, a people who deserve to be losers or drones taking orders from the beautiful whites, charismatic Negroes, and brilliant Jews. (There is a subculture of Japanese animation or anime fandom in America, but it tends to attract the beta personalities, the dorks among the whites.) But, China seems to be on the rise, and Asian-Americans seem to be succeeding in certain fields—especially academic—more than most Americans. And so, it fills many Americans with a certain befuddlement that can simmer into rage. How dare a race of gophers rise above eagles, lions, and wolves? Anyway, the opportunism of Asian-American politics isn’t difficult to understand. Even if the majority of Asian-Americans would prefer a solid white majority America—after all, if ‘diversity’ is so great, Asians would have emigrated to more diverse Latin-America than to America that long had a solid white majority population—, they know they have no control of the destiny of America, which is to be decided by the venal Jewish elite and pathetically suicidal white Americans who cheer their own political, cultural, and demographic demise not only in America but in Europe, the homeland of the white race. And if the future of America is mulit-culturalist(with its neo-ethnic politics), it only makes sense to have more of YOUR OWN KIND in America, and that means Asian-Americans will support immigration to bring over more of their kind.

But there are probably sincere or ideological reasons as to why some Asian-Americans support liberalism. If American public—and even much of private—education is a form of politically correct indoctrination, it means that the people who are MOST educated will also be the MOST indoctrinated. This is the dark side of diligence and commitment. Why did Germans become so pro-Nazi during the 1930? Because Germans had long been culturally conditioned to diligently commit themselves to ideas, values, and thoughts disseminated by official authorities. So, when Nazis used the media and education system to spread Nazi ideas and values, Germans took to them with greater fervor than Italians did to Fascism or Russians did to communism. All said and done, an Italian would rather have a plate of spaghetti than commit themselves to some ideology; and Russians prefer vodka over anything. Germans, in contrast, had greater respect for authority. When education = indoctrination among people who favor authoritarianism and conformity,
the most educated can actually become the most fanatical and blind. (German/Prussian authoritarianism was different from Russian authoritarianism. The German model required the elites to mold the masses, and the masses dutifully complied to be ‘good’ citizens and soldiers. Thus, German authoritarianism strengthened the bond between the elites and people. The hierarchy remained, but there was an active element of molding every citizen into a ‘good useful citizen’. Russian authoritarianism, in contrast, instilled passive acceptance among Russians. Russian elites mostly ignored the Russian peasant masses as a bunch of dummies, and so the Russian soul and ethic languished under the rule of Russian elites. German authoritarianism extolled all Germans, even of lower classes, to be upright, studious, clean, and orderly—to be proud Germans. Russian authoritarianism told Russian poor to remain dumb, ignorant, slovenly, and childlike. German authoritarianism was far more useful, but the dark side was the masses could be blindly led to do crazy things if evil people gained control over the state. Germans could be both more-good or more-bad than other peoples depending on the leadership.) Similarly, due to either the cultural background or genetic inclination of Asian-Americans(or maybe both), Asian-Americans are likely to be unquestioningly accepting of official PC disseminated by the Jews. Thus, the cultural conservatism of many Asian-Americans is paradoxically likely to turn them into good little liberals. Since conservatism emphasizes hierarchy, obedience, and conformity, Asian-Americans brought up with conservative outlook will likely conform to the powers-that-be. If American elites and institutions were overwhelmingly conservative, most Asian-Americans might grow up to be good little conservatives. But since the powers-that-be in America are liberal Jews, Asian-Americans will likely conform to politically correct liberal views. (You see how brilliant Jews are. They know how to, judo-like, flip the conservative personality to produce the liberal mentality.) Similarly, communism could be drummed into the Russian masses because centuries of ultra-conservatism had conditioned most Russians, dirt poor and ignorant, to submit to higher authority. When the authority had been the Tsar and the Orthodox Church, most Russians mindlessly bowed down to all that. But when the new boss was communism, most Russians took readily to communist dogma(though still not as much as to vodka). Just as Jews know how to use aspects of Christianity to make Christians suck up to and worship Jews, Jews know how to use Asian conformist-conservatism to turn them into good little liberals. With their limited personality and emotional bandwidth, Asians, though decent in IQ, are easily led along like lemmings by Jewish weasels. Though politically correct Liberalism is actually anti-liberal—‘liberal’ here meaning open-minded, freedom of expression, etc—, most Asian-Americans can be fooled into thinking they are ‘free’ and ‘open-minded’ simply by swallowing and regurgitating PC tripe fed to them by smarter Jews. Asians, in their status-conscious anxiety, are also more likely to care about the brand than the substance, i.e. they’d rather be branded as ‘progressive and liberal’ while actually being illiberal than personally discover and settle on a truly liberal—meaning open-minded and individualistic—path. (It’s like
Asian students in Asia are more interested in going to top colleges than gaining true knowledge and wisdom. They’d rather be branded as someone-accepted-into-Tokyo-or-Peking-University than someone who really strives for the truth. If given a choice between the integrity of true knowledge vs the status of knowledge as a brand, Asians—and maybe most people—will choose the latter. Worse, they may not know the difference substance and brand since social forces instilled in them a certain tunnel vision. Though Americans are not as education-obsessed as East Asians, we may actually be more tunnel-visioned when it comes to ideology. Most highly educated Americans would rather be branded ‘liberal’ and be illiberal in actuality than branded ‘anti-liberal’ and be truly liberal in actuality. Of course, given self-esteem issues—no one wants to regard himself or herself as a mindless cultural or ideological drone—, people are eager to fool themselves that they are free thinkers and ‘rebels’ than the sheeple that they really are, and this is no less true of the right than of the left. Sites like Cross-Currents and Occidental Observer are actually more open-minded and honest than left-wing sites.) Just as communism offered no equality but only the cult of equality, modern liberalism doesn’t offer genuine freedom of thought but only the cult of freedom of thought. But cults go a long way. It’s like Steve Jobs was a materialistic and greedy son of a bitch but fooled a lot of people in seeing him as a ‘rebel’. Brands matter, and Jewish liberal elites have found brilliant ways to associate certain intolerant dogmas with notions of ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘open-mindedness’. As long as their positions and ideas SYMBOLIZE those principles—while, in actual fact, violating them—, most people can be fooled. So, even though the ‘anti-racist’ and ‘anti-homophobic’ hysteria has, in reality, stamped out much of free speech and open-minded discussion, as long as ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-homophobia’ have symbolically branded as ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’, a lot of people will go with the image—just as they are fooled by commercial advertising—than deal with actual facts and uphold real principles of political freedom. But conservatives do the same thing. When Pat Buchanan pushes some of his less-than-pro-freedom proposals in the name of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’, it all becomes rather suspect. Also, the states-rights argument of the American South was morally and politically on the dubious side. White segregationists argued for the freedom or rights of states to choose their own laws except that this so-called freedom meant blacks had to be denied certain political, social, and economic rights. (If white Southerners had any integrity and courage, they would have justified segregation or, better yet, called for permanent separation of the races on the basis of REAL RACIAL DIFFERENCES between blacks and whites that render the former a danger to the latter. But obsessed with anti-Darwinian Christian fundamentalist idiocy and the myth of white supremacy—implying a tough white guy who beat up any Negro—, white Southerners came up with pro-segregationist arguments that only got dumber and more hysterical and desperate by the day. With white Southerners refusing to address the ONLY ARGUMENT that would have morally justified racial separation—the fact that blacks are naturally tougher and more aggressive than whites—, Negroes and Jewish liberals won on all accounts—moral, social, political, historical, and etc. So, where is the American South today? Though known for conservative politics and redneck culture, many young Southern white boys pitifully ape black rappers while hordes of white women are running off to have babies with Negroes; indeed there is more miscegenation in parts of the Deep South than in any Northern blue states. And as the STUFF BLACK PEOPLE DON’T LIKE blog has argued many times, the main religion of pathetic white conservatives in the South isn’t even Christianity but Negro-dominated college football. Your average Bible-thumping white conservative male thinks in terms of, “Negro, thank you leading our team to victory, so please hump my daughter—and my wife too while you’re at it.”)
Anyway, the relation between Jewish-American liberalism and Asian-American liberalism is that the former leads the latter by the leash. And in some ways, Jewish control of the Asian-American mind is no less a prize than Jewish control over Negro and Hispanic politics. Jewish liberals, by exploiting the issue of ‘white racism’, seek to suppress and control white identity and interests. Jewish liberals, by offering political and economic bribes to the Hispanic community, drove a wedge between white Americans and Hispanic-Americans(most of whom may otherwise might have assimilated into the white community). Jewish-liberals, by controlling and molding the minds of diligent but drone-like Asian-Americans, will have a vast number of highly educated yellow robots to do their ideological bidding. Jews are probably very relieved at this. If Asian-Americans had politically gone in the other direction, they might have challenged Jewish supremacy in academia and think-tanks. But Asian-Americans, having less balls and chutzpah than Jews, have decided to do as the Great Jew orders them. (Besides, even Asian-Americans who gravitate to the Right will likely come under the influence of neo-con Zionist Jews. John Yoo, though reviled by liberal Jews, seems to be little more than an ass-kisser of neocon Zionists.) So, Jews have it all locked up: they got the Negroes, the Hispanics, and the Asians. And of course, affluent Wasps suck up to Jews too since Jews control finance and media. And sad to say, most white Americans today aren’t any more individualistic and independent-minded than most Asian-Americans. Just look at the fools glued to OPRAH and AMERICAN IDOL. What kind of real independent-minded people are addicted to such nonsense? Or take the bland bogus church of Rick Warren. What white folks need is a culture of critique of their own.

Ideologically liberal/leftist Asian-American may be sincere in their support of ‘progressivism’. Though affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans in general, the ones who made it to the top surely know that officially supporting affirmative action—and whining about how minorities need it to counter white privilege, though many Asian-Americans are actually more privileged than most whites—will prove useful for furthering their own careers. If you’re a very successful Asian-American person and support affirmative action, you can also play the ‘people of color’ victim card and be favored by liberal Jews and wasps for promotion. You can pretend to be with the noble blacks and Hispanics against evil ‘white racism’. And what does it matter if affirmative action hurts OTHER Asians as long as YOU made it to the top and since embracing PC will help you climb higher?
Also, given the prevailing ideology of PC in America that says privileged white oppressors keep ‘people of color’ down, Asian-Americans might feel nervous about the fact that their example of success violates this holy narrative. If, as MLK said, America is so ‘racist’ that there needs to be minority set-asides and affirmative action for non-whites to succeed, how come so many Asian-Americans have done well without such aid? Thus, Asian-American success becomes an affront to the mythic narrative of MLK-ism. Given their timid-subservient nature, Asian-Americans lack the chutzpah, nerves, and guts to say, “Look, we studied and worked hard, we deserve what we got, and the rest of you should work as hard as we do.” Instead, many Asian-Americans seem nervous and apologetic than proud and confident of their success. It’s almost as if they’ve betrayed the holy truth of MLK-ism and succeed by sucking up to ‘evil racist whites’.
Asian-Americans may also fear that their success will mark them as targets of envy and resentment among blacks, Hispanics, and not-so-successful whites. So, Asian-Americans may find in leftism a convoluted way to explain their success and how their success obligates them to work hard against ‘white racism’ in order to help blacks and Hispanics. The convoluted narrative goes something like this as far as I can make out: blacks historically suffered a lot more than Asians, and there’s more anti-black animus than anti-Asian animus among whites. Also, many Asians arrived in the US with college degrees whereas white slavers destroyed the culture of African-Americans, which is why blacks are mired in poverty to this day. Also, there may be a concerted effort on ‘white racists’ to favor Asians as a ‘model minority’ over blacks. Since Asian-Americans are deemed to be more docile, gentle, less uppity, and more obedient, white ‘racists’ have allowed a measure of Asian-American success to uphold the Asian-model-minority example to justify the oppression of other minorities who aren’t as lucky as Asian-Americans: “Hey, Negroes, stop your uppity ways and bow down to white power just like Asians, and you’ll get some goodies too.” Indeed, what if white ‘racists’ were to use ‘Asian model minority’ success to rationalize continued ‘oppression’ of blacks and Hispanics? Instead of taking into account the historical and social context for black and Hispanic failure, the “if Asians can do it, blacks and Hispanics should be able to also” argument is an all-too-convenient way for whites to neglect the special needs of non-Asian-minorities who’ve been especially crippled by history of white ‘racist’ oppression. By embracing the less-threatening Asian as ‘model minority, the white ‘racist’ is able to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, he can say, “look, how can I be ‘racist’ when I’m embracing a people of another race?”, but it can also serve to justify the attitude that goes, “the reason I reject blacks is because they won’t act ‘nice’ and ‘gentle’ like Asians.” Thus, the ‘anti-racist’ embrace of the Asian comes to justify the ‘racist’ rejection of the Negro.

Now, there may have been a grain of truth to this in the 1980s when a bunch of Hollywood movies inexplicably seemed to give sidekick roles to Asian-Americans in many movies. It’s like a white guy can maintain his alpha male status next to an Asian character but might be demoted to beta male status next to a Negro character.
But, the ‘anti-racist’ liberal narrative falls apart upon closer scrutiny. (But given the shallowness of PC, it may well be the prevailing outlook of most Asian-American liberals.) The notion that black failure in American owes to loss of African cultural heritage is utterly bogus when sub-Saharan Africans, with their heritage intact, are much worse off than blacks in America. And it’s not like African culture amounted to much more than spear-chucking, booty shaking, and bongo drum pounding. (And black Africans practiced slavery for 100,000s of yrs, and Bantus committed massive genocide against the Khoisan peoples, so what they fuc* are they bitching about?) Also, if loss of indigenous culture leads to social failure, why did Northern Europeans rise to such heights after Christianity replaced their indigenous culture dominated by beer-swilling gods and the warrior virtues of head-bashing?
It is true that most white people are less worried about Asians than blacks in their neighborhoods, but this has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with black behavior. After all, many Asian-Indians are dark-skinned but whites don’t mind integrating with them. I always say, ‘better hindu than voodoo.’ Besides, due to their musical culture, sports dominance, and popularity of ‘gangsta’ culture, most whites are more admiring of blacks than of Chinese-Americans or Hindu-Americans. Whites may worry about there neighborhoods having too many Negroes, but whites are far more eager to win the approval and friendship of cool Negroes than of geeky Chinese or weird Hindus.
And while it’s true that many Asian immigrants do have college degrees, this seems to be a rather recent phenomenon. Look back a few generations, and most Asians in Asia—and maybe in America as well—didn’t have college degrees. And I’ll wager life has been tougher and rougher for most Asians than for black Africans even in the 19th century. Personally, I’d rather be a black slave in the American South than be a Chinee in 19th century China. I don’t wanna get caught up in something like the Taiping Rebellion which some estimates say killed up to 20 million people. If we compare 20th century American history with 20th century Asian(or even European)history, there is no comparison. Though social injustice faced by blacks in America during a good part of the century is undeniable, what black Americans went through cannot be compared with the massive poverty, famines, wars, pestilence, civil wars, and mass murder that took place all over Asia. And Europe wasn’t much better with WWI, rise of communism, WWII, and Soviet rule over Eastern Europe, etc. It’s said the number of blacks lynched from 1865 to 1965 numbers less than two thousand. Now, any lynching is awful, but compare that to 4 million Ukrainians starved to death in the 1930s by Stalin and his Jewish communist henchmen. Compare that to the Poles murdered by Germans and Russians. Compare that to the suffering of Southeast Asians due to Japanese invasion and wars of ‘liberation’ against Europeans, especially the French in Indochina. Consider the wars, aerial bombings, mass rapes, and etc. that destroyed literally tens of millions of people in Asia and Europe. When we take those issues into account, the notion that black-Americans suffered especially and more than other people in the 19th and 20th centuries sounds like a joke.
When it comes to Latinos and Hispanics, it becomes even more confused because they come in all colors: Spanish-American, Italian-American, Portuguese-American, indigenous native, black, mulatto, mestizo, etc. Can one say a white Cuban-American or a white Brazilian-American is held back because of the color of his skin? And if the greatest evil in the world is ‘white racism’, aren’t white Latinos just as guilty of it as white Americans? But, PC is less about actual events and real history than selective history shaped into a quasi-spiritual myth by the powers-that-be. In Nazi Germany, the poor victims according to official myth were always Germans whose rights were denied by Poles and Czechs, and their victimization was used as a pretext for Hitler’s wars. Even as the German war machine set about killing millions of non-Germans, Nazi victimology only focused on ‘Aryan’ victims of Jews and non-Aryans.
In America, we hear about the great crime of Japanese ‘Rape of Nanking’, but America’s massive bombing and nuking of Japan are seen as ‘necessary’. Also, we’ve been made to think that South African apartheid was evil, evil, and evil, but Zionist oppression of Palestinians is, well, justified. Negro suffering at hands of whites is terrible; Muslim suffering under Jews is.... well, you know them Muzzies are savages!! So, politically correct history is a form of national myth, and its heroes and villains are determined by the powers-that-be.
Who are the powers-that-be in America? Jews, most of whom are liberal and virulently anti-white. Given the sheepish and drone-ish ways of Asian-Americans, they’ve decided to swallow the liberal Jewish myth of political correctness. But what about the fact that this myth doesn’t jibe well with the actual Asian-American experience? It calls for a ‘creative’ form of thinking that squeezes intellectual triangles into circles and circles into squares. Modern liberalism has turned this form of Procrusteanism into an art and science, with NY TIMES coming up with ever more ridiculous—but creative—reasons for the IQ gap between whites and blacks. One week, Leroy ain’t getting all his vitamins, next week Leroy’s mother is too stressed over cable tv bill to be thinking of nuthin’ else. I wonder to what extent Asian-Americans liberals play this game because they are really foolish or because they know it’s THE game in town one must play to get ahead.

