For PART ONE, Click Here.
Topics discussed: Monopoly power to coin terminology, glob-blobs or globlobs, WINTER LIGHT, Ingmar Bergman, DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST,Robert Bresson, face/mask of God, Christian sexuality vs Jewish sexuality, Catholicist statism, Protestantist de-centralization,THE FACE OF ANOTHER, MAN WITHOUT A MAP(aka RUINED MAP), Kobo Abe, Hiroshi Teshigahara, science fiction, serious literature, problems of 'serious art', magic, trickery, trick vs truth, House of Games, David Mamet, End of History, liberal democracy as ideal or means, oligarchy over democracy, Jewish oligarchy, artistic genius vs intellectualism, Pier Paolo Pasoliini and the danger of theory, images and sounds as inspiration for ideas, art world, stink or sink,idolatry of art, tension between idea and image, history as selective remembrance AND enforced amnesia, Separation of spirituality and creativity in the West, Renaissance, imitation vs inspiration, Greek/Roman gods, Stanislaw Lem, SOLARIS, power through submission, Buddhism, Taoism, chess, Abraham, circumcision, THE BIRDS by Alfred Hitchcock, white female naivete, Solipsism of Buddhism, True Confession in art, Blonde on Blonde, "Visions of Johanna", high intelligence and intense passion among Jews, war on suburbs, white flight and black blight, auteur theory, Dylan as prophet, DAWN OF THE DEAD, zombification of Palestinians and white folks, Textual imagery as idolatry in the Bible, Raiders of the Lost Ark, flood of emotions before the creative fishes, modern music and intellect over emotions, moral fallacy deriving from Northern Protestant disdain of natural emotions, Vincent Van Gogh, religious-eous-ness,INSOMNIA by Christopher Nolan, Decadence and coerciveness of Liberailsm and Conservatism after loss of main enemy,Justice vs Rule of Law, Russophobia and antisemitism, Anglo race-ism vs Nazi radical racism, Jewish Liberal race-ism and Zionist right-wing 'racism', Jonathan Glazer, UNDER THE SKIN, NOAH, Darren Aronofsky, Confirmation Bias, the Fall of Rome,CARRIE, .
Anyway, if conservatism can rot & decay or become petrified in certain ways, liberalism can succumb to the same problems due to flaws of its own. If conservatives can become overly obsessed with the tree than with the soil, liberals can become so obsessed with the ‘creative’ uses of the tree(chopped into so many pieces) that they may well forget that there had been a tree in the first place, let alone the soil from which it grew. They become so enamored of their own clever ‘creativity’ and ‘brilliance’ that they face the danger of losing sight of their origins and roots. So, Liberals today have forgotten the deeper meaning of true marriage and instead find pride and pleasure with their creative invention of ‘gay marriage’ that is peppered with all sorts of ‘rainbow’ colors. Liberalism can become shallow and vapid, so enamored of the cool and hip fashions of the moment that the fashion becomes the passion. There are great truths and there are gimmicky trivialities, but too many stupid Liberals cannot tell the difference anymore because of their narcissistic conceit of being ‘progressive’ and ‘more evolved’, as well as ‘creative’ and ‘brilliant’. And yet, trivialities don’t last forever. They began to decay rather quickly, and the current American culture is one of reeking decadence despite all its flashiness and colorfulness. Mostly trash really. Fashions being what they are, if they just come and go like the wind, a social order can withstand them even when they are dumb and harmful. But Liberalism sometimes produces its own iron dogmas and a cult of correctness that, in America, have come to be known as Political Correctness. So, some of these ludicrous fashions that arise from the so-called ‘brilliant’ and ‘creative’ minds in the academia/media are disseminated far & wide through the school system, squeezed into the minds of impressionable young ones, and protected with new taboos that degrade and demean who won’t fall for the hype. Since Jewish Liberals control the academic and media, they have a monopoly in coining new terminology that serves as currency in the national discourse. For most Americans — even smart ones — most issues of right-or-wrong revolve around a handful of words and adjectives(and associative images and sounds of electronic media)used in conjunction with them. How many people really gave any thought to issues of race, sex, nation, politics, and etc? In most cases, it’s about slogans and emotive use of terminology. So, someone will be accused of ‘homophobia’, and ‘homophobia’ will be associated with ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, and ‘divisive’; and that just about does the trick for most people. How many people were won over to ‘gay marriage’ by a serious moral or intellectual debate? Even before they knew anything about it, they were bombarded with positive media/celebrity images of ‘clean-cut and well-scrubbed happy homos’, had their minds filled with terms like ‘homophobia’, and were threatened with shunning or denunciation if they didn’t agree right away with the agenda being pushed on them. A term like ‘homomania’ is closer to the truth of what’s happening, but how come no one uses it? Because the media/academia are controlled by Jews who monopolize the power to coin and distribute terminology. So, just by controlling the terminology, the Jew Liberals have a decisive advantage over Americans. Even Conservatives have no choice but to use the terminological currency formulated and coined by Jews. If Conservatives had any sense, they would reject the terms and terminologies of debate and coin their own words in rejection of bogus notions such as ‘homophobia’ or ‘racism’, but Conservatives either have shit for brains or are too busy sucking up to Jews to point out that Jews control the media/academia, indeed just like Jews also control the Fed that has the power of money, which is the Jew-monopolized Fed favors Jew-monopolized Wall Street. As long as Jews control the power of the dollar at the Fed and Wall Street, we have to play their game, but the game is rigged so that Jews are favored over the rest of us. The currency of ideas works like the currency of money.