Amy Chua, as far as I could make out, doesn’t seem to subscribe to this outlook, at least not in an explicit way. Come to think of it, according to the book by the grossly fat and repulsive Jewess Paula Kamen, Iris Chang—the OTHER famous Chinese-American female author—at one time also expressed impatience with people who bitched and whined about ‘racism’ as the obstacle for success. After all, if America is really ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, how could it have been possible for an Asian-American woman like Chang to rise so fast? But then, the formative period for Chang, a graduate of University of Illinois in 1989, was the Reagan years when many young people did lean conservative and ‘patriotic’. (Having attended college around the same time, I recall the elder professors, even liberal ones, tended to be moderate, thoughtful, and open to different ideas. They were indeed liberal in the true sense of the word. But they were retiring in droves and being replaced by a new crop of professors for whom the main thing was ‘commitment’; the Bill Ayers generation began to take over. A great loss for American education.) In the 90s, the cultural-political landscape was shifting. As Buchanan noted in the 80s, conservatives had won politically—and even economically—, but they had failed to secure their position culturally and intellectually(not least because of the simple-minded cultural policies and values of the Buchanans of the world, one might add). 90s became increasingly politically correct. If the forces of leftism in the 60s and 70s, as they pushed against the weight of status quo and powers-that-be, stood for increased liberty and freedom, they had, by the 90s, gained near-total control of the media and academia and began to clamp down on free expression through all sorts of codes, rules, and injunctions. Once the left had the power, it only wanted more and was willing to do anything—especially clamping down on speech and ideas subversive of their own—to get it. As the 60s radicals made peace with the fact that their dream of Revolution couldn’t be realized in political and economic terms, they made do with the possibility of using laws and culture to gain control the hearts and minds of most Americans; they compensated for their lack of success in the economic arena by taking political correctness to extreme. Ironically, though political correctness was ideologically rationalized as a weapon against privilege and oppression, the elites—especially the Jewish ones—found it as a useful tool for clamping down on ‘mob mentality’; thus, political correctness is now more the tool of billionaire Jews to suppress the ideas and passions of ordinary whites—and even Negroes, e.g. Negro athletes and entertainers being forced to apologize for remarks insensitive to the gay community; political correctness doesn’t so much protect the masses from the powerful elites as protect certain elite groups from the anger of the masses. Elena Kagan supports curtailment of free speech in the name of protecting poor minorities, but her real agenda is to silence the 98% of Americans who are goyim lest they dare to wake up and speak truth to Jewish power.
Since the earliest times, the people-of-ideas have felt resentment toward the people-of-money. People-of-ideas like to see themselves as driven by ideals, principles, wisdom, justice, and purity, whereas people-of-money are driven by greed, self-interest, lust, and gluttony. The leftist revolution was supposed to rid the world of people-of-money, but once the New Left realized that radical socialism wasn’t going to work and that they’re gonna have to depend on people-of-money for funding, it subconsciously—or subideologically—felt compromised and impure, like a bunch of whores. To regain their sense of purity and to repress their shame of dependence on the people-of-money, they ramp up the shrillness of political correctness. Not too dissimilarly men like John McCain may be especially shrill in their support of Wars for Israel. Since they subconsciously feel that they’re little more than running dogs of AIPAC—political whores really—, they try to OWN the cause by barking as loudly as possible. Though they are powerless wimps doing the bidding of Jews, by making noise and acting shrill, they hope to convince others as well as themselves that they are powerful men with a proud and principled commitment to protecting Jews from evil Muslims, Russians, Chinese, etc. Though people like Bill Gates adhere to PC truisms, they aren’t the most shrill politically correct folks around. Rather, it’s people in academia, media, and government, like Katha Pollitt, Anita Dunn, Naomi Klein, and Bill Ayers. Their shrillness has to do with the resentment that they will never have the reach, influence, and/or popularity of famous celebrities and big moneymen(even liberal-leaning ones like George Soros and Bill Gates.) In a way, their shrill form of political correctness is a way of repressing the shame of being leftists dependent on the largesse of people-of-money.
Anyway, given the changing political culture as the 80s rolled into the 90s, maybe it was not surprising that Chang made her mark with RAPE OF NANKING, a trashy and lurid book—more a piece of literary performance art than work of history—that seemed almost custom-made for the victimological narrative of the 90s. It was essentially a Chinese version of Goldhagen’s foul HITLER’S WILLING EXECUTIONERS—and other trashy books like HITLER’S POPE. I do not contest the horrors visited on the Chinese by the Japanese; what I detest is the sensationalism, the self-righteous and self-promoting quality of the book, the petulant rage of turning a historical tragedy into a grandstanding career move. There is almost a sadistic joy of detailing the horrors in the book akin to the mindless sado-masochism of Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST that turns the suffering of Jesus into a holier-than-thou shtick. (Of course, SCHINDLER’S LIST is a kind of Passion of the Jew and very possibly an inspiration for Chang’s equally holier-than-thou populist work.) RAPE OF NANKING is almost giddy, in the worst politically correct way, of pouring on how wicked the Japanese were and how helpless, noble, and saintly Chinese were in their suffering. (Chinese government has since made SCHINDLER’S LIST-like movies about the Nanking tragedy in a manner not much different from Chang’s hysterical book.) This isn’t to suggest that it’s wrong for Chang or anyone to feel a sense of outrage—which, I’m sure, all civilized people share—, but a book on such an important chapter in modern history surely called for an author with a degree of emotional maturity and intellectual honesty. Perhaps not surprisingly, Chang later went mad and killed herself. Paula Kamen’s book about her is your typical leftist Jewish bitching and whining. What kind of woman is Kamen? She is gross and fat, complains of aches and pains, and grapples with depression and dependence on drugs. Did it ever occur to her that maybe her depression owes to the fact that she eats too much and larded herself into an ugly fatty? Anyway, the transition of Iris Chang from someone who’d once embraced the ‘can do’ spirit of America to a pathological victimologist says something about the cultural shifts that took place from 80s to 90s. With SCHINDLER’S LIST as the template for what might be called the new historiconography—and with every group making its own claim of noble victimhood—, the sensible career move for Chang was to outdo every other group with her crazy ethno-self-righteous book, though to be sure, it can’t be said to be any worse than the sort of holier-than-thou tripe produced by Jews and Negroes on a regular basis. Perhaps, Chang’s overreaching had something to do with her having attended a public university. Lacking Ivy League credentials, she might have felt the need to go the extra-mile to be noticed. Though I haven’t read Chua’s book on superpowers, from the youtube interview, I gather she is, despite her excitable personality, a more thoughtful writer than the silly Chang. And if Chang seems to be attracted to the emotional aspects of history—she later worked on a book about Japanese atrocities against American P.O.Ws—, Chua seems more interested in the power dynamics of history. And whatever her personal feelings, she seems to know the difference between historical scholarship and history-as-personal-rant.

Be that as it may, I think there maybe an aspect of multi-culturalism—if only subconscious—in Chua’s emphasis on the Chinese way of parenting. Because we generally associate multi-culturalism with victimology, a book about the Chinese way of success may seem too positive and triumphant to fit into the multi-culturalist mold. Generally, a multi-cultural argument emphasizes how a person of non-white cultural/racial background has all the odds stacked against him, and therefore needs the active caring, compassion, and commitment of do-goody white/Jewish liberals to make it in America. There is none of that in BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER. Amy Chua says the Chinese way worked for her and for her girls as well—though not without emotional costs. If anything, the book suggests the American system/society is accommodating enough to allow different cultures to succeed on their own terms, which doesn’t jibe well with the multi-culturalist argument that non-white groups need special protection and support to make it in a hostile ‘white-male-dominated’ world. Also, Chua’s version Chinese-ness seem to imply that one can preserve one’s cultural heritage and pride WITHOUT statist policies. After all, she maintained her Chinese-ness and Chinese culture by speaking Chinese at home and being taught Chinese things by her parents; there’s nothing in her book to suggest that Chinese-American students need special bilingual classes to maintain their culture against the forces of ‘cultural imperialism/genocide’ of Anglo-Americanism. She sees the need for a collective American identity in the public sphere and reserves cultural heritage/values to home and family. Though Chua thinks other parents may benefit from her experience and advice—in terms of learning from her mistakes as well as from her successes—, there’s nothing to indicate that Chua thinks her ideas should be formulated into state policy on how to reform education. Her emphasis is foremost on the primacy of the family and parent-child relationship. She seems culture and values as essentially something handed down from parent to child than something instilled by the state.
Even so, one senses an aspect of multi-culturalism in Chua’s book. When multi-culturalism is not victimological, it is therapeutic. Thus, it exaggerates the glories, greatness, or benefits of certain non-Western cultures. So, blacks are told that the Ancient Egyptians were black. American Indians are told that their ancestors were wise noblemen who communed with rivers and trees, living in ‘harmony with nature’. So, there are multi-cultural exhibits exaggerating the intellectual achievements of the Muslim world. There may be this element of therapeutism in BATTLE HYMN because despite Chua’s display of cultural confidence and even arrogance, she seems to feel small in the company of super-smart Jews. According to her book, she was headstrong in her youth and thought she could do anything... until she came to Harvard and realized she was nothing special among the really smart people. She may have thought that her success owed a lot to her upbringing, yet many whites and Jews who were raised differently actually turned out to be smarter and more successful than her. After all, her Jewish husband Jed was raised by a rather tolerant Jewish family, but he was even more successful in his profession than Chua in hers. Within the company of super-smart Jews, maybe Chua didn’t feel so special being Chinese anymore. Thus, her method of ‘Chinese parenting’ may have a therapeutic value. By emphasizing her own Chinese or Chinese-sy upbringing and by raising her children in the ‘Chinese’ way, she could make a claim for the greatness of Chinese culture and values. Without such emphasis on Chinese-ness, Chua cannot claim anything special for herself. She would merely be just another successful academic on campus—no mean feat but hardly extraordinary among her crowd. I even suspect she got her gig at Yale through her husband. I find her account of why Yale hired her somewhat unconvincing. We are told that Yale was initially not impressed with her work—and so she settled for a teaching gig at the less prestigious Duke—, but then her essay in a political journal impressed Yale so much that it decided to bestow her with full professorship. I do not suggest that her husband Jed pulled dirty tricks to Chua hired. Rather, there seems to be a kind of liberal-elite-network that works almost subconsciously to favor their ‘own kind’—depending on ethnicity, ideology, and who-knows-whom. The Yale faculty members would have known that Jed is a prized scholar on campus and keeping him happy would be good for the college. Sure, Chua had sufficient academic credentials—but surely no more than many other distinguished graduates of Harvard—, but the clincher seems to have been her husband’s prominent place at Yale as the big man on the campus. Since he’s such a prized star, why not bring aboard Chua as the starlet to create a more satisfying working environment for him. When one gains a certain prominence in any field, people around you simply wanna do you favors out of calculation or admiration.
But the book would have us believe that Chua got in because her article in some academic journal blew the Yale faculty away. I haven’t read it, but I suspect it wasn’t anything really special. Old-Boys-Network has been replaced by Jew-Boys-Network: anything to please the Jew.
I suspect on some subconscious level, Chua suspected she was admitted to the Yale faculty because of her association to her more distinguished husband. For her to be just another academic at Yale would have been hurtful to her own big ego. So, she had to grab onto something to make herself feel special. Other than a mild case of political incorrectness—just enough to raise eyebrows in polite community without really ruffling the feathers—, it was her emphasis on Chinese-ness and motherhood that would do the trick.
It’s especially interesting since the title of the book is BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER as opposed to TIGER PARENT. She knows that as the mother-wife, she fits the stereotype of the submissive Asian in relation to the more successful and smarter western/Jewish husband. The public imagination has wielded many stories of white man and Asian woman, much more so than Asian man and white woman. So the cultural mythology of East/West is feminine Orient and masculine West—though maybe Edward Said overstated this. Chua both fits and doesn’t fit the stereotypical image of the Asian woman. She did marry a white/Jewish guy, and her career has been eclipsed by his. But she is also a feisty and expressive power-woman. Since she cannot be the equal of her Jewish husband and his super-smart Jewish friends in the field of pure academia, her claim to fame had to be as a CHINESE mother or power-mother. Thus, the ‘Battle Hymn’. Chua simultaneously accepts and rejects the role of traditional mother; she both plays to and against the stereotype of the Chinese/Asian. On the one hand, the book features her as a devoted wife and mother who really loves her husband and will do anything for her children. But the theme of the book is about raising girls to be ruthlessly driven power-women. Chua pushes Sophia and Louisa to beat all the competition, be better than everyone, and rise to the top. It is traditional motherhood + feminism(and good dose of elitism). Similarly, when it comes to her view of Chinese-ness, there is the traditional/familiar emphasis on hierarchy, order, obedience, and order. But Chua insists that her way isn’t to turn her children into cowering conformist sheep but to toughen them into Fu Womanchus(or Womanchuas). Thus, Chua is able to turn her inferior position vis-a-vis her husband and smarter Jews into a kind of superiority(at least in her mind). She isn’t just a mother but a ruthless CEO-like power-mother. She isn’t just an Asian grind but someone who uses Chinese culture/values creatively to turn her daughters into Fu Womanchus who will destroy the competition.
To the extent that her Chinese-ness has a certain therapeutic value, there is an element of multi-culturalism in her outlook. Without power-motherhood and Chinese-methodology, there would be nothing to make Chua feel particularly special or outstanding in her community of supersmart Jewish and white people. By emphasizing her seemingly illiberal and even shocking—to oversensitive white liberals—way of upbringing and her tough treatment of her daughters, she makes herself stand out was a warrioress in the battle to win and dominate.
It kinda reminds me of a black girl I knew in college. She used to tell me how things were so different the way she grew up. If she got out of hand, her mother would beat the crap out of her. She said it with a certain pride as if to imply (1) my mother be a tough woman and not some willowy flake like lots of white women be (2) for us black folks, it’s a matter of survival, so we gotta be tough and we respeck a woman who be whuppin’ her child if he or she be ackin’ up (3) we black girls be so ‘bad’(meaning good) cuz we don’t act fluffy-duff like them spoiled, privileged white girls who be named ‘Heather’; another variation of this is Dorothy Tillman’s “my mama didn’t buy me no baby dolls” (4) my childhood was tougher than anything a spoiled white bitch who done had it so good could ever know, and etc.
It’s like there’s a certain dignity in the fat old black mother in RAISIN IN THE SUN. She ain’t no fancy educated person, but dang, she done know right from wrong cuz she worked hard all her life to keep the family together. (I must say I myself personally get a kick when the mother slaps her fancy educated daughter and solemnly says with clenched jaw: “You say there is God in mother’s house.” It’s enough to make even secular liberals get down on their knees and say a few prayers. The loss of such women—if they really existed—was probably among the greatest losses in the black community.
Anyway, there is something like ‘Egg Foo Young in the Sun’ in Chua’s book. Though Chua is an highly educated and cosmopolitan woman, she clings to the sense of family unity and cultural community she felt as a major part of her identity when she grew up, and she tries to impart those sacred values onto her daughter—and they better accept them or else. And one senses an anxiety bordering on fear that unless she emphasizes this cultural legacy and identity, her girls, even if successful in life, will become just like any other bland ‘white folks’, or maybe more-Jewish-than-Chinese—we are told Jed and Amy agreed to teach the girls Chinese but raise them as Jews. A person obsessed with herself, Chua cannot simply let her daughters grow up and becoming ‘something else’. She wants them to feel a link to Chinese-ness and that their success owes something to their half-Chinese background. It’s like when Archie Bunker in ALL IN THE FAMILY takes the child of Meathead and Gloria and secretly has him baptized; he wants a part of his identity/values to be transmitted onto the kid. It’s very possible that all this Tiger Motherhood business wouldn’t have crossed Chua’s mind had she married a Chinese-American or Chinese person. I think it became a special issue because she married a Jew and had half-Jew kids and because she felt small in the company of super-smart Jews and whites. She felt a need to compete to maintain the importance of Chinese-ness. (Though Chua says her family was nominally Christian, religion never meant much to her.)

There are two kinds of talent: one that comes naturally and one that is attained strenuously; another way to put it is “natural outflow vs. strenuous input”. Of course, anyone who wants to excel cannot rely on natural talent alone. Even born athletes, musicians, and writers must practice hell of a lot. Even so, talent comes more naturally to some people than others in every field. Though Muhammad Ali no doubt practiced a lot, boxing came naturally to him. Though Woody Allen spent a lot of time perfecting his jokes, he’s obviously a born wit. Given that people have different natural talents, generally it’s ideal to identify the nature of the talent and let it flower. But things don’t always turn out that way because parents/teachers/fate might pressure or force a person to take up something he or she’s not naturally good at. Or, the person may choose to specialize in one thing when in fact he or she’s actually more suited for something else, e.g. a woman with natural talents to be a painter may have dreams of being a ballet dancer. (It seems most people who wanna succeed in acting, music, or most arts have no real natural knack for it.) Though natural talent may well be abundant among many Chinese people, it seems Chinese culture has traditionally placed an higher emphasis on strenuous input than natural outflow. Part of the reason could be the influence of Confucianism and arch-conservatism. Since great respect was reserved only for the Confucian scholar class, Chinese came to narrow the definition of success. So, even if some Chinese kid was naturally at painting or music, his parents and teachers would likely have forced him to become a scholar. Since most natural talents were suppressed and directed only at becoming learned scholar(who would then win a position as a bureaucrat), many of the expressive arts got a short shrift. Of course, one can point to many wonders of Chinese art, painting, sculpture, architecture, calligraphy, etc—though no one’s gonna convince me of the glory of Chinese music—, but artistic expression took the backseat to scholarly learning. Also, much of Chinese art was associated with learning. No ‘art’ was as highly respected in China as calligraphy, but then it was essentially the art of the literati class. Thus, calligraphy was thought to be the artistic expression/extension of scholarly good manners, tastes, and wisdom. Though Chinese invented many musical instruments, Confucius had warned rulers and the scholar class of the danger of being diverted by the trivial charms of music from the sober, ethical, and serious affairs of governing society.
Of course, even in a culture that suppresses natural artistic talent/expression, there can be a lot of natural flow of ideas and literary expression. Think of England. Though the Anglos, at least compared to the French/Italians/Germans, were less expressive in music, food, and dance, they developed a richly expressive, explorative, bold, and daring literary culture. Why didn’t Chinese do the same? Though Chinese history is longer than English history—and notwithstanding the fact that Chinese produced their share of philosophy, poetry, and other fine stuff—, why is Chinese written art less interesting than that of the British? It could have been due to the didactic nature of Confucianism whose moral preachment had a repressive effect on any writing that smacked of ‘fun’. Thus, the top literary talents, instead of expressing themselves more naturally and expressively, practiced night and day on how to write boring but culturally correct essays on virtue and ethics. I hear Chinese works of fiction such as DREAM OF RED CHAMBER, WATER MARGIN, and some story about a monkey king are classics of Chinese literature—I haven’t read them—, but prior to modern times, respectable scholars might have disdained them as ‘trashy’ popular literature than valued them as literary treasures. Though I haven’t read him, I heard Lu Xun in the 20th century did much to reverse the course of Chinese literature and modernize Chinese sensibility. (There’s a chapter on this subject in Debra Fallows’ DREAMING IN CHINESE). Another reason for the stultification of Chinese literature could have been the nature of Chinese language itself. Latin alphabet can be written prettily and fancifully, but there are only 26 characters, and this has limited pictorial-expressive potential. So, one learns to write European languages mainly for meaning. Though proper penmanship was important among the educated classes in the West, it was not an obsession since one could do only so much with Latin letters. But Chinese has thousands of characters, and the art of calligraphy could indeed do much with them. They could be expressed like paintings, like music.
Thus, not only did the spectrum of Chinese expressiveness become concentrated in literariness, but literariness turned into a obsessive fetish in its own right. In the use of Chinese, especially among the educated elites, it wasn’t just a matter of conveying meaning but HOW the meaning was conveyed through artful calligraphy. It may have been good for the art of calligraphy but it became bad for meaning. Thus, a Chinese guy with a lot of good sense but poor calligraphic skills could go unheard. Even his good sense came to be demeaned and belittled because he couldn’t express it through fancy writing. (Paradoxically, if Chinese written language turned into an expressive fetish because it had ‘too many’ characters, spoken Chinese turned into a similar fetish because it had too few sounds. Since Chinese sounds were less flexible than European languages, meanings had to be intimated by tone. So, among the scholarly class, what mattered wasn’t so much what was said but how one said it. Of course, manner of speech has been important in the West, especially among aristocratic circles. But it’s often been the case in the West, especially in America, for someone to rise and win respect not because he was a fancy speaker but he had the guts to speak the truth or say original and interesting. Not so much in China, as far I could out. If he no speak fancy, he no good.)
Though Chua seems possessed of natural talent—though not on the level of Jews—, her cultural background emphasizes strenuous input over natural outflow, a case of ‘cram talent into the kid than bring it out’. One doesn’t get the sense that Chua first looked to see what kind of natural talents her daughters might possess. Instead, in the traditional Chinese style, she fixated on what-was-most-respectful-in-society and figured she would mold her daughters in that direction. Though Western classical music has nothing to do with Chinese music, Chua’s approach to it seems calligraphic. Though her interest for classical music is real enough, it is more as a high-end profession than a personal passion. In other words, if classical music weren’t a ticket to elite cultural circles, she most likely would have chosen something else for her kids. Mastering classical music for Chua is like a traditional Chinese person mastering calligraphic skills to prove one’s worthiness to elite society. (I suppose there’s more dignity in this than raising one’s kid to be TV star or pop idol.) Chua’s musical education for her girls centered on mastering correct technique than encouraging personal exploration/expression. Of course, one has to master technique and gain proficiency before embarking on a personal style, but there’s precious little in the book to suggest Chua wanted her daughters to grow into personal artists than merely excellent ones approved by the ‘best teachers in the world’. An astounding performer like Glenn Gould is said to have achieved something beyond excellence; he made music composed by others his own. Though every aspiring artist must be a good student, there comes a time when he or she must rebel against established authority and do his or her own thing. Perhaps, given that the book is about the formative years of Sophia and Louisa, when learning is more crucial than personal expression(let alone creative innovation), maybe it’s too harsh and premature for a generalized criticism of Chua’s approach. Sophia, as a Harvard student freed from the clutches of her mother, could well be working to establish her own signature style, if she hasn’t already. Anyway, the very nature of classical music tends to demand adherence to established methodology than other forms of music with a less refined pedigree. Besides, the culture of classical music is essentially about preserving the timeless glories of the past than creating something new, for which there are other musical genres and forms, many of which employ new technology to make sounds as yet unheard. Given that very few people have the stellar talent of a Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Ellington, or Dylan to create a whole new kind of music, the next best hope for success in the field is perfection of technique, vocal or instrumental. Since voice is something one is or isn’t born with, the better bet is to master an instrument. Since Jazz and Rock require a degree of improvisational leeway, which happens to be a precious commodity(at least at the high level), expertise in classical music offers the best chance of success for people without great deal of natural musical talent. (In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that anyone can succeed in classical music through practice alone. Even outside factors such as compositional creativity, vocal ability, and improvisational ability, some people’s minds are wired better and coordinated more nimbly to work with the fingers; in this sense, best classical musicians are naturally gifted artists with the ability to grasp the essence and master the subtleties of the form. So, while a person without natural musical talent would do better to practice classical music for long hours than attempt composition or try Jazz, there’s no guarantee that he’ll keep getting better with more practice. It’s like everyone can learn to type reasonably well, but some people are naturally wired to type must faster and with few errors than others. Practice makes better but not necessarily better. The difference between classical and Jazz/Jam-rock, however, is that the latter cannot rely on performance-honed-by-mastery-and-practice alone. When a classical pianist or trumpeter prepares to perform a tune, he must play exactly as he’d prepared it for many months or years. Mastery was difficult, but once mastered, one knows exactly what it is, and the challenge lies in the perfection of presentation, as with the carefully choreographed routines in gymnastics and figure skating—interestingly enough, Asian athletes seem to do better in these than most others. With Jazz and Jam-rock, that is never enough. The audience expects a different variation, version, and take every time, and so the performer cannot simply replay something he perfected in practice. He must offer practice + spontaneity = surprise. Blacks seem to be especially adept in this endeavor.)
Maybe just maybe, the reason for Chua’s emphasis on strenuous input over natural outflow had something to do with the fear on her part that her daughters’ success based on natural outflow would make her feel less significant—and maybe even invalidate the Chinese way of success. If her daughters excelled in life mainly owing to their natural talent and personal input, it would mean the triumph of Jed’s Jewish genes/style than her Chinese genes/way. After all, she’s not as smart as Jed and his Jewish friends. And Jed, who grew up under a rather tolerant Jewish mother, turned out excellent. So, if Chua had allowed her daughters to grow up more ‘naturally’ and if they succeeded in life just like their dad, Chua wouldn’t have been able to claim much for her role—biological and cultural—in the success of her daughters. In a way, Chua’s obsessive interference-ism could have been like Steve Jobs’. Jobs in Walter Isaacson’s biography comes across as someone who stuck his nose into everything. Partly, it was because he was a perfectionist and a control-freak. But one suspects part of the reason was to compensate for the fact that he actually knew little about computer engineering. Since much of the nitty-gritty grunt work were done by others, Jobs might have felt the need to stamp his signature on the product in some way. Without such interference, he couldn’t really make much of a claim on Apple products. He might have been less high-strung if he really understood the nitty-gritty of computer engineering as Bill Gates and the Google Kids did. Will-to-power was compensation for his limited skill-to-power.
Likewise, what Chua might have subconsciously feared is that her daughters would do just fine without her special input. It’s interesting that Jobs, during his college yrs, had more interest in calligraphy than in science and that Chua’s approach to classical music is essentially calligraphic—learn the correct form to gain entry into the castle. Though Chua’s fears that her daughters might grow slack and face generational decline without her fierce support/pressure—as with many rich kids raised into comfort and privilege—may be sincere, I think maybe her other fear was the prospect that her daughters would see her and her Chinese-ness as nothing special to their happiness and success. Since Chua is a successful professional and not the traditional mother ‘sacrificing’ everything for her children, she couldn’t beg for her children’s loyalty by means of emotional guilt-trip. I can see how a poor semi-literate Chinese or Jewish immigrant mother in America could have employed heart-tugging tactics to remind their kids of her suffering and sacrifice. But Chua’s kids grew up with full knowledge that her mother is a successful, affluent, and fulfilled woman in every way. What need for them to feel any guilt about their mother’s ‘sacrifice’ when their mother has it so good? So, the way for Chua to form a strong bond with her daughters was to push them to do things even a successful career woman like herself never had a chance to do. Excel in what some consider the noblest calling: high culture. Chua, though successful and rich, is a professional, not an artist. But if her daughters could become great performers of what is considered by educated people to be the greatest musical culture in the world, that would really be something.