At any rate, despite the all-too-real problems and dangers of atavism, there are intelligent, sensible, reasonable, and resourceful ways by which a people can preserve their sense of blood-and-soil, origins, roots, unity, and sacredness. After all, if the people of Israel, Russia, and China can feel pride of their history/origins/roots but also embrace modernity and progress, who’s to say it can’t be done by other peoples as well? So, it’s a matter of degrees. If a people are responsible with their consciousness of blood-and-soil, it not only does a lot of good but is necessary for the survival and thriving of a race and nation. Though Alex Haley was a fraud as an author, his desire to learn something about his ancestors and trace his roots back to Africa to arrive at a richer, deeper, and more meaningful sense of identity was truly noble. If he’d done it right, he would have been an ‘atavisionary’, but alas, like so many psychopathic Negroes, he was a fraud, lout, and liar. Still, the idea that a person should have racial consciousness, a knowledge of his past, a connection to the origins of his race, and the desire to preserve sacred memory of his people for posterity is what makes a person truly human. Without such a historical and cultural consciousness, we would be nothing more than consumer-hamsters in a globalist cage that run around looking for nothing for yummies and orgasms, and of course, Jews who control the NWO want to turn us into such shallow dummies for shallow dummies without roots are easier to control. Of course, Jews are very ‘atavistic’ about their own identity, origins, past, heritage, race, and nationhood, but they encourage all other peoples — especially white gentile folks — to dismiss their own racial consciousness/heritage and meld with the rest of humanity as one big blob-glob of mindless seekers of pleasures from dumb blockbuster Hollywood movies, stupid inane TV shows, comic books about homo superheroes, and waving the ‘rainbow’ banner at ‘gay pride’ parades, all of which are controlled by and profitable to the Jews. Of course, many historians are Jews, and Jews do teach a lot of history, but notice that their versions of history tend to ignore all the evils done by Jews while highlighting all the evils of Western Civilization. So, most white kids in America see the likes of MLK, Nelson Mandela, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, Obama, and Tupac as the greatest and noblest people that ever lived while hating their own kind. No matter how great a white gentile person might have been in the past, Jews discredit him or her with the charge that he or she was ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’; never mind that by the standards of today’s PC values, everyone that ever lived in the past was guilty of ‘hatred’ and ‘bigotry’. Jews turned white people off and away from their own histories and heritages while turning them onto Magic Negro heroes and flashy-trashy porny-horny libertarian hedonism that, like narcotics, encourages people to seek that which gives them the biggest zing and zap at any given moment(with no thought of yesterday or tomorrow), which is one reason why so many of children’s movies hurtle forth at breakneck speed without any time for a breather, consideration, or reflection. It’s like experiencing the world passing outside the window of a car traveling at 100 mph: strong on motors but weak on ‘emotors’. The basic test-marketed formula assumes that kids must be jolted and zapped every other second or they will lose interest, find it ‘lame’, and become distracted. And yet, the way such movies maintain audience attention is a form of constant distraction since it’s premised on the conviction that children — and their parents — are too shallow and impatient to ponder any deeper meaning to the story and therefore must constantly be ‘distracted’ with a nonstop barrage of effects, funny lines, stunts, and gimmicks. In a way, the thinking behind most CGI-animated children’s movies is like the Luke Skywalker in the final battle of the original STAR WARS flying through a narrow corridor to lob off missiles into the portal connected to the main generator of the Death Star. Luke’s mission was to accelerate within a narrow corridor and fix all his senses on the main objective, which is to blow up the Imperial Space Station. That was just the final part of STAR WARS, but entire movies for children now feel that way — a nonstop hurtling though a world flashing by to hit the blockbuster bull’s eye — , indeed so much so that even a movie like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and E.T. might be considered too slow and distracting by today’s standards. Lest they be distracted from the main theme, distract them with the main focus composed of hurricanes of tricks and stunts battering and bouncing off all over the place. (Even so, some movies find the right balance of depth and dazzle. Ang Lee’s LIFE OF PI and Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY for instance. Though heavy on effects and spectacle, they are also about mood and meaning. And even their effects are more artful and mythic than usual. Martin Scorsese’s HUGO was made in the vein of LIFE OF PI, but Scorsese, though a greater director than Lee, missed the mark because his sensibility is geared to make children’s films and his self-consciousness about film history made HUGO a bit too precious.)
Anyway, what applies to Negroes & Jews in their search for their roots, identity, & heritage should also apply to white peoples. They too should be mindful of their heritage and history, which shouldn’t either be reduced to dry academism or handed over to Jews to rewrite & denigrate for their own tribal interest, as indeed, most Jews — even much respected academic historians — will reshape white histories to morally and emotionally sever white people from their sacred past. When a people lose a connection to their sense of history and heritage, they are no longer a people; they are generic globalist-blobs or ‘glob-blobs’ or ‘globlobs’. Do you want to be a globlob? Jews emphasize how America is special because Americans always reinvent themselves, but then, if reinvention(even to the extent of racial/cultural suicide)is so great, why don’t Jews give up their Jewish identity and ‘reinvent’ themselves as Scientologists or something? Of course, Jewish communists once tried to smash Russian history, culture, and identity, thus forcing all Russians to be reinvented and re-branded as good little commies ordered about by the likes of Stalin and his Jewish henchmen, but thankfully, many Russians nevertheless regained their sense of sacred history. Putin, whatever his faults(and there are many) is a man who dearly loves and feels connected to motherland; he’s not a mere cynic playing the nationalist card. Yet, foul Jews who feel no love for Russia believe that they have some divine right to take over Russia, gain control all its elites institutions, and turn Russians into what have become of white Americans, a bunch of morons who vote for the likes of Obama, invite Negroes to hump their own wives on their own beds, support ‘gay marriage’ as the greatest moral crusade of our time, and sheepishly vote for politicians who are nothing but whores & running dogs of the globalist Zionist Jewish cabal. (It must be emphasized that loyalty to one’s sacred past doesn’t mean that one should reject or despise other peoples and other cultures, just like love of one’s family doesn’t mean one should disrespect the bonds within other families. Every people should be like a lake that is connected to other lakes through rivers and streams. The rivers and streams among the many lakes make for cosmopolitan exchange of ideas. But if all the barrier among the lakes are removed and all lakes are merged into a single ocean, there’s no more distinctness, no more specialness. McNations aren’t what the world needs.) Indeed, what kind of Negro do you respect more? A stupid shallow Negro who only knows rap music, current fashions, and is a slave to his animal lusts OR a Negro with a sense of roots, a sense of where his people came from(i.e., that his ancestors in Africa weren’t named Leroy Jackson but Cucumunga Chimpongo), and a knowledge of the cultures and experiences that came to define Africa and the lives of blacks in the New World? Similarly, what kind of Lithuanian-American would you respect more? One who has almost no knowledge of his ancestry, has no sense of the culture & history of his people, and doesn’t even know a single word of Lithuanian while being excited about all the latest trashy fads as well as being brainwashed by PC OR one who has a profound knowledge of the history & culture of his people, of the triumphs & tragedies that took place on the land of his people, and can speak Lithuanian as well as English? I’ll bet most people, deep down inside, will prefer a man with a sense of roots, identity, and heritage. Not because it’s ‘hip’, ‘cool’, or ‘sexy’ but because it’s deep, meaningful, and authentic.
Of course, the consciousness of identity must be tempered with individuality because wholly burying one’s individuality in one’s identity would make one no better than all those mindless Nazi and Japanese soldiers during World War II whose only meaning and obligation were to serve Der Fuhrer or the Emperor — as the embodiment of the highest national spirit — and never think critically or rationally on one’s own. Indeed, the great power of Jews owes to the dual sense of identity and individuality. And yet, Jews would deny both to the white race. Jews fear the rise of a powerful white identity since white people will, on their own and without permission from Jewish elites, may define their own meaning of identity and shape their own destinies. But Jews also seek to rob white people of their true individuality, one that is rational, critical, and skeptical. The kind of bogus and politically correct ‘individuality’ that Jews promote for white people is one where white people are constantly swayed by fashions and fads of whatever happens to be ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, and of course such fashions and fads are usually defined and disseminated by the Jewish powers-that-be that control the TV, movie, and music industry. Or Jews try to convince white people that support for ‘gay marriage’ is all about individualism since it’s about one’s own ‘freedom to marry’, but if marriage should be redefined in any manner according to individual whim, why not also push for ‘incest marriage’ and ‘multiple marriage’? And if this ‘gay’ agenda business is only about individualism and freedom, why are there all these laws that penalize, fire, and blacklist anyone who, as a free individual, feels that homosexuality is gross and ugly instead of healthy and wonderful? Why are Christian bakers being FORCED to make ‘gay wedding’ cakes when the New York Times isn’t forced to run dildo ads — even though dildos are legal consumer items? Isn’t that ‘discrimination’ against a certain business that wants to advertise in the NY Times? Jewish-controlled PC denies both our identity and our individual freedom to think our own thoughts and say our own say in accordance to the dictates of our individual conscience.
Anyway, the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism owed something to Catholicism’s ‘masking’ of God and Protestantism’s ‘unmasking’ of the ‘masks’ of God. For the sake of clarification, we need to make a distinction between the notion of ‘unmasking of God’ and ‘unmasking of the masks of God’. No Christian of any kind would dare unmask God Himself since no man could ever know the ultimate truth of God or stare directly into His ‘face’ that cannot be seen, and if it could, would surely make one’s eyeballs explode like with the Nazis in the penultimate scene in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. What Protestantism sought to do was to remove the ‘masks’ placed upon God by mankind itself — and this included the overly idolatrous Catholic Church. In removing these ‘false’ masks, Protestants had no illusions about seeing God in His full truth & glory for the essence of Godliness shall always remain a mystery. And yet, in removing those masks, Protestants felt they could FEEL the presence and power of God more truthfully, purely, and fully than sensual-centric Catholics could. There would be greater emotional/spiritual communion with the purity of God’s true meanings and intentions. But this created as many problems as it solved. If the ‘masks’ are removed but the face of God still cannot be seen, what is one left with? Is there greater clarity or greater confusion without the mask? Though the Catholic Church’s ‘masks’ of God were many, varied, and contradictory — especially between the ethos & practice of Christianity — , they did offer something to fixate upon as tangible manifestations of God’s holiness and truth. In removing such ‘false masks’, a Protestant has nothing between himself and God. One might say he has a direct connection to God without the artificial obstacle of the mask. But God still wouldn’t reveal Himself and would remain silent.