It’s possible that Jews put greater emphasis on natural outflow than strenuous input for the following reasons: (1) being smarter than Chinese, Jews are naturally more curious about intellectual matters and don’t have to be pushed as hard to study; generally, smarter kids have a greater affinity for studying. So, if many not-so-smart Chinese kids had to be pushed to study, many Jewish kids may have taken it with greater enjoyment: more pleasure, less pressure. (2) Talmudic studies allowed greater intellectual and mental flexibility, both analytical and speculative, than Confucian scholarship. Since Confucius was a man who spoke about human affairs, there wasn’t much room for imagination . Instead, one simply had to understand what he said. God, on the other hand, is mysterious, and one can interpret the Old Testament in many ways. (3) Due to higher IQ and greater wit, Jews had a naturally more irreverent nature, which explains the heritage of Jewish humor that blows away all other kinds of humor in terms of snap, crackle, and pop. Since humor was such an important part of Jewish life, and since one needs to have a feel for humor, Jews might have developed a more natural style. Being a more humor-oriented people, Jews were less likely to turn education into an exercise in pain, a kind of endurance test. In contrast, though Chinese came to revere education as path to success, they associated knowledge with pain. Since no one naturally likes pain, Chinese came to feel that kids had to be forced into accepting the hardships of education; and if kids suffered as a result, Chinese parents saw this as a sign of progress. Though Jewish parents are well-aware of the
difficulty of learning certain things for their children, nothing would make them happier than to see their kids taking great pleasure from the learning process and doing it with greater ease. In contrast, Chinese parents might find something wrong if their kids actually seemed to be having a good time learning stuff. According to Chinese thinking, real progress only comes—indeed must come—with lots of grueling pain. Such attitude leads many Asians to think that no one will naturally take to learning unless they are forced to, and this fills them with anxiety that if their children lose the ruthless will to suffer pain—and pass down this sado-masochistic philosophy to their own kids—it will inevitably result in generational decline. (4) Jews, having been a minority group in goy lands, had to be more creative and inventive in their dealing with larger society. Thus, they had to learn to be adaptive and accommodating. Thus, they couldn’t take any social reality for granted as permanent. Since their status in society was constantly changing in relation to the more numerous and powerful goyim, Jews simply had to be more quick-thinking in different situations, and that called for greater natural outflow of talent since no amount of strenuous input talent could be useful for all times. In contrast, Chinese got used to the notion of exam-as-path-to-success in China for over 1000 yrs. (5) Though Jews prized Rabbinical learning above all else, they also recognized the value of trade and finance. They didn’t look down on moneymaking as much as Chinese. Oftentimes, businessmen need to be mentally more inventive than ideologues and moralists. Though many Chinese were into business, they did business to earn enough money to eventually afford the refined life of the scholar. (6) Due to higher IQ, Jews are faster learners than others, and so there’s less strain on their thought processes. If it takes a Jew to read a book in one day while it takes a goy to finish it in three days, The Jew will have two days to freely think about the book while the goy is still slogging through the book. Or, if we use the analogy of athletics, an athlete like Michael Jordan didn’t have to work on his muscles as much as others in order to perfect his technique. Naturally muscular and fast, he could focus on his skills whereas a less naturally muscular/fast athlete would have had to expend more time to strenuously increase his strength and speed. Again, this isn’t to suggest that naturally superior black athletes or naturally brilliant Jews ‘take it easy’ and just ‘coast’ on their talents. Rather, since their basic advantages—mental or physical—are natural, they can focus on finer points while others are straining just to be basically mentally or physically prepared. If you have a hard time lifting 100 lbs, the act of lifting the weight itself becomes the main objective of your energies. But if you can lift 100 lbs with ease, you can then learn how to juggle 100 lb objects.
So, that could have been the difference between Chua and her Jewish husband Jed. Though Chua had enough brains to do some intellectual heavy-lifting, the primary focus was on the lifting, whereas with Jed the lifting came easier so he could focus more on the brilliant juggling of what he knew and understood. Chua climbed the tree like a diligent bear while Jed could swing around in gibbonic mode. I suppose we’ll never know how much natural talent Sophia and Louisa were born with since Chua ground them through her ‘strenuous input’ regimen, but because of their mother’s “tiger-mother-ism”, they’ll probably feel a certain affinity for their Chinese heritage. As to why Jed allowed Amy Chua to have her way, I’ve no idea. Maybe he figured if she was busy with the girls, she would drive him less crazy.