 |
| THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY - Ingmar Bergman |
Still, at least the old Protestants had faith and conviction that they were on God’s side and God was looking out for them. But in the modern world defined by rationalism, science, individualism, and the cult of progress, what if one just barely clings to faith like a button hanging by a thread from the fabric? Such a figure is the is the leading character(as the pastor of small community) in WINTER LIGHT(or THE COMMUNICANTS), which, though only 85 min, is one of the longest-seeming and difficult-to-sit-through films in my viewing experience. While Robert Bresson’s DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST could also said to be ‘bleak’, sparse, and desolate, it isn’t necessarily severe and depressing because there’s an element of depth and grace in the stubborn faith, however awkward and expressionless, of the terminally ill main character. Even though he fails to connect with the people of the town who mostly regard him as a necessary nuisance — he seems inept even for the role of saint or martyr — , there is something about his mulish commitment to God and vocation that makes his life radiate, however dimly, with the stuff of sanctity. Because he is so inexpressive and frigid — if not necessarily rigid — , people tend to project their fears, anxieties, and prejudices onto him. To schoolgirls, he’s just a dullard ripe for ridicule. They don’t think he can be hurt because he doesn’t seem capable of emotions. A rich man’s adulterous wife feels hostility toward the priest not only because he bore witness to her infidelity but because she assumes his frozen expression amounts to harsh condemnation and judgmentality. But it’s really a projection of her own fears, anxieties, and bitterness onto him, and indeed, for all we know, the priest’s feelings could have been as forgiving and understanding as judgmental(indeed, what good is any priest without some degree of judgmentalism? After all, Christianity is about moving toward the Judgement Day, not the Do-Whatever-You-Want-For-All-I-Care Day). Of course, the rich woman’s contempt for the priest could also be social and status-related. If not for his robe, the priest would be a social nothing and a nobody, especially as he seems so colorless, charmless, and possibly even witless. She might not have felt so derisively towards him if he were tall, handsome, and articulate — she might have felt genuine shame in her adultery under the gaze of such a man — or if he looked the part of a mighty patriarch with God on His side. If one must be judged and condemned for one’s moral lapses, let it be someone with the kind of authority — in looks, expression, and disposition — that can really command the fear and respect of the sinner. In a way, the woman’s ill feeling toward the priest could have been the combination of her suspicion of his judgmentality AND her perception of his feeble inability to judge(and forgive). His spiritual authority doesn’t seem to jibe with his persona/social worth. Just as one would rather be judged & condemned by someone worthy of authority, one would rather be understood & forgiven by someone worthy of respect. And it just so happens that the country priest, in terms of his social style and demeanor, is a total failure in those regards. To the rich woman, he’s just some poor sod, and to the townsfolk, he’s just someone appointed to fill the post in the local church.
 |
| The Eraser-head-like main character of THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST by Robert Bresson |
Without faith, there’s no more need for spiritual guilt, but feelings of guilt could be as personal, psychological, and social as spiritual. And even as one denies God, one could still feel guilty for having denied God. But if one no longer believes God exists, to whom does one feel guilty for having rejected God? If you betray a friend, you feel guilty for having betrayed a friend. But if you betray God by disbelieving in Him, why would you feel any need to feel guilt since you don’t even believe that the God you betrayed ever existed in the first place for you to betray? And yet, the workings of human psychology aren’t so simple. Even if one denies God — rejects the notion that some force called God governs the universe — , a sense of God could linger and affect the soul in many ways. It’s like even after loved ones and pets die and literally vanish from the world, we are still haunted by their presence, indeed almost as if they’re watching us, judging us. (Consider the movie FLATLINERS where the various characters, upon contacting the repressed ‘other worlds’ of their subconscious, cannot shake off the ghosts of the past even though such apparitions exist only in their minds.) For Bergman, God and his father became deeply entwined, and just like the man in WINTER LIGHT couldn’t be free of God even as/after he lost his faith, Bergman couldn’t be free of the haunting presence of his parents, especially his father. Indeed, even in his old age, he wrote screenplays about his parents as if they were still alive and affecting him.
 |
| WINTER LIGHT - Ingmar Bergman |
When confronted with great mystery, mankind goes about two ways of coping with it. One is to imagine and devise manifestations of its essence into appearances and turn them into objects of holiness and sanctity. The other way is to remove as much of the barriers between mankind and the mystery as possible so as to gain a direct emotive access to the mystery. But what if the mystery can never be accessed or understood? What if the most mankind can do in relation to the mystery is to stand outside the gate of that mystery? There’s something like this in Franz Kafka’s THE TRIAL where, in a way, Joseph K., even as he tries to get through the gate, has a need for the gate(to keep him out)because the gate functions as the stable signifier between himself and the mystery. Just because we enter the realm of mystery doesn’t mean we will understand it any better; the men in Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER make it to the House but remain baffled, perhaps more than ever. And yet, we cannot know the mystery by standing outside either. So, the gate or the mask becomes crucial in our relation to the mystery. The gate/mask serve as the portal or pathway on which to fixate our attention. And even if the ‘mask’ has to be removed in order for us to grow nearer to God, it has to exist in the first place to be removed in the first place. It’s like, in order for us to break down the gate and storm the castle, the gate has to exist in the first place. So, even as we go about demolishing it, we have a need for its existence to be demolished for it has become the portal to the inner sanctum.
The same goes for the human soul. As much as we like to tell ourselves that the face is merely a skin-deep mask and that the true essence of the person is within his or her inner soul, we rely on the face/mask as a portal to the person’s soul. Even when we read an author whose face remains unknown, our minds automatically begins to search for a face to affix on that person. Even when we read about characters in a novel who are barely described in physical terms, our minds begin to give them shape and form.
In the opening montage of PERSONA, we see close-ups of a sheep being slaughtered and its head being skinned to reveal the inner skull, but is the inner skull the truer form of the sheep than its outer skin and fur? The outside is meaningless without the inside, but the inside is also meaningless without the outside. The body is useless without the soul, but the soul is useless without the body — except maybe in the afterlife according to certain religions. (One could also say God or gods are useless without the mind of man, without which He or they would not exist. Mind is the face of God.) Indeed, the arrival of Jesus as God in human flesh speaks to the tensions in Judaism and Christianity between their emphasis on pure spirituality and their acknowledgment of how spirituality seeks manifestation in the world of men. Even if idolatry is prohibited, God must, at times, make His presence powerfully felt through the forms of the world as mankind exists in a world of materiality and is made of matter himself. So, God at one point had to send manna from Heaven since man cannot live on spirituality alone. Oddly enough Judaism, while denying the fleshly manifestation of God in the form of Jesus, has been heavily and blatantly obsessed with sexuality and fleshly matters, whereas Christianity, while acknowledging that the Son of God walked among mankind in the flesh of Man, has ideally been far less comfortable with natural processes, especially of sexuality. Perhaps, Jews had fewer hangups about sexuality — as long as it didn’t violate the taboos in the Old Testament — because they made a clear distinction between the world of God and world of man. God was pure spirit and had nothing to do with flesh; therefore fleshiness was purely within the realm of man. Since mankind propagated and perpetuated the bloodline through the meat-must-meet or loins-must-join between men and women, there was less need for shame among Jews in the co-mingling of Jewish schlongs and mutersheyds. God did His business in spiritual ways, and mankind did its business through physical ways, and as long as Jews obeyed the moral rules of God, there was no need for for Jewish guys to feel shame in slinging their schlongs around their Jewish wives.