The second reason for Amy Chua’s emphasis on the Chinese method could be grounded in the issue of sexuality. On the one hand, it’s probably fair to say she fell in love with some good-looking intelligent Jewish guy, and so they got married, and that was that. Since America is the Land of the Free, a cultural and sexual melting pot, none of this should be strange, especially in this day and age. (Besides, there was never much a taboo against white male and Asian female in American history. Indeed, there has even been many accounts of white man and American-Indian mother. The social taboo involved white woman and non-white male, especially the Negro, though, with the rise of Obama and the popularity of black athletes/celebrities, the black male/white female sexual ideal could be the most potent in the New America. In some ways, it could be some white guys prefer Asian women over white women because it makes them feel more like a man. When a white guy is with a white girl, he fears, “what if she has jungle fever and sees me as a dorky pussyboy compared to a Negro?” But with an Asian girlfriend, a white guy may feel more manly since the Asian girl chose him over some geeky Asian guy.) But as the Blogger Named Ernest once articulated in the essay “Color of Love”, there may be more to this than meets the eye. On the one hand, an Asian-American woman marrying a white guy has become as American as apple pie—or all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet.
But, there may be a part of Chua that feels that she sexually betrayed her own kind out of feelings of racial inferiority. Why did she seek out a white/Jewish guy? Surely, there were plenty of Asian men on the Harvard campus when she was a student. I’m guessing she purposely chose a white/Jewish guy because she found them taller, manlier, better-looking, and more exciting than Asian guys. She might have heard that Jewish guys especially have fat meaty penises, something which I can’t vouch for personally(as I don’t go for that sort of thing)except to say I’ve been so informed on more than few occasions. So, though her going with a handsome Jewish hunk seems officially to be about ‘going beyond race’, Chua’s interracism was very likely premised on racial factors. She didn’t want some short, scrawny, geeky, skin-and-bones Asian guy with a smaller whanker than one hanging on a Jewish stud. In other words, though she is filled with admiration for her father, she doesn’t want to marry someone who looks like him. In a way, there is a parallel between Chua’s preference for Western Classical music over ‘chinky’ Chinese music AND her preference for Jed, the Aryan Jewish stud, over the gimpy Eugene Chen’s of the world. Though Chinese are a proud people with a great tradition, history, and culture, Chua prefers Western art and men to their Chinese counterparts. (And her sister also married some white guy, so it must run in the family.) In some way, it’s a generic story of ‘becoming American’. But in another way, especially for a people as proud as the Chinese, it means being something of a traitor. Chua says her father initially insisted she marry some Chinese guy but accepted her choice of mate and even became a great friend of Jed. (I guess it wasn’t so bad since she married UP than down. Imagine if Chua had married some Negro cab driver.) So, on the surface, all went well. She loves Jed, Jed loves her, her father likes Jed, Jed likes her father. But it’s possible that Chua, on some psychological level, feels wrong about what she did. My guess is she didn’t just bump into Jed and fall in love with him but CONSCIOUSLY chose not to marry some scrawny Chinese-American and purposely pursued some good-looking white/Jewish guy. In other words, her own kind—at least Chinese males—are not good enough for her. It’s even possible that there is a status-thing among Asian-American women when it comes to sexuality. Since most Asian-American girls hanker after white man—though maybe increasing numbers are going wild about Negroes too—, it’s possible they consider it an honor to be romantically accepted by some white stud. It’s like the sexual equivalent of being accepted into Harvard. In contrast, an Asian-American woman with a Asian-American husband might fear that others will see her as a sexual reject, i.e. since white guys wouldn’t have her, she had to settle for marrying her own gimpy kind. This neurosis could be a part of Amy Chua’s inner-make-up. If true, it might have set off a crisis of identity and inferiority-complex. If she willfully went after a white guy, then she obviously thought a Chinese-American guy is not good enough for her; but, she loves and admires her father and is proud to be Chinese. But how can you be Chinese if you marry a white/Jewish guy and prefer Classical to Chinese music?
This sexual/cultural rejection of Chinese-ness could have paradoxically made Chua more conscious of Chinese identity. Since she rejected Chinese things, she may have tried to redefine and preserve Chinese-ness as a method, a way. So, even though her girls are half-white/Jewish, they are to be raised with ‘Chinese values’. And even though they are to be taught Western classical music, they are to be led in the ‘strenuous input’ calligraphic manner.
Similarly, some of the most vocal blacks on the issue of black identity and pride happen to be light-skinned mulattos, some of whom look far more white than black. Since their authentic blackness has been compromised by race-mixing, they feel a need to compensate by exaggerating their black credentials. There was some of this with Obama himself. A half-whitey—a soam or son of a mudshark—, Obama took up some serious black identity bullshit in college. And like Chua, Obama may have realized in college that his smarts was NOTHING compared to the super-smarts of Jews. He got in through affirmative action, Jews didn’t. Since he couldn’t compete with Jews in the area of intellect and felt small academically, he focused more on his black identity, and used it to win favors—among do-goody white liberals and weasely Jewish supremacists—, even becoming president of Harvard Law Review. Though Chua was no affirmative action baby on the level of Obama, their clinging to issues of race/culture could have had a therapeutic as well as professional value. For Obama, it was more obvious since affirmative action goodies are showered on any black guy with above average intelligence. For Chua, the benefits of race-consciousness may have been more personal in the beginning, but then she later saw how it could be turned into a marketable product. Her subconscious sense of racial betrayal and inferiority complex—that she willfully chose a white/Jewish guy over a Chinese guy because she found most Chinese men repulsive as sexual mates—may have consciously led her to emphasize her sense of Chinese pride and identity. But the truth can be repressed only so much, and there are signs that she may be partly consciously aware of this. Near the end of the book, she recalls a time when her daughters and she went to China. While she was telling her girls about their Chinese heritage, Chinese pointed their fingers—not too nicely—at the girls because they were ‘Eurasian’. To the Chinese, the girls were not really Chinese; if anything, they were more white to their eyes. A part of Chua must have realized, if in a repressed way, that she herself had opted to turn her back on the Chinese, at least biologically. Maybe she used the liberal cosmopolitan argument that there is no such thing as race and it’s all about ‘culture’. So, as long as her daughters were raised with Chinese ‘cultural consciousness’, they would be bona fide Chinese. But the real Chinese didn’t think so, and the girls didn’t feel they belonged in China. If anything, they probably feel closer with Jewish-American friends and relatives in America or with Asian-Americans who try to be as white-as-possible(not least in their sexual mating habits). Perhaps, the Chinese who pointed their fingers and giggled at the girls were not trying to be nasty or rude. Maybe to the Chinese, many of whom are still provincial in their knowledge and experience of the world, it was a curiosity to see mixed-race kids. And if they felt a bit of hostility, maybe it was less toward the kids—who had no choice in their parents—but at the mother, Amy Chua herself. Maybe they found her conceited in (1) marrying some white guy (2) betraying her race and culture (3) having half-white kids (4) coming to China as though she is still a good Chinese (5) showing off her half-white children as something special compared to merely 100% slanty-eyed Chinese kids and etc.
Whether it’s a Muslim-American, Chinese-American, Greek-American, or whatever-American who is revisiting their native countries, there’s bound to some resentment among the natives when they see ‘one of our own’ return from rich powerful America and ‘put on airs’. ‘One of us’ has turned into ‘one of them’, the stupid Americans. In many cases, it could be the whatever-American who’s returned ‘home’ isn’t putting on airs at all but merely being natural(at least in the American way that he or she’s grown used to). But perceptions are everything, and what might simply be ‘acting American’ could been by the poorer and more provincial natives as ‘acting big’. (A Greek-American friend tells me she faced two kinds of hostility when she returned to her home country. On the one hand, there were the ‘have-nots’ who saw her as a traitor and American imperialist; they hated her simply because she had more. But then, there were Greeks of some means who put on airs of being sophisticated and well-dressed, and they sneered at her for dressing too casually and being philistine like most Americans. Since most Greeks feel insignificant in their poor and relatively backward country, some Greeks go out of their way to look extra-good and stylish, and it gives them a certain sneering satisfaction to look down on trashy Greek-Americans who’ve apparently lost their way. Of course, the need for Greeks to feel superior actually betrays their feelings of inferiority.) Such dynamic operates within a country too. If some kid from a small town goes away, becomes successful in the big city, and then returns to his hometown, some people may welcome him as ‘boy who made good’ while others will resent him as ‘mr. bigshot.’ In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey wants to lick the world but remains stuck in Bedford Falls while Sam Wainwright makes his name in the big world. Though Wainwright is an okay guy, we can’t help but sense George’s resentment whenever Wainwright’s around.
There is similarly an element of envy and resentment in BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER, though much of it can be gleaned only between the lines. I think Chua is filled with envy(as well as admiration and respect)for the superior Jewish intellect—and maybe superior male intellect(at the tail end of IQ)since, as smart as she may be, she isn’t of the same caliber as her father and husband; therein may lie the ‘feminist’ aspect of her book, a story of a strong mother pushing her GIRLS to make it in the world. Yet, it’s interesting that she chooses classical music than something like science, math, or engineering for her daughters to excel in. While Chua pushes her girls to get A’s in all classes, it’s as though she wants her daughters to succeed in something aesthetic and performance-oriented than intellect-oriented. (Of course, music education requires a lot of learning and knowledge, but it’s still not advanced physics or chemistry.) It’s as though Chua settled on the highest end of what would make her daughters attractive and appealing that what would make them intellectual and ‘geeky’. So, Chua’s ‘feminism’—if it can be called that—is both modern and traditional. She pushed her girls to work hard to make it to the top, but she also wants them to succeed in areas where their appeal as women would be an asset. (Though classical music isn’t butt-shaking skanky, there is a sensual aspect to an attractive woman ‘making musical love’ to an instrument, and Chua’s girls, if not dropdead gorgeous, are clearly above-average pretty. Their father is a Solomon-like hunk, and Amy Chua is on the attractive side too, though I suspect it was more her bubbly personality than looks that turned Jed on.)
On the subject of envy and resentment, it’s also there between the girls. Though they seem to be loving sisters, we are told that, upon reading the manuscript, Sophia thought the book makes Louisa look good at her own expense, and vice versa. Competitive as they are, their different personalities—more obedient older girl and more willful younger girl—seem to complement one another. There is also the element of cultural envy in Chua’s respect for Western classical music. She says Chinese music comes nowhere near the masterpieces of Beethoven and the like.
But given her active and lively personality, Chua was never one to sit, mope, and simmer in cultural resentment. If it’s better, it’s better, and she’s gonna make her daughters experts in it. In a way, culture belongs to whoever uses it. After all, if black people took elements of white music and made it into ‘black music, and if white people took elements of ‘black music’ and made it into ‘white music’, why shouldn’t Chua’s half-Chinese kids take up classical music—as indeed so many Chinese and Chinese-Americans(as well as Japanese)have done already—though none of them seem able to mold it into ‘Asian music’? You don’t have to be Russian to use the AK-47 or Japanese to master karate and kendo. And you certainly don’t have to be Chinese to order egg rolls. If anything, the cultural resentment associated with classical music may actually go the other way. If Asians and Asian-Americans readily accept the superior musical culture of the West and participate in it, there may be some white/Jewish people who aren’t very happy with Asian/American ‘dominance’ in the field. The reasons for the resentment may differ between white/Jewish liberals and white conservatives/nationalists. White conservatives and nationalists generally don’t produce much of any kind of music except country music and hideous form of rock called ‘black metal’. Of course, rich white conservatives value classical music as a status symbol, and some of them may have genuine affinity for it. Some white conservatives may listen to classical music in church, but most of them prefer pop-like gospel in church. Certain white nationalist elements may be more into classical music but mainly as a symbol of white pride/power than out of genuine appreciation of music. So, Richard Spencer and Tom Sunic begin their audio podcasts with the ominous music of Wagner. For white nationalists, Asian dominance of classical music may be akin to what the Jewish ‘takeover’ of classical music signified for European nationalists in an earlier era: a form of cultural theft and desecration and deracination of Western heritage.
Prior to WWII, which ‘changed everything’, classical music for the European Right was more than an art form; it was the spiritual expression of the Germanic, Latin, or Slavic race. Given the sacred essence and significance of this organic music, who were the damn Jews to be outplaying white performers and gaining prominence as conductors and managers? The extreme policies of Nazism forbade Jewish musicians from performing and banned works by Jewish giants like Mendelssohn and Mahler. Though the reaction of the European Right in regards to Jewish creativity tended to be on the shrill side, we cannot brush it away as mere ‘antisemitism’. Music, especially classical music, became like a religious experience for many Europeans, especially with the rise of the German greats, among whom Wagner the Germanic racialist was perhaps the most important. (The racialization of music is paradoxically both unnatural and natural. More than any artform, music has that transcendental quality. Even if you never read the Bible or the Koran and don’t know anything about their creeds, you can be moved deeply by Christian or Islamic music. You can hate ‘niggers’ and still dig Motown, or you can hate ‘krauts’ and still love Beethoven. Music, like the wind, seems to know no borders. On the other hand, music is the deepest, most heartfelt, and powerful expression of the soul of a person or a people. A Christian feels most Christian when he’s enraptured in gospel music, and a Muslim feels most holy when he listens to one of those halabalalah prayer songs. And a Negro feels most like a Negro when he’s shaking his ass to some funky tune.) Though classical music has spiritual origins in the church, the new faith of the 19th century was nationalism and race-ism(meaning “race + ism = rational belief in races” as opposed to ‘racism’ meaning “irrational hatred of other races”); therefore, the spiritual element of classical music moved away from official religion and became closer to the idea of the kultur and race of a people—or to the creative genius embodying the best of his heritage and people. The music became the soul of a nation, especially in Germany, whose cultural legacy was always bigger on music than literature and other arts. Thus, with the rise of German nationalism and the advance in Darwinian science of racial origins—and with the nationalist theories of Wagner—, many Germans weren’t too thrilled to see so many smart Jews rising in the music world and ‘take over’ the culture. It was as if an alien people were taking control of what was uniquely and proudly German. (There is an element of this in black musical ideology too. Though some blacks appreciate the fact that white musicians have admired and learned from black music, others feel resentment that ‘honkeys’ and Jews be stealin’ black music. According to Afro-centrists, ancient Egyptians were black, and therefore, white folks stealin’ from black folks go back 3000 yrs when them faggoty Greek white boys done stole from Egyptian libraries filled with scrolls written by black scholars. Oddly enough, Afro-centrists say Socrates was black too, so I don’t know what is going on here. Did a Greek Negro steal from Egyptian Negroes? Anyway, it’s not unusual for blacks—and white liberal toadies like Ken Burns—to say that all Gershwin and Elvis really did were ‘steal’ from black folks. Paul Simon, after he came out with GRACELAND album, was accused by a Howard University student in an interview of stealing ‘African music’. By the way, ironic as it is, though we tend to consider German culture and African culture to be extreme opposites—Aryan nationalism vs jiggerish Afro-jive—, there are similarities to their cultural, political, and sexual appeal. Perhaps, the two most musical peoples—at least in worldwide popularity—have been Germans and Negroes. Germans were the masters of classical music, blowing away all other peoples by a mile. Negroes, or at least Negro influence, came to dominate much of pop music in the 20th century. The appeal of both cultures is essentially ‘irrational’, passionate, aggressive, powerful, charismatic, voluptuous, and overwhelming. Sure, the nature of the emotions and expressions are different, with German classical music emphasizing nobility, beauty, solemnity, and grandeur while much of black music emphasizes zippity zap and doo woppity flap; even so, black music is not without grandeur with bellowing voices of Negro gospel; and it’s not without beauty in the soaring vocals of Marvin Gaye and the lushness of the Supremes. The overall effect has been to blindside admirers of German culture and black culture to the dark side of Germanness and Negroness—or even the dark sides have been made appealing by virtue of their overpowering musical expression. German music is so beautiful, powerful, sublime, and etc, that it’s easy to fall head-over-heels in love with Germanness. Having thus become smitten with Germanness, one can easily overlook the dark side of the German character or romanticize it in Wagnerian terms as grandiose, profound, and deep. Wagner even made the utter destruction of the world at the end of GOTTERDAMMERUNG sound and feel thrilling, ecstatic, and redemptive—and some far-right Germanophile clods romanticize the destruction of WWII as if it was one great Wagnerian opera; their logic goes, “since the Germans were so cool and magnificent, they had the right to inflame the world in a kind of grand theater.” Maybe if it weren’t for the heritage of German musical culture, fewer people would have been hoodwinked into supporting, apologizing for, or tolerating the rise of Nazism. Hitler both sincerely saw himself as the heir-apparent of the Wagnerian tradition and cynically employed German high culture to mask his gangsterism. Given the admiration for German culture, many Englishmen became especially sensitive to German plight after WWI. Had Germans not produced such great musical culture, there might have been less sympathy for German suffering and less rationalization of Hitler’s rise as necessary for redeeming German honor. After all, who cared about Ukranian suffering in the 1930s under the Soviets? Most Europeans associated Ukrainians with drunken Cossacks, not Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Why do we care more about Tibetans than about Uighurs in China? Because we associate Tibet with Shangri-La spirituality whereas Uighurs are seen as a bunch of ragtag ‘Muzzies’. Sympathy and support for a people seems to be related to their culture; greater and more admired the culture is, more sympathy the people is bound to receive; the more we are likely to overlook, forgive, or rationalize their sins. One reason why we support Jews in Israel over Palestinians is because we associate Jews with Einstein, Bellow, Dylan, Horowitz, and many other great men whereas it’s difficult to name one great Palestinian, which is why Edward Said was so important to the Palestinian cause; he was like the lone superstar for the Palestinians. Since Germans were associated with great musical culture in the 19th century and early 20th century—when indeed symphonic music may well have been the most revered art form in the Western World—, many people had a natural sympathy for the ‘noble Germans’ after WWI—and Germans, largely due to their pride of musical culture, were filled with wounded pride. Though there was widespread fear of Germany and revival of ‘Prussian militarism’, there was also a lot of mushy feeling for Germany. Perhaps, no artform was as central to Nazism as classical music—though architecture came close, but then Hitler’s visual imagination was essentially Wagnerian—, and this indicates that Hitler was well aware of the cultural stakes and advantages at hand. For people like him, the idea of Jews playing German music was like a Jew defiling a German woman. And of course, we cannot pretend that Jewish participation in classical music was purely out of admiration. Jews, with a different racial personality, spiritual traditional, and national consciousness than European gentiles, were bound to have different ideas and approaches to the music and tradition. As far as German nationalists were concerned, Jews could learn to play the music well—indeed even better than Germans—, but they were playing as outsiders; they were mastering technique without understanding the true soul of the music which could only have flowed from the authentic ‘Aryan’ soul—just like a Negro might say when Eric Clapton plays the blues, he’s imitating the sound externally without really accessing the Negro soul within the music. Anyway, if admiration for German musical culture/soul blindsided many Europeans to the dark side of Germanism, nowadays, the admiration of black music/soul has blindsided many white people to the far darker side of the Negro. While Germans could become collectively crazy, they were still a civilized people. Even if Nazis had won and carried out all manner of horrors, it would not have been the end of civilization; an evil civilization is still better than end of civilization. While Negroes can be wonderful in musical expression, rise of Negro numbers/power means death for any civilized society. But people are blindsided to the dangers of Negrohood because they are addicted to Negro music, just as so many Europeans, in their great admiration for Germanic music, had been blind to the danger Germans posed to other nations. Germans and Negroes have also been admired for their physique and athleticism, and this admiration, while stirring up fear in some, have also excited passion in others. Today, the basic trope of professional wrestling is Teutonism, with Thor-and-Conan-like muscle men pretending to bash one another. Though Hulk Hogan, the great blonde icon of the 80s, has been usurped by mulattos like the Rock, the thick-skulled muscle-flexing goes back to the lore of Germanic heroes battling the giants—and also to Greek heroes and the Roman gladiator fights where the most popular matches were between the powerful Negro savage and big Germanic barbarian. Though Romans and Christianity did much to tame the Germanic barbarian soul, it survived musically and philosophically, re-emerging as Nietzscheannism and Wagerianism, and then culminating in WWI and especially WWII. It was truly tamed only after WWII, but this required radical surgery. German people/culture were allowed to survive but only if they were castrated and pussified; the bargain was harsh, but given the sheer madness of WWII, it seemed sane at the time. Perhaps, the demise of German cultural pride and essence has a fatal impact on all of Europe. If England and France represented the rational mind of Europe, Germans represented the passionate soul, or the heart of Europe. Thus, German music, even with the association with rising German nationalism, spoke and felt for all of Europe. Geographically and emotionally, Germany was at the very center of Europe, between east and west, north and south. This culture had potential to do a great amount of good or evil; it was used for evil in WWII, and the military and political defeat of Germany also had the effect of destroying the soul of Europe. Worse, WWII wasn’t merely a military conflict among nations but defined by Nazi Germans in terms of the noblest ideas, values, and peoples of Europe combating the forces of evil, ugliness, and rottenness—especially Jews, communists, and Russian hordes. When all of German culture was packaged and used as an instrument of cultural/spiritual as well as military war by psychopaths and degenerates like Hitler and Himmler, defeat wasn’t simply going to be military but civilizational. After all, Germans had lost wars before, especially during the Napoleonic era, without losing their pride and confidence in Germanness. Defeat in WWII was bound to be different because the stakes were much higher. It was also bound to be far more humiliating and shameful since the greatest achievements of Western civilization—from the Ancient Greeks to German classical music—had been invoked in the service of a truly foul ideology; but then, this can also be said for communism, an ideology that promised liberation and justice to redeem all of history and mankind, only to bring forth so much death and destruction. In some ways, Wagner, more than the ultimately cartoonish Hitler and his henchmen, embodied the contradiction within the core of Western Civilization, especially as expressed by German music that came to represent Europe’s heart and soul. Wagner may well have been the greatest artist of the 19th century, a genius who created the most sublime, powerful, and transcendental music, but he was also a man of astounding callousness, immorality, pettiness, and vanity; and most of his theories outside music tended to be on silly side, some flat-out crazy. The example of Wagner cautions us against the cult of personality. A man with the soul of a god may lack the soul of a man. Anyway, defeat in WWII opened Germany to accusations of rottenness not only politically but spiritually, soulfully, culturally, and historically. Thus, Holocaustianity in Germany now requires Germans not only to hate Hitler and Nazis but to be insanely self-loathing and suspicious of all aspects of German culture and history. But given the musical/spiritual power German culture once had over all of Europe, the defeat and humiliation of the German soul also meant the demise of the European soul. If the powerful barbaric German soul was finally tamed, the savage Negro soul is on the loose and growing more powerful. If German barbaric energy became associated with oppression, Negro savage aggression has become associated with rebellion against white oppression. So, even though blacks are now the oppressors running around the streets, beating up white boys, and taking white girls, the Negro, especially with the support of Jewish-controlled media, has become the Eternal Victim with the license to rob, rape, and murder honkeys who, no matter how brutalized by blacks and robbed by Jews, will always be seen as the evil ‘racist’ oppressor of all mankind. Anyway, it’s really the power of black rhythm and vocality that have turned blacks into a kind of chosen-soulful-people in the popular imagination; due to the vocal power of Etta James, Aretha Franklin, and the like, many white people now believe that blacks are indeed more spiritual, more soulful, more passionate, deeper, more authentic, etc. than all the other races combined. Thus, in our irrational admiration for black soulfulness, we are blind to the danger posed to civilization by crazy Negroes. Thus, in an odd way, Negroes have become like the funky Germans. The appeal of both Germanism and Negroism is related to the power of charisma. Though Allan Bloom in CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND fixated on the negative influence of German philosophy/culture on modern history/ideology, he could have been slyly implying that the American infatuation with Negro culture/politics is a kind of replay of the earlier infatuation with all things German. Though Bloom doesn’t say much about blacks or black culture, he condemns Rock music, especially as represented by the Rolling Stones. The music of the Rolling Stones was essentially white guys taking inspiration from black music, or white people acting like ‘wild crazy niggers’. Thus, Bloom could have been hinting at the parallels between the cult of charisma in both German and Negro culture. Both cultures are bigger on passion and expression than on reason, facts, and moderation. Nietzsche was a speculative philosopher whose ideas couldn’t be understood apart from his emotions; one might even say he primarily used his reason to conduct his emotional symphonies. In certain strains of German thought, the emotion and thought welded into one. Heidegger wrote a tome on ‘being’ that dispensed with conventional reasoning on the meaning of existence. The emphasis was on being ‘authentic’. Truth wasn’t so much a matter of true of false but what FEELS true or false. Thus, Bloom says in his book that he notes a similarity between the Nazi Nuremberg Rally and Woodstock. Though vastly different in form, expression, and message, both mass events shared the primacy of emotions over thought as truth. For the Nazis, it was the FEELING of belonging to a holistic organic community of Aryan warriors and mothers whose blood flowed with sacred purity. For the hippies, it was the sense that using drugs, having orgies, shitting all over, and blasting loud rock music—climaxing with the Afro-Gotterdammerung-ism of Jimi Hendrix—would restore the Garden. So, the two events, while different in their outward manifestations, shared a common irrational root according to Bloom. Jonah Goldberg sort of expanded on this theme in LIBERAL FASCISM. The irony of the Alternative Right community is it denigrates rationalism and obsesses about ‘white authenticity’ in opposition to Negro power and passion, but its Nietzscheanism shares with Negro-ism the preference for ‘authentic’ feeling of community over reasoned consideration of facts. The Alternative Right community welcomes facts ONLY WHEN they flatter the white right’s sense of racial power and superiority—higher IQ over blacks, physically more attractive than Jews—, but it cannot handle facts when they undermine the pampered sense of white—especially Northern European—self-esteem and greatness. Thus, it features the embarrassingly unscientific analysis spouted by Caste Football whose denial of black superiority in sports is as laughable as politically correct denial that black IQ is generally lower than that of whites. So, Alternative Right only deals with selective truth of therapeutic value to stoke racial self-esteem premised on white supremacism. Anyway, Negro-ism vs. Alternative Rightism—as defined by Richard Spencer and Alex Kurtagic—boils down to Nigga vs Nitcha. Both sides embrace a form of irrationalism and selective factualism. They are both about the ‘authenticity’ of racial identity and pride than the real truths of racial differences that call for sober analysis and appraisal. But modern power-politics isn’t simply about whites vs blacks; there is the crucial Jewish factor. Though Jews are the leading promoters of globalism that supposedly transcends and unites all races, they are also acutely aware of what is Jewish and what isn’t Jewish. Among modern secular Jews, the new Kosher-ism is determining what is Jewish as opposed to merely Western or European. Though Jews bitch and whine about how Europeans hadn’t accepted Jews as full-fledged Europeans but regarded them as an ‘alien’ element, Jews themselves have long insisted on a sense of intellectual, historical, and cultural separateness. Thus, the NY Times review of THE GERMAN GENIUS questions the book’s inclusion of certain thinkers, scientists, and artists as ‘Germanic’ when they may more properly be considered as ‘Jewish’. Take Freud, Kafka, Heine, and many others. Indeed, a Polish-Jewish writer is generally considered by Jews to be Jewish than Polish, or a Jew who wrote in Polish than a Polish who happened to be also Jewish. I mean what is Roman Polanski? Polish? American? French? If he can be said to be anything, it’s Jewish, which is why the international Jewish community has been protecting him from American prosecution for having drugged and anal-raped a twelve year old girl. The Jewish culture of separateness could partly be attributed to antisemitic attitudes among goyim who refused to fully accept Jews, but the other reason is Jews—even secular modern—ones have long insisted on their separateness, uniqueness, and specialness; indeed, many Jews, Freud included, took great pride in their outsider-trouble-maker-ness. There is also the factor of higher Jewish intelligence. If Jewish IQ were on par or equal to the IQ of the goy, perhaps modern Jews would have been more willing to blend in. But since Jews tend to see goyim as dumber, there’s been a tendency for Jews to maintain their separate superiority in relation to the goyim—just like more intelligent white South Africans didn’t want to blend in with the dumber black Africans. Of course, Jews would never say this publicly as it smacks of arrogance, supremacism, and contempt, but any honest observer can palpably feel the Jewish disdain for less intelligent goyim. But Jews are well aware that a small number of goyim are actually quite intelligent—even smarter than most Jews—, and it is with those goyim that Jews mate and have kids, thus appropriating elite goy genes into the Jewish bloodstream. Thus, smart gentiles who might have become leaders of their own community have been absorbed into the Jewish community, and their half-Jewish children will grow up with Jewish consciousness—just like Amy Chua’s daughters. And given that many Jews prefer goy looks to their own, absorbing the best of goyim—best looking or most intelligent—will likely improve the genetic characteristics of Jews. If many Germans in the 19th and early 20th centuries were upset with Jewish entry into areas such as German classical music and if some Negroes have been angered by the sight of white musicians ‘stealing’ from Negro music, Jews have also been angry with what non-Jews usurping Jewish ideas and power. Though American conservatism won some Jews to its side—though, in the end, it was more like Jewish neocons won Christian conservatives to their side—, many more Jews are offended by the nature of Christian Zionism. Liberal Jews don’t believe that dumb bigoted Evangelical dummies should wrap themselves in the Israeli flag as if they own it and know what is really good for the Jews. Conservative historians like Paul Johnson and Andrew Roberts are effusive in their praise of Jews and even goes so far as to define the essence of Jewishness, but most Jews are not buying it—and for good reason since both Johnson and Roberts are lying snakes whose sucking up to Jews is essentially cynical and opportunistic—, though, to be sure, some Jews see Johnson/Robert’s shameless shtick for what it is but choose to tolerate it because ass-kissing tributes to Jewish greatness has a certain pathetic charm, especially when Jews keep farting in their faces but they keep coming to kiss more to be farted on more. But of course, the biggest kosher beef that Jews have with goyim stealing from Jewish culture is none other than Christianity itself. Though Jesus and early Christians were Jewish, in time the new religion got appropriated by goyim who twisted the meaning of Jewish history and God to their own advantage. Thus, the most important spiritual possession of the Jews, indeed their greatest cultural invention, became the instrument of the Christian goyim to bash and torment Jews. But just as gentiles took elements of Jewish culture and wielded it against Jews, modern Jews have learned how to take elements of Christianity and meld it with the grand narrative of Jewish ‘martyrdom’ to invent a new spiritual faith called Holocaustianity. Thus, whereas Christians used to feel morally superior to Jews, aka the killers of Christ, now Christians feel guilty for the mass murder of God’s Chosen People. Jews won back what the goyim had stolen from them for nearly 2000 yrs, and in spades. Though the tyranny and mass killings of Jews by Nazis have as their closest counterpart the totalitarian tyranny and mass killings by Stalin and his Jewish henchmen, American Jews have chosen to suppress the fact that Soviet Union was largely the creation of communist Jews and to stress the parallels between antisemitic Nazism and ‘racist’ white America’s treatment of Negroes. It could be one reason why Jews prefer the Negro narrative over the American Indian narrative is because what Zionists did to Palestinians in Israel was like what whites did to Indians. Also, the tragedy of American-Indians is that of a native people losing their land to newcomers. Since the Jewish ideology is for open borders and the eradication of established cultures and communities in both America and Europe, the story of Negro diaspora melds better with their narrative than that of American Indians who lost their lands to white invaders. Today, whites have become the Indians who are losing their lands to the Third World invasion orchestrated by hideous Jews. Anyway, since Holocaustianity has become linked with MLK-ism—with your typical WWII documentary on PBS stressing parallels between Nazi racial killings of Jews with white American racial discrimination of Negroes—, there isn’t much cultural pride left in Christian morality. To be a good Christian, you have to suck up to Jews and worship MLK more than God and Jesus.)
If white nationalist types dislike the prevalence of Asians in classical music because it’s “our music”, white/Jewish liberals, though ideologically committed to ‘diversity’, may feel threatened by Asian presence in classical music because the competition has gotten fiercer. It’s pretty tough to make any kind of living playing classical music as it is; now, whites and Jews have to compete with a whole bunch of Asians. White and Jewish musicians may consider themselves to be more committed to the spirit, meaning, and personality of the music while Asians practice, practice, and practice to play it correctly. Since many Asians technically play better, they are often chosen over white and Jewish musicians who may focus more on personality and uniqueness of style. Though white and Jewish musicians are loathe to say it bluntly—since it sounds stereotypical and maybe even ‘racist’—, such fears and anxieties may well exist. I recall reading an article in the NY Times in the early 90s about some East Coast community with an elite private highschool. There was a small community made up of families of Japanese workers stationed in America. Being ‘grinds’, Japanese students in these American schools did very well, often better than American students, and this upset many American parents who felt that Japanese students’ performance undermined the chances of their own children to make it top colleges. It was especially upsetting because the Japanese students had no long-term plans in America and would eventually return to Japan with their parents. I’m guessing this particular community was on the liberal cosmopolitan side ideologically, but fierce competition brings out the tribalist in everyone. Who knows, maybe lots of Asians themselves are not happy with the Asian association with classical music. Though classical music has a valued pedigree among certain elite circles, it is a dying culture. Reports say classical concert attendees are getting older and older, with little sign of appreciation among the young. Indeed, even your ‘sophisticated’ NPR listener is much more likely to be into Jazz and Afro-pop than into classical music. Classical music is considered by many to be stodgy, pompous, overblown, stuffy, repressed, and etc. At its worst, it is associated with the sort of sordidly inhuman characters in Haneke’s THE PIANO TEACHER. And given the Germanic core of much of classical music—and what Germany means to many people thanks to WWII and the Holocaust—, it no longer has the hold on cultural imagination and reverence it once did. Also, people think of classical music as ‘lame’ stuff without the beat where performers play the same notes over and over in exactly the same way as if they’re robots. True or not, perception is reality. Classical music though to be museum-like; at worst, even implicitly ‘racist’, attracting the sort of people who cannot stand ‘nigger music’. Anyway, given that most Asians are surely more into pop music, videogames, and sports than classical music, it may be no great pride for Asians to know that Asian performers are prominent in classical music.

Now, we come to the third part of BATTLE HYMN’s hidden meaning, which I think has something to do with Chua’s wounded emotions in relation to her father. On the surface, Chua is filled with love and admiration for her father, and I don’t doubt her sincerity for a minute. She remembers episodes in her life when her father said mean and what-we-might-consider-as-cruel things to her, but she takes them in stride, saying that her father was a man of his times, wanted the best for her daughters, and was being strong for the family. He wasn’t being mean just to be mean but to push his children to be successful and respected members of society. He pushed her to excel because he believed in her potential, not because he took sadistic pleasure from insulting children. Besides, Chua tells us, Chinese and Western folks have different views about raising children. Western—at least since the late 60s—parents tend to see their children as sensitive, vulnerable, and tender creatures who need to be coddled and shown lots of affection. (Of course, there is no single American or Western style of parenting. Since Chua hangs around mostly successful liberal white people, her view of what is ‘Western’ may be severely distorted since most Americans of all backgrounds do not share the values and privileges of upper crust elites, for better or worse. From my personal experience with friends and relatives, the so-called Western model of the coddling and sensitive parent has never been part of any social reality I’ve known. Most parents of my friends tended to be tough/decent, tough/not-so-decent, neglectful/selfish, or not-there-at-all. But if we were go by popular culture and mass media, I suppose there has been a kind of consensus as to what an ideal parent should be—though, these days, media tell us that ‘gay parents are the best’, an indication of how debased modern liberalism has become. But I suppose among the affluent, pampered, and well-educated, there could be a culture of sensitive parenting, though the reasons could be varied. Maybe some boomers resented the brusque patriarchalism of greatest-generational parenting and decided to be nicer to their own children. Or maybe affluent kids were raised nicely by their parents, and that’s the only social and emotional reality they know: to be nurturing. Or maybe spoiling their children is a form of youth rebellion by other means, i.e. a refusal to grow up. People who wanna stay young forever and see themselves as rebels—who’d stood up to their parents—are likely to face an emotional crisis when they are now the parents. Thus, by being extra-sensitive to their kids and telling them about the evils of tyranny and power, the parents get to revive their cult of rebellion through their children, which is rather odd since their children are not so much being taught to be rebel as being spoon-fed a ready-made formula of rebellion. Or, maybe, by being so nice to their kids, rebel-parents hope that the kids will not rebel against them, which would after all be rather humiliating since they, the parents, are supposed to be the youthful rebellions forever. In Chua’s case, her tough parenting could be a way of showing off some street cred to softy whites—like she’s been to the dark alley of human emotions and been beaten and bruised, but it only made her tougher—, but such need to display her ‘badassness’ betrays a feeling of insecurity on her part. If she’s so tough, why does she have to show it off so much? She wears Tiger Motherhood too much like a prison tattoo or a boastful war wound. It’s rather like the Japanese in the 80s huffing and puffing about how they are so tough and disciplined while Americans, especially blacks and Hispanics, are so razy; there’s an element of exaggeration to it.) Chinese parents, in contrast, tend to see their children as hardy little critters who can take lots of abuse—and indeed should because what-doesn’t-kill-you-will-only-make-you-stronger. (With the one-child policy in China, it’s possible that Chua’s view of Chinese parenting is antiquated in China itself. Since Chinese parents can only have one child, there may be a tendency to spoil and indulge the precious kid. Incidentally, Ian Buruma, the noted Dutch-Jewish-English Japan scholar, said Japanese kids, especially the boys, are raised as total brats until the age of six, whence they are suddenly, possibly traumatically, tossed into a system of rigid discipline and adherence to social conformity. I don’t know if this is true with the Chinese as well, but it would explain why so many Japanese are weird.)
It may be easier for Chua to love her father because things worked out fine for her. If she hadn’t made the grade and made something of herself, her assessment of her father and of herself may have been very different. But having succeeded, she could tell herself that her father’s way of parenting was vindicated after all. To be sure, Chua doesn’t say the Chinese way is perfect. We are told that living in America was a learning experience for her father as well, who grew more tolerant and understanding as a man. And Chua writes of a younger sister who was born with Downs Syndrome. She says her parents initially felt shame and disgust to have such a kid in the family, but the Western-Christian culture of compassion won them over to being supportive and even proud of her when she won medals in the Paralympics. So, Chua’s tiger parenting is really one of those hybrids of ‘best of west combined with best of east’.

That said, there had to have been some lingering emotions of bitterness and anger repressed in Chua’s heart in regards to her father. I mean no child can feel happy being called ‘trash’, especially in Chinese which isn’t the prettiest of languages. Chua was personally tough enough to weather the storm, study hard, work hard, attend the premier college in America, and all that, but a part of her may have wanted to an apology from her father. But my hunch is that Chinese don’t much have a culture of apology, especially involving a parent, especially the patriarch of the family, having to say ‘sorry’ or admitting he was wrong to the child, especially a daughter. The most pointed and even moving part of the book was when Chua drives Louisa to tears and near-madness, whereupon even her father tells her she’s gone too far. It’s as if by pushing her daughter to tears and heartache she somehow steered her father to see the pain and hurt of Chinese parenting, the pain he’d caused her. It could have been Chua’s way of telling him, “YOU did this to ME.” Given the nature of parent-child relations among Chinese, neither the father could apologize nor could the daughter ask for his apology. Thus, the only way to rub her father’s face in the cruelty of Chinese parenting was to openly demonstrate it on her daughter Louisa.
When Chua’s father berated and belittled her when she was young, she had no one to turn to—her mother probably thought the father was right in everything—, and so she took the pain in silence and swallowed the bitterness. So, pushing matters to the point where her father interceded to protect Louisa from her could have been a psychodramatic way of squeezing an ounce of gentleness that she had always wanted from him. Thus, in a strange way, Louisa becomes Amy’s alter ego; by winning the affection of her grandfather, Amy’s father, and by successfully rebelling against her mother—unwittingly playing the role of her tough father—, Louisa-as-Amy-surrogate finally breaks free of the buried trauma of tiger-parenting. In a way, one could say Amy loses or loses to Louisa, but, in another way, Amy is finally liberated through her. Unconsciously, Amy may have been pushing her daughters not just to excel but to rebel; she may have not only wanted to share in their success but in their freedom. In terms of tiger parenting, Sophia was the greater success, but in terms of ‘born free’ lion-izing, Louisa was the one who unlocked her mother’s caged fury. Though Chua says that pivotal emotional moment was a great lesson for her—that she may indeed have taken it too far—, I sense the other great value of that moment was she finally made her father to condemn, if only indirectly, what he had too often done to his daughters. Of course, this is psychological speculation, but such things have been observed in children. A child with abusive parents will abuse the family dog or cat not only because abuse begats abuse but also in the hope that the parent will admonish the child for the cruel behavior. Thus, in an indirect manner, the child comes to hold a mirror to his parents as if to say, “if it’s wrong for me to abuse the dog, why do you abuse me?”

BATTLE HYMN OF TIGER MOTHER is more media hype than anything else, but it still offers some interesting insights into the lifestyles and tensions of the modern elites composed of Jews and other rising nationalities.

Neo-Fascist Musings on the Christian Politics of Power.

2012-01-18T17:17:00.000-08:00

What distinguished Christian Power from forms of power derived from other spiritual traditions? What did Christian thinkers, activists, strategists, and leaders grasp that spiritualists of other religions failed to do? Was the Christian strategy for power consciously organized or accidentally arrived at?
No faith or religion, however profound, has a chance of shaping and changing the world unless it amasses power. Though power comes in various forms, certain kinds of power have greater potency, and no religion has had greater impact on the world than Christianity. Though Christians prefer to believe that their power flows naturally from their spiritual faith and values, in truth Christianity wouldn’t have survived and then thrived for over 1500 yrs had its key thinkers and leaders not made certain decisive adjustments pertaining to the strategy of power. True followers of Christianity can make believe that it was all for the grace of God and Jesus that Christianity was destined to become the biggest show in town. But for an atheist such as myself, more interesting is the psychology, culture, and politics of religion.
It should be plainly obvious from the decline of Christianity in the West and the resilience of Islam in the Middle East(and parts of Africa and Asia) that there is no law of historical inevitability that favors Christianity over other faiths. (Some may argue that while there was no guarantee for the triumph of Christianity, the triumph of the West owed to the influence of Christianity, without which the West would never have become a great power; the problem is there is no way to prove or disprove this.) Though the universal appeal of Christianity is undeniable, that aspect alone could not have ordained its eventual glory as the premier religion around the world—after all neither the Greek nor the Russian Orthodox Church was particularly invested in evangelizing the world. (Perhaps, the stagnation of Russian civilization and the fall of Greek Byzantium to the Muslim Turks owed to something to the nature of Orthodox Churches. Catholics and Protestants were more aggressive and fervent believers, and that may have energized them spiritually in the name of the faith. Spiritual energy, though repressive and stifling at times, could have overflowed into a commitment to life, social improvement, and progress in many areas. Spiritual energy may also have translated into martial energy, for impassioned believers are willing to fight for the cause. Greek Orthodox religion, in contrast, tended to be more hierarchical and reverent. Priests stuck to arcane rituals and tradition than applying the message of the Lord to the world. It tended to be more ascetic, conservative, and inward-looking, as well as more subservient to the powers-that-be. Thus, the spiritual energies of the Greeks may have waned and dissipated. While the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches could also be repressive, dogmatic, and corrupt, the element of activism and passion in their spiritual-social practice kept them alive as a living faiths whereas the Byzantium form of Christianity tended to be museum-like or even mausoleum-like—similar to the funerary mythology of the ancient Egyptians. As such, the corrupt authorities faced no moral or spiritual challenge from a Church that seemed holed up within the caves of its spiritual sanctimony. Thus sapped of spiritual energy, Byzantium may also have become drained of social and political energy. As a result, the empire kept shrinking in size and influence and crawled into itself like a turtle withdrawing inside its shell until the Turks, energized by an aggressive strain of Islam, cracked the shell and devoured the flesh. How the tortoise-like Orthodox Church in Constantinople was hollowed out and converted to an Islamic Mosque in what is now Istanbul serves as the perfect metaphor for the fatal turtle-ism of the Byzantine empire. Ironically, the once energetic and fierce Ottoman Turks, having swallowed the rotten flesh of the Byzantine turtle, seems to have become similarly infected for they too would settle into a long period of conservative inward-looking spiritual and political decline. In contrast, the Catholic French, Spanish, and Portuguese, along with the Protestant British and Dutch, were filled with religious fervor and energy, which overflowed into martial and economic energy, with which they set forth to discover, conquer, and convert the world. But in the long view of things, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing in a kind of boomerang effect. Today, Russian Orthodox Church feels no obligation to any people but the Russians whereas Catholic and Protestant folks in Europe and America feel the need to ‘save the world’. Eventually as the result of this massive outreach, it means both Catholicism and Protestantism will become the main religions of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans who will exploit the universalism of Christian teachings to invade Europe and North America. American Protestant missionaries are filled with passion to spread the Gospel and humanitarian aid in Africa, but this also means American Christianity will become defined as ‘we must embrace the Negro’, which will increase African immigration to America. Thus, do-goody American missionaries who want to convert Africa are some of the biggest enemies of the white race.) The rise of Christian power resulted from the shift in the thinking of Christian leaders and activists who learned to accommodate themselves to the ways of the world.

The message of Jesus is clear in the Gospels. Jesus not only preached the virtues of a simple life devoted to spiritual salvation but practiced what He preached. He dressed plainly, ate simple food, cared for the sick and poor, prayed and meditated a lot, and forsook worldly riches and power. He taught His Disciples to lead spartan lives, deny themselves worldly pleasures that distracts a man from the spiritual path, and devote themselves to a life of virtuous poverty in proximity with the suffering people of the world.
Of course, Jesus never thought that poverty in and of itself was good or made saints out of men. He knew there was a different between poverty-of-choice and poverty-of-misfortune. Poverty-of-choice was the way demonstrated by people like Himself who voluntarily rejected worldly power and riches in order to devote oneself fully to God. In contrast, the poverty-of-misfortune was the lot of most people who actually wanted to be rich and privileged but just happened be unlucky. Jesus well understood that most poor people were no less greedy than the rich. Poor people hated being poor and were fixated with the desire to accumulate wealth, privilege, and even power. For a man to be truly virtuous, he mustn’t only be poor of wealth but pure of heart. He must purge himself of the desire for wealth. A poor man dreaming of gold was no nobler of heart than a rich man swimming in gold.
Even so, poor people suffered more than the rich, and so they were (1) deserving of more sympathy and (2) more desperate for some kind of alleviation from suffering, therefore perhaps more ripe for spiritual salvation. If they couldn’t gain material wealth, perhaps they’d settle for spiritual riches. Jesus also understood that some rich people were decent and well-meaning of heart. But since the main objective of the rich is to remain rich or grow richer—even if they’re generous in charity—, they could never give themselves fully to the Lord. Doing business means compromising with corrupt worldly powers; to the extent that rich people, no matter how personally decent, favored riches over redemption, they could never be the favored children of God. In some ways, ‘the good rich’ were even worse than the greedy rich. The latter at least has the courage of its convictions whereas ‘the good rich’ try to have it both ways: rake it in but also buy God’s favor with a show of public virtue. If you want dough, you can’t have manna. The only way for a rich man to be spiritually virtuous is by giving away ALL of one’s wealth, willfully accepting a life of poverty, and living shoulder-to-shoulder with the suffering folks. True virtue was not in sharing one’s wealth but in sharing the suffering of the world.

Though Jesus didn’t directly rebel against worldly authorities, His message to the Disciples was clear: Do NOT appeal to worldly authorities; see them as the enemies of God. Instead, go among the poor and wretched to preach the possibility of moral/spiritual triumph over worldly powers that rule by violence, greed, oppression, and domination. And if one were to be persecuted by worldly authorities, don’t beg for mercy, don’t cower before them, don’t try to appease or please them. Take the punishment, whatever it may be. If they kill you, you’ll reunited with Jesus in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you survive, go back to the people and preach some more.
So, initially the early Christians went and preached to the people as Jesus had done and preached. Christians weren’t supposed to appeal to the rich and powerful but to the weak and meek. The message didn’t extol poverty as a good in and of itself but as a precondition that could lead to spiritual attainment if one were to abandon all desire for material success and focus one’s mind on God. So, poverty was not grace but a path to grace if one were to embrace the beauty of simple life cleansed of all diversions and distractions of the material world. Since Christianity preached that the weak and meek must remain weak and meek to attain salvation in the next life, there was to be no violent ‘slave revolt’ to overthrow the elites. Slave revolts had existed since beginning of time, but the moral problem was the victorious slaves merely became the new masters who made slaves of other people. Fighting injustice by gaining worldly power merely perpetuated the cycles of oppression. Masters became slaves became masters became slaves became masters, ad infinitum. The moral question then was how to finally break free of this endless cycle of worldly power.