But in Christianity, God was manifest in the form of Man, and therefore, He too was equipped with the thing that guys have. And yet, because He was the Son of God and therefore God, a pure spiritual being, He couldn’t do what other Jewish guys did with their things; He had to fight off all temptations as it would have been a betrayal of His pure spirituality if He acted like horny Jewish guys. And since He lived and died this way — and presumably His Disciples did likewise — , it inspired an anti-sexual cult where all good Christian men should, at least ideally, try to suppress their sexuality and lead the lives of pure-hearted & saintly spiritual beings, which is why the Catholic Church requires its priests to restrain from having sex — and even wanking — , and this explains why so many Catholic priests are rather funny in the head as all the jism clogging up their testicles go bonkers and play funny games with their emotions.
 |
| Boing - Anthony Weiner, incorrigibly horny Jew |
Even though Northern Protestant folks were more sincerely committed to doing ‘good work’ for others, they were also prouder and hardier folks than the people in the South, and therefore, they were less likely to be in need of help and charity. As Protestantism encouraged every follower to be true to God and tough on oneself, a larger number of Protestants took morality and work seriously; they worked harder and acted more responsibly, and therefore, fewer needed the aid of charity. Paradoxically, when more people are willing to work and give, there are fewer people who need to keep taking and taking.
In contrast in the South, Catholicism spread a culture of superstition and corruption among the populace as so much of the practice came to revolve around relics and rituals that weren’t much different from palm-reading and astrology. Therefore, Catholic folks looked more to ‘tricks of the trade’ than into their own hearts for the solution to their problems. Also, as the Catholic Church was more grandiose and expensive to upkeep, it needed to raise a lot of money and have lots of bureaucrats to maintain all the magnificent Cathedrals adorned with lots of fancy treasures and stuff. So, even as the Catholic Church did expend a lot of time, energy, and resources on charity and good works, much of the system was also geared to maintaining the grand facade of the Church and its own vast networks(on a universal and international scale).
 |
| Catholic Cathedral |
 |
| Protestant Church |
Though Catholics eventually came to recognize and make peace with Protestantism(and even non-Christian religions), it wasn’t until recently that it forsook the notion that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church of God, outside which everything else was wicked and heathen-ish. (Ideally, the Protestant denomination might say "We are right, and you are wrong, but we acknowledge your right to be wrong and misguided about God", whereas the official line of the Catholic Church was "We are right, you are wrong, and you have no right to be wrong." Catholicism was like Moscow-centered communism that tolerated no Marxist-Leninist heresy.) Unlike Catholicism, there was no holy world capital to Protestantism as Protestants believed the only spiritual center was God and the only true center for each person was his or her own heart. Thus, the upkeep of Protestantism needed not be so lavish, extravagant, and world-wide as was the case with the Catholic Church And even within a particular Protestant denomination, de-centralization was the rule, so that one bunch of Lutherans need not necessarily follow another bunch of Lutherans or even obey the central Lutheran authority. Though not all Catholics have agreed nor obeyed the decrees of the Vatican, the essential idea of Catholicism is that Catholics all over the world should derive their truth from the decisions made within the Vatican by Pope and the Bishops. So, a kind of gargantuan form of ‘statism’ came to define Catholicism, and the negative effect of this was that it made many Catholics feel that they couldn’t do anything by themselves and should seek the approval, aid, and counsel of the Church. But surely, anyone with an honest pair of eyes could see that even the Church operated according to the corrupt rules of politics and business — especially in a place like Latin America — , and so, Catholicism led to a culture of despondency and dependence.
In contrast, the teachings of Protestantism emphasized that each person should look into his own heart and purify his own soul before God without much intervention of the Church. Sure, the Church would guide, preach, remind, and reprimand, but the ultimate decision had to be made within the soul of every individual. And so, a sturdier kind of individualism developed in Northern European Protestant societies. Nevertheless, it was not a spirited individualism but a very gloomy one fixated on notions of sin and guilt. Therefore, Protestant individualism wasn’t anything like today’s libertarianism that urges people to live for one’s own glory and pleasure but an intensely moral-spiritual individualism that pressured each person to purge his or her soul of wickedness, give himself or herself to God, and do good works.
In time, Northern Protestant nations became societies where many people wanted to DO good works, whereas Southern Catholic nations became societies where many people wanted to be DONE good works. Of course, there were many poor people who needed help in northern parts of Europe well into the 20th century, but as the Northern European Protestant soul prefers to help others than seek help from others, once Northern Europeans gained a modicum of well-being they no longer sought help since permanent dependence on the good works of others would have been an affront to their sense of moral and spiritual pride. In contrast, many people in the South came to believe it’s only right that they should be taken care of by others forever.
Indeed, even social-democracy in the North works differently from social democracy of the South. In the North, the objective has been to create and uphold a socio-economic system where most people work hard, contribute to the system, and share in matters of common good.