So, Jesus preached to followers to reject earthly power itself. If the oppressed, having gained earthly power through a slave rebellion, simply became the new oppressors, what was the point? The only thing that changed was WHO was the oppressor than the fact of oppression itself. Though Spartacus has been romanticized as the leader of a slave rebellion, the fact was he wasn’t revolting against the idea of slavery itself. Rather, he wanted to be free so that his kind could be the new slave-masters. So, for the oppressed to be truly virtuous, they must accept their lot in life and remain weak-n-meek, reject the temptation of power, and attain salvation through a purely moral-spiritual way. (Buddha preached something similar 600 yrs before Jesus, and in a much more ‘radical’ way. At the heart of both is the Cult of Pain and how to deal with it. One might even say, ‘no pain, no religion’, or maybe ‘no agony, no ecstasy’. If man fears anything, it is pain. Pain is one thing that appears greater than gods or God for those who confront it face to face. In the novel SILENCE by Shusaku Endo, even the most devout Catholic priests commit the sin of apostasy after they’ve been tortured by the Japanese. In college, our professor told us Japanese had a particularly nasty way of torturing Catholic priests. They would tie their legs and hang them upside down to plunge in and out of pool of feces. The horror would be prolonged by cutting slits on the foreheads of priests whereby the blood flow presumably reduced pressure on the brain and kept the priests conscious throughout the ordeal. Almost every priest publicly denounced Jesus because he couldn’t take the pain. Nothing is more fearsome to man than pain, and all cultures have tried to make sense of pain or arrive at some political, moral, philosophical, and spiritual resolution with pain. There is a strange relation between pain and God in the Old Testament. God is the both the deliverer of pain and deliverer from pain. Pain is both His weapon and His enemy. When God sends pain upon mankind, it is moral pain to punish man for his misdeeds. But there’s also the sense that other kinds of pain are caused by Satan or by evil men who dare disobey the laws of God. So, good people are supposed to pray to God to be delivered from pain brought upon by evil forces. Since pain is a great power, it had to be associated with God, but since God is supposed to be good, His pain had to be morally justified. In stark contrast was the pain caused by greed, cruelty, or, worst of all, blasphemy. Blasphemy was worst of all for it brought down God’s pain on mankind. When Satan or bad men caused pain on earth, God would look down sympathetically on good men who suffered from evil pain. But when man committed an act of blasphemy, Satan stood back and laughed while God sent down His pain to whup mankind real good. Since man relied on God for ultimate protection, blasphemy was the worst and stupidest of all sins since it insulted the very force that man relied on for protection. The difference among natural spirituality, political spirituality, and moral spirituality has much to do with pain. Natural spirituality worships the ways of nature and is in awe of pain itself. Primitive man understood the world in terms of animals killing animals, animals killing man, and man killing animals. Violence was the way of nature, so the king of pain was the king of all. So, lions and bears had great spiritual power since they had the power to cause lots of pain on other critters. Political spirituality, such as that of the Romans and Chinese, saw the world in terms of elaborate power struggles among great forces such as empires, kingdoms, and states. The gods of both the Romans and the Chinese tended to be Machiavellian in their use of pain. Thus, the issue of pain tended to be political than moral, more about the necessity of pain to win than to be morally right. But the moral spirituality of later Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism grappled with the morality of pain. It’s there especially in the Book of Job, the story of Jesus’s Crucifixion, and Buddha’s realization of the prevalence of suffering in the world. Here, pain isn’t just something to be worshiped as the awesome force of nature or the tool of powerful contenders for world domination. It becomes a moral issue and question: why is there so much pain in the world, is it good or bad, and is there or should there be escape from pain? Book of Job raises the question but doesn’t provide an answer. Buddha’s way was profound or cowardly depending on one’s perspective. Buddha’s answer to pain was it was all just an illusion borne of desire; he went further and said reality itself was an illusion and so was religion as a kind of opiate to take man’s mind off reality. So, pain was not really real but made ‘real’ by the ego that seeks attachment to the world. But the world really doesn’t exist; rather it is a projection of one’s ego that we mistake for ‘reality’. So, there is no reality ‘out there’. Reality is a creation of the ego that, unless returned to the void, keeps growing like a cancer into new ‘realities’. Though Buddha’s way required great deal of discipline and self-denial, it didn’t involve direct pain nor was there any cult of pain in the search for Nirvana. It is said Buddha did undergo some stomach pain when he ate some bad fish and died of food poisoning. Supposedly he knew the food was bad but ate it anyway because he didn’t want to offend the host, but wasn’t this sensitivity on his part a sign of ego concerned with social grace? Or did Buddha feel that stomach pain and death were all but illusions too, so it didn’t matter if he lived or died since there was no real reality? Jesus took the opposite path. He saw reality as real and accepted pain as real. Since pain produced much misery and suffering in the world, He spread the message of spiritual healing that could help mankind to rise above the dilemma of flesh. But talk is cheap. Theory is one thing but what about the Practice? To prove the truth of His message, He had to demonstrate with His own flesh that it could be done. But He knew pain hurt like hell, and so He had many sleepless nights about how He would react under pressure. Would He take all the pain and triumph spiritually or would He break under pressure and beg for mercy? Winston Smith in 1984 finally gave in when he saw the rats; worse, he begged that the rats be sent to gnaw on the face of the person he loved most. It was recorded that during the Ukrainian famine perpetuated by Stalin and his Jewish communist henchmen, parents driven to mad hunger even killed and ate their own children. That is the awesome force of pain, and those who know the truth of pain don’t talk so big. Nazi soldiers who went to battle as if they were god-heroes were, in the end, crushed by the god of pain; when Germans lost the war, they shuddered like scared rats and begged for mercy. Japanese samurai caste created a cult of pain whereby warriors were supposed to be utterly impervious to pain; there was even the ritual suicide known as Seppuku where a disgraced samurai was supposed to redeem himself by unflinchingly ripping his abdomen open and making the guts spill out without showing any sign of pain. Such cult of pain instilled into Japanese social mythology foolishly convinced many Japanese that they could withstand any amount of pain and suffering in WWII for the spiritual honor of Japan. It was if all of Japan would commit a collective seppuku and die with honor—thus gaining entry into a kind of Yamato Valhalla—than surrender to the barbaric Americans. Alas, Japan in the end surrendered to the god of pain. Japanese, who thought they had utterly mastered and gained control over pain, surrendered because they couldn’t take the pain anymore. Similarly, whites in America, fearful of psychological pain controlled by Jews and physical pain meted out by Negroes, have surrendered like wimps to the new politically correct order. Anyway, Jesus well understood the contradiction with Jewish spirituality when it came to pain. Was spirituality about acceptance of pain or deliverance of pain? Or paradoxically, could one be delivered from pain only by accepting pain? Spirituality, by transcending the realm of the flesh, seemed to offer alleviation from pain. For instance, a sick person might find peace of mind through prayer. But what if spirituality was confronted by the challenge of the flesh? What if a devout person were given the choice of remaining faithful to God or being tortured in the most horrendous way possible? What was stronger? Spiritual will or fleshly torment? People prayed to God to be delivered from pain, but what if they were put to the test where they had to suffer great pain to prove their loyalty to God? Christianity is a cult of pain. Its great appeal owes to the fact that (1) Jesus absorbed a lot of pain (2) did so voluntarily (3) played His strings right to the end (4) did it for the sake of mankind (5) triumphed over His flesh and reunited with His Father (6) returned to earth to forgive mankind and to urge His Disciples to spread the message. He triumphed over pain. To be sure, there is an odd relation between spirituality and pleasure as well. In Greek mythology there is the god Bacchus as well as many others associated with having a good time. And there is the story of King Solomon and his ostentatious court. The Genesis says Eden was a pleasurable place before Adam and Eve sinned. And Jesus sometimes seems to have a decent entertainer of sorts before large crowds—like many self-help gurus are today. But, pleasure—especially the kind peddled by the current consumer culture—is a great enemy of spirituality. Essentially Afro-pagan, sexual, irreverent, and/or macho in nature, modern consumer culture is about the pleasure of the flesh over all else; if there is a spiritual element, it boils down to sensuality = spirituality. As more people become hooked/addicted to this kind of instant gratification culture, there is bound to be a decline in true spirituality. If anything, it seems like many churches are trying to survive or thrive by appealing to base immature emotions of the consumerist masses.) Jesus’s social message must have been infuriating to many poor people who wanted a better life in this world. But for many—especially the diseased, women, old folks, children, etc—who thought they had no chance of winning in this world under any circumstance, Christianity had a great therapeutic value. What if their poverty and miserable lot weren’t for naught? What if the ultimate vengeance was really with the Lord? What if the poor and virtuous could indeed gain entry into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven? As the faith spread, the elites grew increasingly alarmed. It was like a SPIRITUAL slave rebellion or civil disobedience. Under Christian teachings, most poor converts didn’t rebel violently—though some radical Christian sects did preach and practice violence—, but they seemed to be growing increasingly disassociated from the official culture and values long established and institutionalized by the pagan rulers. Instead of a slave rebellion that sought to burn down the system, it was more like widening and deepening ocean that seemed to erode the moral, spiritual, and political authority of the Roman elites. It was as if the world of Rome was changing without the approval of Roman authority. Also, Roman power across a vast empire had been maintained by a certain divide-and-rule strategy among diverse peoples of various faiths, cultures, and values. If Christianity were to spread, the masses would be united by one faith and one God. Romans had never insisted that everyone in the Roman empire worship Roman gods, and it had been to their political advantage to have so many different people worship different gods. With so many gods, how could the diverse masses form a united challenge to Rome. Christianity was a different phenomenon altogether. Though Romans had fierce problems with Jews, at least Jews comprised one tribe among many. Christianity dared to spread the idea of one God to all non-Jews. Paradoxically, the pacifism of the Christians proved a bigger challenge to Romans than had Christians been overtly violent and preached slave revolt. If Christians had called for violence, it would have given the Romans the justification to crack down on them. But since Christians spoke of peace and love, Romans didn’t know what to do with them. Christianity posed a mortal threat to the Roman social, political, and spiritual order, but Christians gave no cause for Romans to attack them. (Same was true of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s. Since blacks preached brotherly love and peace, whites who felt threatened by the rise of black power didn’t know what to do. For many white people, it would have been more welcome if most blacks had took up the banner of Nation of Islam and called for race war. That would have given white society every justification to kick black ass and send the Negro back to Africa. Enemy who comes in peace could be more dangerous.) Of course, Romans did periodically attack the Christians, but since Christians preached and mostly practiced love, it made the Romans look bad. It’s one thing to beat down a violent slave rebellion; it’s quite another to feed saphead Christians to lions—if such things really happened.

Part of the reason for early Christians’ reaching out to the poor—the weak and meek—had something to do with Christian Prophecy. Jesus had spoken of the End of Times when He would be resurrected and the world would come to an end, after which a new world of saved souls would replace the old rotten one. Though Christianity is called the religion of brotherly love, a key part of its appeal owes to its promise of delayed violence. Though Christianity instructs the faithful to ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thy enemy’, this is acceptable to many Christians only because of their conviction that the Lord will eventually punish sinners against the Lord and His followers. Christians could afford a peace of mind because all debts would be settled in the afterlife where bad people would get their just desserts. Evil folks with great power in this world would, in the next, burn in Hell for all eternity. Of course, evil people who repent and come to Jesus would be forgiven by God, but they must atone for their sins by passing through purgatory of ghastly torments. To the extent that early Christians believed the End of Times to be imminent, they found emotional fulfilment in reaching out to the weak and meek who would prevail and inherit the earth as Jesus had promised. It wouldn’t be long before Jesus returned from Heaven and saved the weak-and-meek virtuous and punished the wicked and rotten—just as Moses had returned to Egypt to lead his people into the Promised Land. (According to Christian mythology, there are two comings of Jesus. The first coming is as an instruction and warning. Instead of coming as a mighty Messiah to punish the wicked, He would suffer for mankind’s sins and show the right path to salvation. Having given mankind a break the first time—and even having sacrificed Himself—, He would wait awhile for mankind to do the right thing. But when He returns the second time, it would be as the mighty warrior Messiah who would unleash ruthless power to destroy the wicked. This is an echo of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In that story, God, disgusted with the faggots, figures to destroy the entire city, but Abram asks God to give the city a chance; maybe not everyone is wicked or faggoty. So, God delays His punishment and allows some good folks to escape before He destroys all the fruiters and gay agenda folks. There is some of this in the earlier story of Noah. God is so angry with all the wicked morons of the earth that He figures to drown everyone. But He’s gotta admit Noah and his family are swell folks, kinda like the Waltons surrounded by a bunch of NY liberals and San Fran fairies. So, instead of sending the flood down right away, God gives good people a chance to build an ark and save themselves. But most people laugh at Noah and mock God, and so they down when the flood finally comes. Similarly, Jesus’s message of love and peace is only conditional. He came to earth and sacrificed Himself to give mankind a chance to follow the righteous path. But that’s not the end of the story. He will return one day to check who did the homework and who didn’t. Those who didn’t aren’t merely going to be sent to the corner with a dunce cap but beaten to a pulp and killed. So, Christianity is both a religion of delayed reward and delayed punishment. It says, “don’t expect to be rewarded right away; suffer meekly on earth but win a ticket to Heaven”, but it also says, “you may think you have it good now and it’s all gonna be hunky dory, but just wait til Jesus returns to pulverize you real good.”)
But the problem is the End of Times never came. Every portent proved to be impotent.
Without Jesus reappearing to save the swelling number of weak-n-meek Christians and destroy the wicked, it dawned on Christian leaders that they were indeed stuck on this earth, at least for the foreseeable future. They could appeal to all the weak-n-meek in the world and pray all they wanted, but there seemed to be no salvation. The fact was they were gonna remain powerless as people, persecuted, and maybe even fed to lions—if such things really happened. The fact of the matter was that most weak-n-meek lacked the wits, will, intelligence, insight, skills, knowledge, and talent to gain power. The weak-n-meek, even when swelling in numbers, could not change society. Most people, especially the dumb poor, don’t have the vision thing. (Compare the power of secular Jews in America with that of the masses of Evangelical dummies in the South.) Christian leaders found themselves surrounded by dumb masses who clung to them like children. Christian promises of End of Times were never fulfilled. Christian leaders felt burdened with great responsibility, but their spiritual ideology of appealing to the weak-n-meek didn’t go anywhere in terms of real power. There was no deliverance from anything. Worse, persecutions sometimes got worse, and the fact was even courageous Christians didn’t want to be fed to lions—if such things really happened. Since Christian leaders had preached to their followers to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, they couldn’t rely on their flock for protection either when the Romans decided to arrest and punish the leaders.

So, Christian leaders began to appeal to the pagan elites. Moral victory by appealing to weak and meek was not enough. Political victory by appealing to powerful and rich was necessary.
Moral victory was no longer satisfactory for Christian leaders—not least because leaders of any ideology or movement thirst for power; after all, power is inherent in the idea of leadership. Political victory by appealing to the rich and powerful became the next priority. Christian leaders made a case to the pagan elites that Christianity wasn't necessarily against their power. After all, Jesus told people to be humble and not rise up against worldly authority. After all, Jesus’s message was to love everyone. Besides, the pagan elites, by adopting Christianity, could gain moral influence and sway over masses of people. Might not an empire where the elites shared the same faith with the masses be more powerful, stable, and secure? And might it not be easier to control the masses if the rulers could own the religion that held sway over so many people?

Just as Jesus was the fusion of Heaven-world of God and Earth-world of man, Christianity could serve as a spiritual and political fusion of—or bridge between—the elites and the masses. If such a unity could be effected, it would no longer be a case of elites ruling over masses through force, fear, and power—which all too often were expensive and unstable—but elites serving as the moral representatives and defenders of the meek masses.
If Rome at the time had been small and weak, Christianity’s appeal may have been limited. Instead, the Roman Empire was vast and confident, and most Roman elites thought their great empire would last forever. Though the pacifism of Christianity was troublesome to Roman elites as an affront to the martial spirit/cult that made the Roman empire possible, some members of the elite began to have different ideas. Confident in Roman might and imperial reach, their main concern turned away from further conquests and focused on how to maintain the vast empire as it stood. Christianity’s promise of the moral and spiritual unity of the rulers and ruled across the entire empire appealed to increasing numbers of elites. Maybe Christianity could be used after all if Christian leaders changed their tune and politically appealed to than morally/spiritually preached against the rich and powerful. In the new bargain, Christian leadership, as official priests of the empire, would serve as spiritual middlemen or diplomats between the powerful and powerless. It would be a form of spiritual fascism. (Fascism, unlike communism, didn’t call on the masses to overthrow the elites. Rather, it served as a political, economic, and cultural middleman between the elites and the masses, between the secular and spiritual forces. It negotiated between the elites who insisted on hierarchy and the masses who demanded basic rights and legal protections, as well as the opportunity to make the social climb according to merit.)

Christianity had gained moral righteousness by first appealing to the victims of the world. Though politically powerless, it had accumulated a great amount of moral capital. New Christianity then gained socio-political power by 'selling' this moral capital to elite rulers. Christian leaders offered a deal to the elites, “look, we have all this moral capital accrued through centuries of virtuous suffering—not least under your rule—, but you rich and powerful folks can own this moral capital for a price.” The bargain was that the Christian leaders would accept and even bless the hierarchy of the existing political order, and, in exchange, the political/economic elites would promote Christian leaders/priests and hand them power over cultural affairs. (The bargain between the Saudi royal family and the Wahabi clergy isn’t much different.)
Christian leaders had first accrued moral capital by appealing to the poor who suffered in the name of higher justice preached by Jesus. Eventually, Christian leaders made available their moral enterprise as IPO to elites to invest in and profit from by gaining a controlling stake in the great mass movement. With the decaying of Roman social order under vulgar excesses of paganism, Roman elites may have welcomed this bargain as a chance of strengthening unity with the empire both vertically and horizontally. Though Gibbons blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome, it could be Romans took to Christianity because social and moral decline within the empire was becoming more palpable by the day. Though Christianity couldn’t stave off the fall of Rome, it came to serve as the foundation of the new order.

The ideology and the politics of Christianity began to diverge when Christian leaders made the fateful decision to appeal to the elites and not just to the weak-n-meek. And they didn’t appeal to the rich and powerful just to be tolerated and spared from persecution but to gain entry into the circle of influence and privilege. Strictly in an ideological sense, this was the fatal compromise, the betrayal of the true teachings of Jesus. Politically, it was a stroke of genius and lay the ground for the emergence of the most powerful, wealthiest, and influential civilization the world would come to know.
The rise of Christian power owes to the betrayal of Christine ideals. Yet, for there to be a betrayal, there first had to be a long period of earnest practice. If Christians from the very start had appealed to the elites, they would have accrued no moral capital borne of noble suffering, persecution, hardships, and selfless commitment. Generations of Christians had to suffer for there to arise the cult of Christian martyrdom. Only thus could later Christian leaders have something to package and offer to the powers-that-be. The great irony of this is, of course, the Christian leaders sold to the pagan elites what the latter had unwittingly created. By having persecuted Christians for many generations, Romans created the cult of Christian sainthood. Since Romans had carried out the ‘evil’ deeds, the moral capital of Christian sainthood should have been anti-Roman. Yet, it was packaged into something that was appealing to the Romans: the promise of Christianity said (1) Christians, in their commitment to pacifism, would never lead a vengeful slave revolt against Roman authority—at least theoretically (2) Jesus forgives all, and if Romans were to adopt Christianity, they too would be forgiven. Better yet, as powerful representatives of Christianity, they would effectively own the cult of Jesus that has growing appeal to people throughout the empire (3) Christianity would form a bond of affection between elites and the masses; such might be more effective than a bond based on fear and endless bread-n-circuses, which were proving expensive (4) Christian leaders cleverly manipulated the narrative whereby Jews, rather than Romans, became the main culprits in the killing of the Christ. So, a religion that had its beginning as a kind of rebellion against Roman authority—albeit in a pacifistic form—turned into something of great appeal to the Romans. (But, Romans hadn’t yet learned to use it properly and, besides, the decay at the empire’s core was far too serious for any new movement or ideology to reverse. The cancerous tumor had grown too large, and Roman resources were too dispersed throughout the empire for Romans to remove the biggest tumor at the center.) There is something of a parallel in what was done with the historical narratives of Jewish and Negro suffering in the West. Centuries of ‘antisemitism’ against the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, have filled the Jewish moral coffer with boundless capital. And the history of slavery and discrimination against blacks in America have filled blacks with lots of moral capital. Since Jews and blacks don’t have the numbers or power to outright overthrow white gentile society, they packaged their narrative-of-suffering myth as IPO for the white community to buy a stake in. Thus, by investing in Holocaustianity, the West too could feel holy-shmoly and morally empowered—ironically in the shame of having persecuted Jews. (Though Europeans carried out the Holocaust, they are now accusing Arabs of antisemitism, not least because Europeans feel themselves absolved of Jewicide via their worship of Holocaustianity.) There is a double-edged aspect to this. Europeans may wail about how they’re filled with historical guilt and shame, but this is also used as a kind of moral superiority, i.e, they are better than other people because they are so filled with remorse. Because Europeans killed Jews and now worship the Jews as atonement, it’s as though that makes them morally superior to Arabs or Chinese who, not having killed a whole bunch of Jews, have no reason to apologize and atone for ‘antisemitism’, thereby no reason to worship Holocaustianity. The moral logic is all very perverse.
Anyway, the crucial fact is it’s more the cult of remorse than real remorse. With this perversely earned moral capital, the West bombs nations in the Middle East in the name of ‘human rights’. Europeans, because they killed Jews and then atoned for their great sin, have the moral right to bomb and kill those who don’t worship Holocaustianity. Via Holocaustianity, it’s also as if Europeans have been partly absolved of their ‘historical guilt of imperialism’. By invoking Jew-worship and by heeding the advice of Jews like Bernard-Henri Strauss, they feel free to attack and invade nations that were their former colonies—of course, not in the name of national glory or profit but in the name of ‘humanitarian mission’.
Similarly, American whites, having bought the MLK myth—the moral capital of Negro suffering packaged into a sellable object—, feel they are morally superior to everyone else around the world. And via the King cult, it’s as though whites have been absolved of the ‘genocide’ of the American-Indians, mistreatment of Irish Catholics, exploitation of Chinese immigrant railroad workers, and lots of other abuses. Via King worship, the only suffering that matters in America is black suffering, but even a white person can own a part of that suffering—in the packaged form of noble ‘progressive’ guilt—if one chooses to invest, morally and financially, into the King myth. Thus, Ken Burns, the PBS liberal, wept like pussyboy when his daughter read the line of the Gettysburg address on Christmas and then told the whole world about it. I’m sure he pees in his pants when he listens to the hokum melodrama of King’s speeches. Anyway, here is a white boy who has turned ‘white guilt’ into a kind of pride and power. Since he’s so full of guilt and love for the suffering Negro, he personally feels entitled to more power, privilege, and influence for himself. Though there are so many better documentarians than pussyboy Burns, he’s been chosen to hog the PBS spotlight.
But, it’s not just liberals. During the 2000s, Bush and the neocons invoked the history of American civil rights and all that to justify the flexing of American muscle power around the world. The lesson taken from America’s past history of racial oppression is not “white people shouldn’t use their superior military might to bomb and destroy non-white nations” but “America’s redemption from its historical guilt justifies—indeed obligates—it to smash evil all around the world.” A similar logic was behind American involvement in the Vietnam War. Now, this isn’t to ridicule the notion that America can use its power to make the world a better place. After all, who can deny that US did much good around the world in and after WWII? Maybe it was hypocritical of a nation built on conquest and imperialism(and practiced racial discrimination) to be lecturing Japan about the evil of naked aggression, but US in 1945 was not US in 1845, and Japan did gain much from US power, example, and influence. Things change.