Thus, it wasn’t conceived to be parasitic but co-productive. The Northern way was to work hard at producing more so that those with less could have a little more; it wasn’t about everyone trying to work less and suck out more from the system. In contrast, forms of social-democracy in the South — even in France to an extent — have turned into cynical games of ‘how can I take most from the system while contributing least to it?’ It’s no wonder that the finances of Spain and Italy are well behind that of a place like Germany and Sweden. Germans are like a school of fishes pulling together whereas Italians, especially Southern ones, are like a bunch of leeches sucking for themselves.
 |
| Germanic fishes |
 |
| Latin Leeches |
In contrast, because the Catholic Church has an elaborate system of hierarchy, rituals, dogmas, relics, and imagery(that serve as its lifeboats), it has the greater power to withstand shifting fads and fashions. (If you change the heart/mind of a Protestant, you can mold him to be anything since his sense of truth developed through centuries of Protestantism revolves around a sense of purity and rightness. In contrast, even if you change the heart/mind of a Catholic, he would still be bound, as a Catholic, to all the rituals and customs of the Church that keep him grounded in some rich & deep connection to the past.) So, even though there could be as many Catholics who are for ‘gay marriage’ as there are among Protestants, they are still bound to a Church that will not budge on the issue since its Eternal Truths are determined within the upper echelons of the hierarchy than by the common laity whose hearts bend this way or that way according to whims of fashion. Thus, paradoxically, the very factor that made Protestantism less corrupt than the Catholic Church can also make it more vulnerable to being corrupted by shifting fads and fashion. Indeed, there were signs of this even centuries ago when the main reason for King Henry VIII’s switch to Protestantism was gain permission to divorce his wife. Protestantism, at its best, means the freedom and right of every Christian individual to seek, understand, and obey God in his or her own way, but at its worst, it means any dufus changing the meaning of Christianity according to individual whims at the mercy of a corrupting secular culture controlled by hideous Jews.
Anyway, returning to the original point of this piece, how may have religions helped to expand and broaden the though processes and possibilities of man, especially when we, as modern people, have come to associate religion with irrationality, dogmatism, rigidness, closed-mindedness, childlike faith, and all such modes that seem antithetical to thought. Of course, some might argue that religions, despite their dogmatism and rigidity, offered some kind of structure for thought. Just as water has to be held in a container for people to carry, maybe thought required that kind of vessel as well, and religions in the past were merely one of ways that human thoughts and emotions could be contained. Though restrictive and even rigid, religions gave shape and form to certain ideas, visions, imagination, and emotions.
 |
| Protestantism at its worst - Homo freak fashion cult |
In this sense, science fiction is the most remarkable of all genres since it can encompass just about any subject and every mode, from the subtlest to the most outlandish, from technological hardware to psychological software, from the atomic to the cosmic, from the distant-past to the distant-future, from the mundane to the outlandish. All Westerns have to be set in the West, and dramas are mostly about real people in the ‘real world’. Love stories fixate on man and woman, though deviants and perverts might go for different combinations. Horror has many possibilities, but it’s mostly about scaring the crap out of folks. And comedies are about making us laugh. But science fiction could take place in the near future — A CLOCKWORK ORANGE — and speculate about technology that seems within our grasp, or it can be set in the distant future ruled by technology unimaginable to us, as in the final part of A.I. Science fiction can even operate only within technological bounds known to us, as in GRAVITY. Science fiction can, oddly enough, even be set in the past when there was no technology: Consider the beginning of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This suggeststhat science fiction isn’t necessarily about science or technology per se but about a ‘state of mind’. Even if all of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had been set in the world of primitive apes, it might still have qualified as a work of science fiction because Kubrick’s perspective was cosmic-‘spiritual’ than natural-realistic.
Science fiction can be set in our own world. THE FACE OF ANOTHER by Hiroshi Teshigahara is arguably a work of science fiction. The only special technology is an artificial mask, but it raises profound questions about the nature of identity, not only how it pertains to every individual but how it may serve as a metaphor for modern Japan that underwent several ‘scarrings’ and re-constitutive ‘surgeries’ since the late 19th century through war and peace. Can one gain a new face and remain the old self, or will the new face also change the self? Teshigahara’s next film THE RUINED MAP(aka A MAN WITHOUT A MAP) — also based on a novel by Kobo Abe — reversed the situation whereby the main character retains his face but, suffering from amnesia, is forced to gain a ‘new soul’. THE RUINED MAP lacks even the smallest element of science(that is found in THE FACE OF ANOTHER), but it too feels like a sci-fi work, or a psy-fi work.
 |
| FACE OF ANOTHER |
 |
| MAN WITHOUT A MAP(aka RUINED MAP) |
Though science fiction isn’t to be mistaken for real science — and most works of science fiction are ridiculous and almost totally worthless — , it has expansive and intellectual possibilities far beyond any other genre. Though the only book I’ve read of Philip K. Dick is DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? and didn’t much get much out of it — I prefer BLADE RUNNER — , he appears to have been a man of lots of ideas, and it’s difficult to imagine how he could have been so creative, strange, and outlandish with any other genre. And though I never read Robert Heinlein, many vouch for him as one of the most interesting literary personalties of the 20th century, and there was even a cult that developed around his imagination. Professor Carole Cusack explains, the author of INVENTED RELIGIONS: IMAGINATION, FICTION, AND FAITH explains: "There was the Church of All Worlds, which was founded in 1962 and based on Robert A. Heinlein's novel STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. And there've been a whole lot of groups that have been based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien." (Fantasy can inspire lots of imagination too, but its rules are less vigorous and more arbitrary. BUBBLEGUM CRISIS and LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKYare science-fiction. SAILOR MOON and POKEMON are fantasy.) Of course, the meaning of ‘science fiction’ isn’t always clear since it usually applies to popular works that serve various fan bases, some of which have become well-established franchises. When something is thought to be genuinely substantive or intellectual, it is usually categorized as something other than science fiction even if futuristic technology and other trappings of the sci-fi genre are present. So, George Orwell’s 1984 is satire, whereas Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451 is science fiction. Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD is satire, whereas ENDER’S GAME is science fiction. Other than the gulf in authorial talent — Orwell and Huxley were true masters of the literary form — , one could argue that for Orwell and Huxley, interest in futuristic technology was incidental than essential, i.e. sci-fi elements were used to make a larger statement about humanity. (This dichotomy of high-satire vs low-science-fiction seems to have faded in recent years, what with well-established serious authors — David Mitchell, Kazuo Ishiguro, etc. — producing sci-fi-satires; it could also be due to the fact that the internet and other high-tech devices have made it impossible for anyone to live apart from all pervasive technology that keeps advancing and morphing at hectic pace.)