Even so, it’s interesting how something that might be an object of shame could be packaged and turned into an object of pride to justify further aggression and power.
Though it would be wrong to say pure cynicism animates the West concern for human rights, it seems human rights is more a tool of politics than principles in the West. After all, why were most American and European leaders silent about Israel’s massive attack on Gaza but sent NATO forces to smash Gaddafi in the name of saving civilians?
There is an element of sincerity in the West’s commitment to human rights; there are advisers, thinkers, and officials in the West who push for greater intervention out of a genuine concern for oppressed peoples around the world; they also see it as a means by which West can redeem its history of imperialism and justify its dominance in globalism. But conscious sincerity doesn’t necessarily mean there doesn’t lurk subconscious motives and impulses such as sublimated power-lust, narcissism, aggressiveness, and self-aggrandizement. This is no less true of celebrities such as Bono, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, and Richard Gere. They seem to be sincere on the conscious level, but there’s something queasy about their self-promotion as the Conscience-of-the-World. And they are sometimes used by politicians as posterboys for interventionism. Generally, ideals serve power than the other way around.

In the end, this fusion of neo-imperialism and neo-moralism may be the undoing of the West. Perhaps the problem faced by the Roman empire once it converted to Christianity was similar. Having adopted Christianity, the empire sought to conceive and practice a humane form of imperialism that proved not only to be more costly but more likely to open Rome to accusations of hypocrisy. Prior to the Christianization of Rome, there was no mistaking, on part of both Romans and the conquered, what the nature of Roman imperialism was. It was to dominate and control. Though Romans could be magnanimous to those who submitted to Roman rule, the imperial mission was understood and practiced with ruthless clarity. Romans felt no compunction about enslaving or killing any number of people to expand and maintain their empire. If Romans had to kill a thousand on the spot, they did. If they had to starve thousands to death, so be it. And Romans felt no remorse for what they did.
Though Christian Romans could be just as brutal as pagan Romans, the ideology of Christianity did have the effect of burdening Romans with moral responsibilities. Humane imperialism can be more expensive and burdensome than naked imperialism. It was more costly for Americans to control South Vietnam than for Nazis to rule over Poles. Nazis, true to their ideology, treated Poles like dirt and mercilessly used them as slaves who worked for a pittance so that Germans could live well. Though Americans could be brutal to the Vietnamese, Christian anti-communist America felt the obligation to pump lots of cash into Vietnam to do ‘good work’. Iraq War has been extremely expensive for the same reason. If in the 60s, America could afford the war in Vietnam, things were different in the 2000s when the Iraq War, though more limited than the Vietnam War, cost a lot more, even adjusting for inflation. America, with its new self-image as an improved nation, felt obligated to spend more on rebuilding Iraq and in the provisions for its soldiers, who were provided with gourmet food and the like. (Given the nature of soldiering—the possibility of sacrificing life and limb for one’s country—, men in the military should be provided for generously BUT as it pertains to military life and culture. It’s one thing to treat military men as humans and heroes, but it’s quite another to treat them like television game show contestants showered with prizes. Offering lobster tales at lunches and providing free plastic surgery trivializes the meaning of what it means to be a soldier. It also trivializes war as kind of club med vacation. There is no honor in treating soldiers like little children sitting at the lap of Santa doling our gifts and candies. The role and purpose of the military is basic and spartan. Soldiers should be provided with things in amounts no more and no less than what is necessary for military duty and service. No one should join the military to live or get a taste of the good life. It cheapen the whole meaning of noble sacrifice for the country. Firemen also lay their lives down on the line, but does that mean we should shower them with widescreen LCD Tv’s and free Viagra? The idea that soldiers deserve our support has been debased by the policy of providing soldiers with things that have nothing whatsoever to do with military service. It also produces a smarmy entitlementality among soldiers. A soldier chomping on caviar at the mess hall in Iraq or getting free plastic surgery is likely to snidely feel that he deserves such rewards because he volunteered to be a hero for the nation. If a soldier returns disfigured from war, by all means provide him with all the plastic surgery to restore his face or limbs. But when the military pays for plastic surgery for reasons of vanity among soldiers who hadn’t even seen combat, it cheapens the whole idea of service. A soldier then no longer becomes someone who signed up out of love of country but as someone who expects to be loved and feted because he signed up for the military. As a result, what we have now is more a mercenary force than a military force. This isn’t to say there aren’t honorable men in the military as many people sign up to serve just like the soldiers of old. But the official policy has become politicized, consumerized, and trivialized, and it’s no wonder that the military now welcomes openly gay people, and it won’t be long before transvestites are also allowed to march around cross-dressed. I suppose, given the fact that most Americans, especially politicians and their children, don’t serve in the military, offering all manner of candies and prizes to soldiers has therapeutic value to us as a nation. Since we and our children don’t die in wars that we either support or don’t oppose—as we are too busy glued to the TV or internet—, there’s bound to be an element of guilt, again especially among politicians. So, we solve this emotional crisis by over-compensating military men with all manner of candies and prizes.) Globalist neo-imperialism is far more costly than imperialism of old. Burdened with moralism, it must pay the price of ‘good works’ to justify the expansion of influence. And since the promise of neo-imperialism is to raise the living standards around the world to the level of the West, the West feels obligated to open its markets to so-called ‘developing nations’. If those nations succeed—as several have in East Asia—, it leads to the problem of trade imbalances between us and them. If they fail to develop functional economies—as in most of Africa—, they come to rely on ever increasing amounts of Western aid. Think of the trillions of dollars sunk into the toilet bowl of Africa.
Also, despite the moral sanctimony of the West when it comes to ‘human rights’, most of us, from high to low, have become more narcissistic, self-centered, trivial, and silly. What can we say of a civilization where the big moral issues are ‘transgender rights’ and ‘slut walk parades’? On Facebook and other social networking sites, interest in foreign policy amounts to little more than Bono-like self-aggrandizement. People ‘support’ certain stories and images because it gives them an Oprah-like high. If you click ‘like’ for a certain story, it means you are so caring and morally superior, and that gives you the right to enjoy Lady Gaga videos and gossip with less guilt; after all, you showed how much you care by clicking ‘like’ on some story about the mistreatment of a Chinese artist by the authorities. The insufferably self-righteous Nicholas Kristof of NY Times is the perfect representative of the moral triteness of most Americans. Though NPR covers many subjects, the main appeal is not so much the stories themselves but “I am so sophisticated and wonderful because I listen to this ‘intelligent’ radio program while others listen to ‘talk radio’.” It reeks of haute-hip self-regard. There is a lot of Air of caring, intelligence, and erudition on NPR, but it’s really a status product, and as such, has no room for the kind of news and views that might truly upset the dominant paradigm. NPR, for all its conceit of independence, is a mouthpiece for the established elites of America, especially the liberal Jewish community. Notice there’s hardly any discussion of Jewish power, especially as it pertains to the foulness of Hollywood, porn, music industry, big pharma, Wall Street, big media, and foreign policy. If anything NPR is simply another Jewish tool in big media. NPR serves as a cover for ‘independent reporting’ when all it really serves is the liberal Jewish elite’s agenda. Even the stories that are critical of Israel really amount to little more than hokum that peace isn’t possible because of the collusion of far right Likudites and American Christian Zionists when, in fact, Israel has been firmly in the hands of secular Zionists from its founding. By focusing on the extreme elements in the Likud and Christian Zionists like George W. Bush, NPR’s hope is that as many listeners as possible will be distracted from the bigger truth that the oppression and dispossession of Palestinians had been firmly established long before right-wing elements in Israel gained power in government. I mean what’s the big difference between the policies of Golda Meir or Netanhayu? Another thing NPR refuses to explore is the Jewish use of Obama. Americans, turned trivial and stupid by decades of celebrity culture and rampant consumer-materialism fed to them by the Jewish-controlled media, do not think politically or morally when they see or listen to Obama. For many Americans, he is simply the One because Oprah said so. The ridiculous cult of Oprah/Obama also can be understood only within the context of our trivialist celebrity culture. As all American know, the Official Oprah doesn’t stand for anything. Her shtick has been to play it black, white, spiritual, materialist, selfish, generous, etc. She is something for everyone, which means she isn’t much of anything at all. So, how did this one-woman-world-buffet-of-trivialities become the reigning spiritual queen of America? Because America has turned into a nation of dummies. The rise of clowns like Rick Warren owes to the same love for mushy trivialities. Since so many Americans feel comfortable and safe with ‘charismatic’ Obama at the helm, there is no need to think about what he’s really doing. (But such complacency has its roots in the Reagan era too. With the Teflon President at the national leader who made everyone feel safe and proud, there was no need to think or worry about what was really happening here or anywhere else for that matter.) Because Obama is black, he is even more useful for the Zionists. When Bush invaded Iraq, ‘progressives’ could spin the narrative of ‘Yankee cowboy attacks people of color’. But what’s likely to happen if US were to enter into war with Iran with Obama at the helm? Since he’s a ‘progressive black guy’, how many liberals and leftists will march against him? And haven’t they all been raised from childhood to believe that white people have no right to condemn any black person—unless he happens to be a black conservative? (White liberals, though so sensitive to blacks in general, can be brutal about black conservatives. The reasons are generally five-fold. One is the seeming lack of gratitude on the part of black conservative for white liberal do-goodery. Secondly, white liberals are trying to exorcise the spirit of the uncle tom. From the perspective of today, old liberalism that had stressed ‘blacks-as-credit-to-their-race’ is not only seen as passe but condescending and ‘racist’. Since the rise of Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, and MLK, the new narrative is blacks have nothing to prove since they are actually superior to lame bland whites in areas of masculinity, musicality, sexuality, charisma, and soulfulness. White people should try to emulate the Great Negro instead of the Negro trying to fit into white society. Since black conservatives insist on blacks adhering to white middle class values, they are nothing but uncle toms. But there are inner contradictions within liberalism. Though the ‘uncle tom’ is out, the Magic Negro myth—which explains the success of movies such as SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and GREEN MILE—is bigger than ever. The Magic Negro is a kind of ‘uncle tom’, but the difference is he’s imbued with some kind of spiritual power, and this makes him higher than the white man, indeed a folkish messianic figure who can redeem the white man. And it is interesting that white liberals, who have long scoffed at oreos or blacks-trying-to-be-white and have promoted ‘authentic’ blacks, finally settle for Obama, very much a representative of the ‘clean-cut’-Negro-as-a-credit-to-his-own-race archetype. Perhaps the fact that Obama is the product of a black man porking a white woman and that he used to dilly-dally with some radical types in college made him more palatable to ‘progressives’ than had he been the product of a long line of respectable bourgeois black families. The third reason for the liberal white animosity against black conservatives is it offers liberals an opportunity to show that they are not automatically slavish to all blacks. By harshly beating up on black conservatives, white liberals demonstrate that they are not all about race but more about ideology, or right vs wrong. After all, if white liberals are knee-jerk sympathizers with all blacks, how could they be so vicious to black conservatives? Fourth reason for white liberal animosity toward black conservatives has to do with the fact that black conservatives possess the moral right and biographical justification to counter claims made by white liberals that black failure is all due to white ‘racism’. Black conservatives, by detailing the failure within the black community and discussing the realities of racial differences, can put forth arguments that white conservatives aren’t allowed to. Thus, black conservative argument seems to carry more clout, and this irks white liberals, not least because much of white liberal pride is based on their greater sympathy for the Negro than shown by white conservatives. Related to the fourth, the fifth reason is white liberals fear that black conservatives will give moral credence to white ‘racists’ who are seen by white liberals as the source of all evil in the world.)

The idea of Jesus as the Son of God wasn’t, in and of itself, hardly original in the history of mythology and religion. Many primitive religions conflate certain great man with godly powers or with god himself. There are many stories in Greek mythology where someone is the child of god and human. There developed the myth of the pharaoh as the son of the god Ra during certain dynasties. Japanese long believed that the imperial family was directly descended from gods.
But in most of these stories, the god-man is either associated with great feats of heroism or with the power of elites. Pharaohs invoked divinity not to be one with the people but to remain above them. The imperial family in Japan was careful to maintain mythic layers of social barrier between themselves and the people. Though a half-god figure like Achilles did live and fight amongst men, he was obsessed with his own superiority and ignored the company of most Greeks. Petulant in his self-absorption and self-importance, he even refused to fight for a long stretch even as Greeks were facing almost certain defeat.

Jesus was a different kind of god-man because from the very beginning, He mingled with the people. He kissed the babies of the unwashed masses. Religious scholars debate as to whether Jesus Himself insisted that He was the Son of God. Scholars of ancient languages say the term ‘virgin’ in the New Testament may originally have meant ‘young woman’. So, I don’t know much about the historical Jesus. But Jesus of the Christian mythology is said to be the Son of God who had no interest in worldly power and/or narcissistic feats of heroism(as shown by Heracles). Rather, He touched, literally and spiritually, the lives of the mostly poor people all around Him. He opened up the possibility of divine force that is accessible to the people: God of the people. Though there were all kinds of pagan gods, they were generally synonymous with the powerful and/or the powers-that-be. Even if the rulers were not conflated with the gods themselves(as in Ancient Egypt), rulers were seen as god-like and gods were seen as ruler-like. Thus, a Roman emperor was like Jupiter on earth and Jupiter was like a Roman emperor in the spirit world. Though some gods and goddesses represented aspect of life familiar or central to the lives of ordinary people, there remained a chilly distance between the divine ideal and human imperfection. Thus, Hera wasn’t simply the goddess of motherhood but the embodiment of ultimate motherhood—rather hard to believe given her impetuous ways. Aphrodite wasn’t just the goddess of love but the most beautiful and perfect embodiment of sensual/sexual love. Even as embodiments of aspects of human life, gods and goddesses were ideals than a figure who could touched and felt by man—that is unless some horny pagan god decided to make love to some babe.
In contrast, Jesus couldn’t only be seen by man but rubbed shoulders with mankind. Some pagan gods were purely imaginary, such as Zeus and Athena. Some pagan gods were fusion of man and god, like the pharaohs who were believed to be the actual incarnations of gods. Thus, a pharaoh wasn’t just the son or emissary of Horus but Horus in flesh himself. Some pagan gods were said to be descendants of gods, like the long line of Japanese imperial family. Imaginary gods were unassailable since they didn’t exist in reality. They were immortal at least to the extent that people continued to remember and honor them.
In contrast, humans-as-gods faced a huge problem. Since they were human but claimed to have divine powers, they had to be shielded from the masses. The whole edifice built on the myth of the mighty god-king could crumble if the masses realized that the pharaoh wore no clothes.
Perhaps the most famous example of this was the Emperor Hirohito of Japan being exposed as little more than a nerdy Tokyo shoeshine boy for General McCarthur right after WWII. Since god-humans were wrapped in the myth of superhuman greatness, their power would evaporate along with the myth were it to be exposed as a lie.
Fearing the revelation of their phoniness, god-kings became ever more paranoid of or distant from the people and reality. In time, the myth became bigger than their own power, and those who controlled the myth came to control the real power. During many periods in Egypt, the power was less in the hands of the pharaohs than in the circle around them who controlled the myth of the pharaoh-as-god. All through Japanese history, the imperial family’s grip on power was tenuous at best and even non-existent for long stretches. Since their source of legitimacy was mythic and since the mythic can destroyed if exposed to reality, the imperial family had to be sealed and cocooned from reality(like the Boy in the Plastic Bubble who had no immunity against germs), which came to be dominated by military rulers.
Anyway, if one were born to power/privilege and had the means to shroud oneself in the myth of divinity, there was the confluence of desire(for power and privilege) and the means(to protect and safeguard one’s lofty position). But what if one were born with a megalomaniacal personality into a humble family? That was the predicament of Jesus. He wanted to be god-like but had no means to shroud Himself in myth. Though the Bible tells us that Jesus rejected worldly power offered to Him by Satan, in fact the historical Jesus merely rejected something that He was in no position to reject it since His position in life was rather low. Any poor person can say, “I reject the presidency of the United States and a billion dollars.” There was no way a carpenter in some corner of the mighty Roman empire could gain any real power. Jesus rejected what He couldn’t have in the first place. So, it’s more accurate to say He sought to conquer the soul of man because He couldn’t conquer the world of man. Had Jesus been born to power and privilege, He might have been a very different person.
Even so, it would be misleading to say Jesus was only out for power and settled for spiritual power since material power was beyond His reach. Rather, Jesus was born with both megalomania and a very compassionate heart. He was sincerely concerned with the well-being of mankind, and this made Him more sensitive to injustice than most people were. People with such mixed personalities tend to be especially noble or especially dangerous or both. Leon Trotsky had a somewhat similar personality. As a youth, he was moved to tears by the sight of poor peasants toiling on his father’s farm. His sensitivity to the suffering of man made him utterly intolerant of injustice, but such intolerance paradoxically blinded him to all the bloody excesses of the revolution. In his commitment to wage war on injustice, he failed to realize how much injustice was committed by his side in the name of building heaven on earth. You can see some of this characteristic in the film A PERFECT WORLD (directed by Clint Eastwood). Kevin Costner’s character seems to have some dark secret involving child abuse, and he is deeply sensitive about children abused by adults; but this concern is so extreme that he murders whom he deems to be ‘bad’ adults.
While some people have more or less one dominant kind of personality, some people have plural-personalities—which is not to be confused with the psychological disorder of having multiple personalities. A plural-personality person has two or more seemingly contradictory personalities vying for mastery within his soul, and the problem is that no single personality is dominant over others. Jesus seemed to have been genuinely megalomaniacal and genuinely humble/compassionate. The iconography of Christianity that would have as the King of Kings a carpenter who didn’t conquer or rule over a single province(and was indeed beaten and crucified) is a vast projection of the problem of Jesus’s plural-personality. This problem has been rife with all sorts of moral, spiritual, and political questions that haven’t been—and will never be—satisfactorily resolved, but used creatively and imaginatively it offered the possibility of creating and building a whole new kind of social and moral order. Just as steel isn’t simply iron but an alloy of various elements combined through certain processes, Christianity gained characteristics and advantages—and to be sure, some disadvantages—lacking in other religions by its plural-personality-ness. Christianity not only bridged the Hebraic and Hellenic, not only the politically powerful and the socially powerless, but also the megalomaniacal personality(aka will to power) with the selfless/compassionate personality. Even at its most intolerant, purist, and puritanical, Christianity is an amalgamation of various opposing forces that makes it rich object for inquiry and a creative base for new ideas.

Anyway, since Jesus couldn’t conquer the world of man, He went for the soul of man. Since He could not be god-king atop the tower representing lordly power, He created the new concept of god-king with and for the people. He was not a god looking down on man but a God rubbing shoulders with man. The danger, of course, is that a god-man without worldly power is vulnerable to worldly threats and dangers and to the germs of reality(with the tendency to infect and destroy all mythic claims). A pharaoh sitting in his palace was safe from the mob, and besides he controlled the power of the state. Jesus, in contrast, was at the mercy of state power controlled by Jewish Rabbis and the Romans who could use the reality-test to expose Him as a fraud before the people. And Jesus was helpless against the mob if they were to decide to beat Him up. So, how could He be a god-man when His supposedly divine powers could easily be exposed as fake? There had been rumors of Jesus going around and healing the sick and performing all sorts of miracles. But when Pilate asked Him to demonstrate His supposedly miraculous powers, Jesus couldn’t a single one. Being a smart Jew, He came up with a pretty good explanation about it being wrong to use the Lord’s power in vain or some such. Without the institutional power to shroud Himself in the myth of divinity, Jesus was exposed as a fraud and then whipped and crucified, against which He seemed utterly helpless. And yet, being the brilliant Jew that He was, Jesus saw the advantage of this persecution; He understood how His defeat and humiliation could be reversed and turned into proof of His divinity. (To be sure, maybe He intended no such thing, and it was the crafty Saul-Paul and other reform Jews who later invented the myth of Jesus as Son of God sent to redeem all of mankind and of course the story of His Resurrection.) To the Romans and Jewish priests, the trial, prosecution, and execution of Jesus meant only one thing: He was no Messiah, let alone the Son of God. In fact, He was probably not even a miracle worker and healer as some claimed; His miracles were all probably rumors or fabrications. He was exposed, punished, and killed, and that was that. But events can be read and interpreted in different ways. Christians said Jesus willfully chose to be humiliated and crucified to wash away the sins of man. He suffered to share our pain and to demonstrate nobility even in defeat, thereby gaining spiritual triumph. Indeed, He was sent by God to suffer and die in this world to show the world how to be saved in the next one.

Paradoxically, Jesus’s decision to humbly and helplessly accept punishment and death at the hands of sinful man may actually have been the product of megalomania. Just as some ‘tough guys’ go out of their way to put themselves in dangerous situations to prove that they are more courageous, stronger, bolder, and greater than most people—why else did Cool Hand Luke eat fifty eggs?—, Jesus may have be megalomaniacally obsessed to prove to Himself and the world that He has the will and guts to be the ONLY person to defacto voluntarily choose to be crucified; after all, He didn’t run when He could have. Some of this is intimated in LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. There is Jesus on the cross feeling so much pain that He wants out. And then a creature that looks like an angel comes along and pulls out the nails and takes Him to safety where He can marry Mary Magdalene and have kids and lead a normal life. But then He finds out that Christianity is catching like wildfire despite the fact that He quit the cross for a happy life. He feels like a fraud. For Christianity to be genuinely great religion, it had to have been founded by a genuinely great man, not some ‘coward’. So, He crawls back to the cross and chooses the pain of Crucifixion. He has to prove to Himself and the world that He is indeed the real thing.

There is parallel between the story of Jesus and the story of Christianity. Jesus was born to a common family, mingled with the poor and sick, suffered the travails of man, but then through His suffering, earned entry into the Kingdom of Heaven as the King of Kings. Thus, He bridged the high and low.
Similarly, Christianity began as a humble religion of commoners. Jesus was a carpenter, and Peter, according to the New Testament, was a fisherman. The religion was mainly preached to the poor, the wretched, and the sick. Early Christians suffered much at the hands of Jews and Romans. But through their history of noble suffering, the Christian movement gained a moral capital like no other. As such, it eventually became appealing even to the powers-that-be that were either keen to socially manipulate it or genuinely moved by its teachings, or both. And then, it wasn’t long before it entered the realm of elite power in the Roman world and remained the most powerful socio-cultural(and even political)force until the 20th century when the Western world finally began to shed the authority of the Church. There are lots of lessons to be learned from the history of Christianity in regard to the conceptualization and attainment of power. In this sense, there never was one Christianity. From Jesus’s very example and especially from the inspired creativity of St. Paul, Christianity was largely a game of how one shaped and carved its contours of meaning and used them as spiritual, cultural, political, and psychological instruments to gain control over entire communities.

Consider just one of the many meanings of Christianity: the paradox of moral perfectionism.
Christians say Jesus was the Perfect Man. This doesn’t merely mean that Jesus, as the Son of God, had divine powers or that He was filled with great wisdom. After all, a man of great power and great wisdom could still be imperfect. After all, no one says Socrates, Confucius, or Thomas Jefferson were perfect despite their considerable wisdom.
To say Jesus was a Perfect Man is to go further; it is to say He was MORALLY perfect. (There is no clear division between moral perfection and spiritual perfection in Christianity.) But here’s the contradiction with the Christian concept of moral perfection: We are told Jesus was morally perfect because He forgave those who sinned against Him. So, to be morally perfect is to tolerate and forgive the moral imperfection of others.
This paradox can lead to all sorts of headaches, maybe even a kind of spiritual schizophrenia. No religion demands as much moral perfection as Christianity; but then, this pure form of morality demands that we forgive and love sinners who are filled with imperfections. It’s like telling someone to be absolutely clean so that others can smear their filth on you.
To be sure, Jesus’s injunction to mankind to be forgiving didn’t mean one should abstain from judging. Rather, He forgave precisely because He wanted the right to judge. To be morally perfect means one must forgive others for their sins, but it also means one, being morally superior, has the right to judge others. And indeed Jesus took full note of the sinful foulness of mankind. He did judge them, but He also realized that man, ever since being exiled from Eden, was tainted with the Original Sin—aka the human nature to be aggressive, selfish, cruel, hateful, sadistic, lustful, lazy, stupid, blasphemous, etc.
So, just as a knowing adult must forgive a child who does wrong or a dog that wets the rug, Jesus felt a need to forgive man. Forgiveness, like compassion, implies the moral superiority of the forgiver or giver.
Jesus also understood the necessity of instructing man to walk on the righteous path, just as a parent, though forgiving, teaches his child to act better, and just as a dog owner, though understanding of dog’s nature, trains the dog to take a pee outside.
Jesus also understood that it would be more difficult for man to forgive fellow man since man, in his limited knowledge, lacked the great wisdom of Jesus. An adult may forgive a child, but children often fight with one another. A dog owner may understand a dog, but dogs cannot much understand other dogs and they just bark at one another. Since it was difficult for man to forgive fellow man, God and Jesus were necessary as inspirational and injunction-ary mediums through whom man could find it in themselves to forgive others. If someone does you wrong, you naturally don’t wanna forgive the asshole but wanna crack open his head. But if invokes God and Jesus, one’s forgiveness of the transgressor gains an element of spiritual nobility blessed and appreciated by God and Jesus. Thus, forgiving your fellow man(or woman) under the Christian order isn’t merely decency—which can often make a person feel wimpy and weak—but a psychological form of empowerment. You are, in your goodness, emulating the Son of God after all no less. (The reason why Jews are dangerous is they have no moral/spiritual tradition of atoning for their transgressions against goyim. Jews never ask forgiveness for the evil they did or apologize for all the rotten things they’ve done around the world. Jewish Sacred Texts tell Jews to be good to one another and before God, but there isn’t much about being nice to goyim. The Talmud actually tells Jews to rip off goyim all they want. This is why Christians disliked Jews for many centuries. Jews acted Jewish. Since WWII, Christian West decided to be truly Christian-compassionate toward Jews, but Jews only mock Christians and plot to undermine the entire West for the interests of Jewish Supremacism.)
Anyway, to be morally perfect is to be morally better than others. The danger of moral perfection is it can lead to hubris, which is the enemy of morality, and so the morally perfect must not act highfalutin—like that insufferable jerk St. Mark Hackard of Alternative Right. So, if one is truly morally perfect, one mustn’t make too much of one’s moral perfection. Also, to the extent that a morally elevated man knows most people are morally rather low, he should be understanding towards them instead of looking down on them with contempt and arrogance. Also, morality is not fixed. Even the morally low can be elevated while the morally pure can become corrupt. Thus, pride in moral perfection and loftiness can be dangerous. Thus, one should try to emulate Jesus, but one should never think of one’s elevated morality(if such were indeed attained)to be as fixed as the Northern star. And just as physics taught that nothing can overtake the speed of light—though new theories seem to indicate otherwise—, one should never think one’s morality could be on the same level with the moral perfection of Jesus. Thus, even as we should strive for moral perfection, we must remind ourselves that the conceit of coming close to perfection is a kind of hubris and sin.

Anyway, this fusion of moral perfection and moral imperfection—or the paradoxical notion of moral perfection as the forgiveness of moral imperfection—also served as the basis for new social order. A society that is morally ruthless and unforgiving—like feudal Japan—is likely to remain rigidly hierarchical and stiff; it is an empire of fear and pain.
In contrast, a society that is tolerant of everything—like the decadent & hedonistic world of pagan Rome—is bound to grow lazy, corrupt, and fall apart. The concept of moral perfectionism instills society with the need for discipline, order, and cleanliness. But it reminds us that the world is and will always remain very much an imperfect place, so there needs to be some leeway for the mistakes and foolishness committed by man. People’s heads shouldn’t be chopped off on the spot simply because they didn’t bow—as in the TV series SHOGUN.

Christianity, in a way, found a way to balance disciplinarian perfectionism with tolerant imperfectionism. Sad to say, this lesson was often forgotten throughout history. During certain historical periods, Christians, filled with the pride and arrogance of moral perfectionism, saw fit to persecute and kill anyone they deemed to be satanic or blasphemous. Today, the opposite problem plagues the Christian West. If Jesus preached that imperfection should be forgiven but judged, neo-Christianity—especially of Mainline Protestantism—has turned into a mindlessly tolerant celebration(as opposed to forgiveness)of various excesses and sins. If Jesus would have condemned homosexuality but still offered homosexuals the chance of redemption and salvation, neo-Christianity would have us believe that Jesus would have loved gays and joined the gay pride parade. Though Jesus saved a prostitute because she was about to be stoned by men who were sinful and imperfect themselves—it should also be noted He saved her from a life of prostitution and made her feel shame—, neo-Christianity would have us believe that Jesus would have loved and danced with hookers and joined the Slut Walk parade. But we shouldn’t blame Jesus and Christianity for the extremes of Christian moral perfectionism—the Spanish Inquisition and the like—and the excesses of neo-Christian moral imperfectionism. The great beauty of Christianity actually lay in its spiritually fascistic way of fusing apparently opposing and incompatible ideas.

In Honor of MLK Day in 2012, a Revised Text of I HAVE A DREAM speech.

2012-01-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

*In the spirit of Michael King(aka Martin L. King), the following speech is mostly a work of plagiarism.

I HAVE A DREAM 2012.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration of truth in the history of blogosphere..

Six score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation so that black slaves would be freed and sent back to Africa in full understanding of the long-term danger posed by the naturally more aggressive and physically stronger Negro race against the white race. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of whites who wished to spare their descendants of the hellfire of black lust, aggression, and criminality that would engulf this nation if the Negro Problem weren’t solved.

But one hundred fifty years later, the white man is still not free of the wild Negro. One hundred years fifty years later, the life of the European-American is still sadly brutalized by the fists of Negro thugs and ravaged by the violence of interracial lust. One hundred fifty years later, the white American is robbed, raped, and murdered on the streets and in his home by black invaders or conned by liberal Jewish elites who use the Magic Negro myth to guilt-bait, cower, and silence white folks. One hundred fifty years later, the Negro still doesn’t show any sign that he could maintain, let alone create, a functional civilization. And so I’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to realize that the Negro’s check isn’t worth a dime except for bouncing like a basketball. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were hoping Americans of the future wouldn’t be so naive as to think high ideals could ever apply to Negroes whose nature was closer to jungle savages than to civilized men. This note was a promise that all men, except black men genetically prone to rage and aggression, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has neglected the realistic intentions of the Founders, insofar as her white citizens have discovered since the 60s that integration with blacks means more burglary, bullying, theft, sexual assault, and murder. Instead of honoring the sacred obligation of racial and cultural preservation and survival, America has handed the Negro a blank check to run riot with, which is one of the major reasons why this nation is going bankrupt.

But we refuse to believe that the well of naive good intentions has run dry. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the vaults for more affirmative action, welfare, section 8 housing, and free-everything-else for dumb and lazy Negroes. And so, we've come to rely on Jewish financial wizardry and borrowing from the Chinese to write more blank checks with which Negroes can run wild and act like rap music pimps and thugs while the white middle class keeps shrinking and white working class is almost no more. Because we refuse to face up to reality, the Negro is now laughing at the white man as a ‘faggoty ass white boy’.

It is now time to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of abstract idealism or to swallow the opiate of empty hope. Now is the time to be real about racial differences and what they mean to the future of democracy. Now is the time to reject the dark and dangerous alley of integration for the sunlit path of white racial community, survival, and security. Now is the time to save our nation from the encroaching jungle of racial thuggery and to set our feet on the solid rock of Western Civilization. Now is the time to make racial survival and justice a reality for all white people threatened, robbed, raped, and attacked by the stronger, fiercer, crazier, and more aggressive blacks.
It would be fatal for white Americans to overlook the emergency of the moment. How many sweltering summers of ‘teen’ and ‘youth’ mob violence will have to pass before there is an invigorating autumn of reality and sobriety? 2012 is not an end but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro is now content because Obama is president will have a rude awakening as the Negro, by his childish and rude nature, will simply demand mo’ and mo’. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the white folks come together in realization that the physically stronger, intellectually weaker, and temperamentally wilder Negro is not only difficult to integrate with but is genetically programmed to destroy civilization. The whirlwinds of Negro crime, intimidation, and riots will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of truth emerges.

This I must say to my people, who stand on the threshold peering into the doom of racial humiliation and extinction: In the process of regaining our rightful place, we must guard ourselves from misleading ideas. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom and pride by drinking from the false cup of Jewish neoconservatism whose ultimate agenda converges with their liberal brethren’s. We must forever conduct our struggle with clarity, focus, and discipline; we must always be mindful to separate the wheat from the chaff. We must also not allow our creative crusade to degenerate into thuggery of the likes expressed by neo-Nazis and the KKK. Again and again, we must rise to the noble heights of meeting Jewish Venality and Negro Thuggery with White Might.
The marvelous new militancy that defines an awakening white America must not lead us to a denigration of all blacks and Jews, for some Jews and Negroes, as evidenced by their own tribalism, have come to realize that their destinies are not compatible with our destiny. As blacks have a right to be free as blacks and Jews have a right to be free as Jews, we have a right to be free as whites, and that means each people must have a world of their own.

We can walk alone safely in a mostly white community, but try walking in a neighborhood with too many Negroes!
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always walk away from Negroes and ensure Negroes will not walk to where we live for we’ve had it up to here with Negro violence and thuggery. We must not turn back but must turn away the black.

There are those who are asking the devotees of white rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the white man is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of Negro savagery. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, bruised from Negro fist and stained with Negro spit and cum, cannot find refuge from the howling madness of the ‘Nigga’. We cannot be satisfied as long as Section 8 Housing plants violent and dangerous Negroes on our doorsteps. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their pride and manhood by sports teams whose defacto policy is ‘Negro Only’ and by affirmative action whose motto is ‘Poor Whites and Dogs Need Not Apply’. We cannot be satisfied as long as a white person in Mississippi cannot walk safely and a white person in New York, unless he happens to be a rich Jew or liberal wasp, watches helplessly as the entire nation is being stolen by Wall Street Jews and mean street Negroes. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until a revitalized white juggernaut steamrolls over venal Jews and vile Negroes to reclaim the nation for freedom loving noble Western peoples.
I am mindful that some of you have suffered great trials and tribulations. Some of you have been anal-gang-raped in prison by Negroes with huge penises. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for safety from black thuggery left you burned by flames of witch-hunting hysteria and staggered by the winds of political correctness. You have been the veterans of collective suffering orchestrated liberal Jews. Continue to work with the conviction that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the white communities of northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Spread the word that affluent white people in safe communities must care for less fortunate fellow white folks who are oppressed by biological slavery that favors the smarter Jews and stronger Negroes.

Let us not lose ourselves in the alley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." My dream is white people will realize that by ‘all men’, Jefferson meant all white men, for this is what he said of black people: “Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.” Jefferson also said, “in memory they(blacks) are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.” It sure explains the rise of rap music and the need of affirmative action for black students. Given MLK’s penchant for plagiarism, I have a dream that people rise up and see him as the fraud that he was.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the descendants of former slave owners will no longer be beaten, bullied, robbed, and have their white girlfriends stolen by descendants of former slaves. I have a dream that white people can sit at their own tables because too many blacks, even in places of higher education, have no table manners and act worse than animals.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of black violence, sweltering with the heat of black contempt for white boys and lust for white women, will be transformed into an oasis for decent peace-loving white folks. .

I have a dream that all little white children will one day live in a nation where they will not be discriminated by the color of their skin according to the dictates of affirmative action but instead grow up with white consciousness and pride and unite and fight to create a new republic where they will be free from Jewish exploitation and black crime.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious black thugs, with its leaders having their lips dripping with the phony words of “inclusion” and “diversity” -- one day right there in Alabama little white boys and white girls will be protected from the fists of big black boys and black girls.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every alley shall be safe, and every street and town square shall be made habitable, the rough cities will be made decent, and the crooked Jews will be replaced by straight whites; and the glory of the racial justice and survival will radiate from the happy faces of every white person.

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I come to you with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of disrepair a monument of hope – instead of paying a Chinese guy to hew out of a mountain the semblance of MLK that looks like a Negro Mao. With this faith, we will be able to rid this nation of the jiving discords of crazy blacks and restore the beautiful symphony of Western civilization. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together(without getting your ass buggered by a big-dicked Negro), to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

I have a dream that all Americans will come to know that MLK was a shill for Jewish Zionists. How is it that this great prophet of justice didn’t have an ounce of sympathy for Palestinians? Gee, my brothers and sisters, could it have been Jews stuffed his pocket with lots of dough?

I have a dream that all American will come to know that MLK wasn’t just a womanizer but a serial womanizer and thug who not only slept with countless women but beat them up and bragged about it. Some man of peace!

I have a dream that all Americans will come to know that MLK worked closely with Jewish communists who main agenda was to subvert white power to pave the way for Jewish supremacism.

I have a dream that all Americans will come to know that MLK’s family members are petty, greedy, and mediocrities who are financially feeding off their father’s legacy like Negroes feed on watermelons and fried chicken.

I have a dream that all Americans will come to know MLK, the man who beat up women and bragged about it, was no man of peace but merely pulled a Trojan Horse trick to fool whitey with the hope of racial peace. He knew full well that racial equality will mean a whole bunch of Muhammad Alis in every school and street in America beating up white boys and taking white girls.

I have a dream that all Americans will come to know that necons who’ve taken over the conservative movement are also a cabal of Jewish supremacists who are using the MLK cult to undermine and destroy any and all signs of white interests and white power.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all white Americans will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Of thee I sing because my son will no longer be beaten by Negro kids and my daughter will no longer be raped by Negro thugs.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride. Because if the original founders of America could see what has become of America – dominated by hideous Jews and vile Negroes – they would just puke.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring! Let freedom ring. And may gunfire ring even louder for freedom grows out of the barrel of a gun.

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. It must be true because ever since Negroes were given the opportunity to live as equal citizens, they’ve ruined one city after another and cost all of us dearly.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Yes, so how depressing that NH went for Romney than Ron Paul.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Yes, let’s reclaim NY for America away from the globalist Jews who use it to destroy all of white America.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Yes, let’s end affirmative action that hurts ‘poor white trash’ – what Jewish liberals call lower class white people – in the Alleghenies.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Yes, but as there aren’t too many Negroes up there, I’d say that part of America is pretty free as it is.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. Yes, but with Negroes, gays, Hispanics, whites, and Asians all divided in that state, I have no clue how the shit will hit the fan over there.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Yes, and there is no greater freedom than being freed from Negro thuggery!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Yes, because if Tennessee keeps progressing like it is, white folks will all have to run to mountaintops to be safe from Negro crime and thuggery.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. Yes, but with so many Negroes, I pray for white folks in that state. Few yrs back, a bunch of black kids beat up a white kid but blacks marched for ‘racial justice’ with full support of Jewish-controlled media. That is the true legacy of the so-called ‘Civil Rights Movement’.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring. Yes, and let the words be “Negroes are stronger, dumber, and more aggressive than whites, and so white people have the racial right to be freed from Negro biological slavery.”

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all white people will be freed from black physical violence and Jewish intellectual/economic violence. And then we will no longer have to say with much grief:

There goes the neighborhood! There goes the neighborhood!!