In contrast, most science fiction writers are first and foremost obsessed with the idea of futuristic technology(and vicarious experiences of it), and even if their works aren’t devoid of social or political significance, the main appeal lies in transporting the reader to outlandish or out-of-this-world alternative realities. (Dystopia-as-satire is truly frightening or unnerving whereas dystopia-as-science-fiction is often cool and inviting. We would not want to visit the dystopia of Orwell’s 1984, but many of us wouldn’t mind visiting the far-out dystopia of BLADE RUNNER, TRON: LEGACY, or BUBBLEGUM CRISIS.) It’s telling that most of Orwell and Huxley’s output had nothing to do with science fiction — they used the ‘vice’ of a ‘lower’ literary form as a counter-veiling device against the utopianism of sci-fi like modern ideologies ranging from Communism on the far left to National Socialism on the far right — , whereas most science fiction writers stick to writing nothing but science fiction, just like most mystery writers and most horror writers stick to their genre-specific craft. But then, there are writers who seem to be situated somewhere in the middle, i.e. generally regarded and referred to ‘science fiction writers’ but are often more interested in either ideas or literary technique than the ultra-technologies of the alternative universes. Philip K. Dick and Stanislaw Lem seem to have been stand-outs in this regard. Their reputation as ‘genre writers’ denied them the kind of accolades reserved for ‘serious writers’ like William Faulkner, Marcel Proust, and James Joyce, but their obvious intellect, brilliance, and strangeness set them apart from most other science fiction writers who basically stuck to conventional formulas. (As for a handful of figures like Isaac Asimov, they had the talent and imagination to be genuinely substantive authors but often wrote below their ability and dignity to appeal to the sci-fi audience. Asimov’s FOUNDATION could have been a masterpiece, but its excess of nerd-pandering stuff brought it down to the level of grammar school lit.) And yet, even though such writers may not be literary heavy-weights, they may actually be more creative and brilliant in ways that have eluded the more ‘serious’ writers. When a writer is labeled as ‘serious’, he or she is burdened with lofty expectations, the downside of which can weigh down on free-flowing creative energies. It’s like Guido in 8 ½ feels restrained every time the serious intellectual-collaborator presses him to serve a higher purpose or meaning. Though the ideal that art should commit itself to the truth — in contrast to genres that wallow in fantasies — is an important one, it can restrict the breadth of truth that can, after all, be mythic and playful as well as realistic and sobering. There’s the truth of the ways of seeing, and this truth can apply to even the apparently outlandish and ridiculous since everything is processed through the circus of the mind. (This may explain why Franz Kafka came to be such a giant of modern literature. More than any author, he shifted the focus of literature from people and things to the way of seeing people & things and oneself in relation to them. He did this by dissolving the barriers between the subjective and the objective. The walls between spaces and the border between the mind and material lose their authority.) When we are presented with something that purports to be the truth, we are left to focus on the veracity of the claim of truth(and not much else), but when we see something that isn’t or can’t be true but has the power to engage our minds, we are much more likely to interact with our mental and sensory processes that are the final and often faulty arbiters of what is ‘true’. If I place a peanut under a cup and move it around and remove the cup and the peanut is still there under the cup, I have shown you a truth. And you will have seen the truth and find no reason to give it much thought. This is why a lot of movies about the ‘reality of life’ can be awful banal and dull. They may be truthful, but so what? Such reality is seen all around us every day. But suppose someone puts a peanut under a cup and moves the cup around other cups and then lifts the cup, and there’s no peanut. Now, you know that you’re not seeing the truth since trickery has been involved. The peanut that should be under the cup isn’t where it should be, and therefore, your eyes, senses, and mind have been tricked. Thus provoked, your mind becomes more engaged. The truth has been hidden from you and you’ve been ‘played’, and yet, the trick switched on the bulbs inside your head.
Of course, all true artists know this, which is why, even as they’re committed to exploring and exposing the truth, they rely on the masterly tricks of the trade to engage the reader. Even so, ‘serious’ artists feel that they should usually stick to what is true in the world(realistic people in realistic situations), and furthermore, trickery shouldn’t go beyond serving the truth. But certain other writers, such as Philip K. Dick, not only play with the trickery of craft(to serve the truth) but the trickery of perception, even to the extent of undermining the very notion of truth. Since the world tends to warp according to whims of the mind in his works, they might be called ‘psychedelic-fiction’. One could argue such an approach is too tricky or trickery-bound for their own good, and if indeed they’d been written by a more lucid(and sane) author, they might have amounted to little more than mind-games or mind-puzzles, like a literary Rubik’s Cube. But because Dick was borderline cuckoo-bananas, his admirers appreciated his works as an unpredictable-yet-oddly-destined navigation through the strait between Scylla of irredeemable reality and Charybdis of unsolvable unreality. They interweave logic and illogic, sanity and madness, and consciousness and subconsciousness as if existence itself is a troubled sleep. Dick’s vision may appeal to the creative sensibility intuiting that art slip through the corridors between reality and unreality, between clarity and confusion, in order to steal hot coals from the gods or seal a Faustian Pact with the devil. Also, there’s a sense of completeness and closed-ness to the renowned masterpieces — the almost universally recognized ‘great works of art’ — that either renders them forbidding or ‘too perfect’, enforcing awed interpretation than inviting playful interaction. But if a work is considered provocatively ‘incomplete’(or even ‘flawed’) — finished in story but with open and loose ends — , the reader may feel more engaged, as if the fuller meaning of the work depends on the active participation of the reader.
Of course, there are some artists with the power to create something very complete and closed — who would dare to change a single detail of something as ‘perfect’ and exquisite as VERTIGO or BARRY LYNDON? — yet also endlessly open and provocative, but it’s often true that many well-established ‘great works of art’ by ‘serious artists’ tend to encourage admiration than spark imagination, and this explains why many people will watch or read some ‘great works’ and appreciate them but may not necessarily revisit or rethink them. And yet, some interesting B-film or eccentric ‘pulp novel’ by an oddball ‘alternative’ personality can tease the imagination in unexpected ways. Not because they’re necessarily worthy, let alone worthier, works of art but because their peculiar & curious sense of playfulness(often combining childlikeness with adult raciness) frees up creativity to run wild and free. (This may explain why some of the most memorable literature were written in the form of children’s stories. Take GULLIVER’S TRAVELS and ANIMAL FARM. Though clearly sophisticated works of satire, the conceit of "telling a children’s tale" freed up the imaginative and expressive possibilities of the authors. And take ALICE IN WONDERLAND by Lewis Carroll. Paradoxically, it’s worth as serious literature owes to its ‘playful’ mode. I can’t vouch for the HARRY POTTER stories, HUNGER GAMES trilogy, or TWILIGHT tetralogy, but at least when it comes to Stephanie Meyers, she did better to play loose than play serious. Of course, lacking in literary talent, she wouldn’t have made it as a serious writer at any rate, but even if she had writing talent in spades, I doubt if TWILIGHT would have been possible if she’d committed herself only to seriousness. And though her books don’t succeed as literature, they dug up enough of imaginative material from the sandbox of her mind to inspire some very good directors to make them into some of the most remarkable movies in recent times. When children are made to learn/do serious stuff, they are generally not very interesting. They may be acquiring valuable skills, but they’re submitting to an ideal that isn’t their own; like Amy Chua’s first daughter, they’re burying themselves to conform to a ‘higher standard’. It’s also true that children aren’t particularly interesting when they’re doing what they want to do: run around in a playground, eat ice cream, watching TV, and etc. They are most interesting when they’re using their minds and being ‘creative’ with things that genuinely engage them emotionally and viscerally, things that don’t necessarily have to be ‘serious’. And it’s this quality that defined the superior science fiction authors. This was also the advantage of Jazz over modern ‘serious’ music in the 20th century. The ‘serious’ stuff may have been intellectual, complex, sophisticated and stuff, but their academism required the artists and their admirers to bury everything that smacked of spontaneity and playfulness; they engaged the mind but froze the rest of the body. In contrast, modern Jazz, at least for a time, set up shop in that playful area between intellect and intuition.) And this is why magic is fascinating to us, why trickery can be more interesting than the truth. For example, anyone well-grounded in reality knows that it’s impossible for a rabbit to conjured out of a magician’s hat. That is the absolute truth, and you know it and I know it. But, it’s also a dull and boring truth, and once you know the truth, it is what it is and nothing more. But what about a magician who can conjure a rabbit out of a hat? We know it can’t be true since truth says magic is just a trick. But the fact remains that the magic trick still fools our eyes and makes the impossible seem possible. And to create such an impression, it requires considerable skills — indeed, the originators of such tricks tend to be geniuses, even if shallow ones. An inventor of magic tricks has the POWER to make the unreal seem real, the untrue seem true. And that is what’s fascinating about not only about the trick but everything about/around us and the world we live in. After all, politicians, businessmen, entertainers, hustlers, con-men, think-tankers, pundits, preachers, leaders, prophets, artists, and yes, even intellectuals and professors all rely on the trick to sell the truth(to the extent that sometimes, we don’t know which is which, i.e. are we being tricked into the truth or being sold the trick as the truth?) Trickery can make us believe what is untrue is true or what is true is untrue. But trickery can also make what is true seem, feel, or register truer. Suppose two poets write about the beauty of flowers, and what they describe in the literal sense is more or less the same. And yet, the superior poet will use the right choice of words in just the right arrangement that will make his truth much more powerful than the truth of the inferior poet. Or consider the use of music in a movie. As music doesn’t accompany lives in the real world, it’s a form of manipulative trickery, and yet, the right kind of music heightens truth of the moment: consider the use of "Sounds of Silence" and "Everybody’s Talkin’" in the respective opening scenes of THE GRADUATE and MIDNIGHT COWBOY. It’s like, while makeup has the tricky power to make the ugly look good — or at least better — , it also has the power to make good look ever better. So, trickery is everywhere. It is used against truth but also to enhance the truth, like spices bringing out than burying the flavors of a dish. (The mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE would be like using makeup to cover up an ugly face. It is trickery employed to hide the ugly truth about Negroes behind the fantasy facade of the Magic Negro. THE BIRTH OF A NATION, in contrast, may play loose with history but uses the powerful medicine of cinema convey the very real truth of the racial-sexual threat posed by ghastly Negroes on whites.) Since much of truth is unpleasant, brutal, crude, frightening, disturbing, troubling, and etc. people rely on trickery to hide or suppress it OR to make it seem less harmful and threatening, more ‘significant’ and ‘meaningful’. (This can also be said of religion. As the main character says in LIFE OF PI: "I've told you two stories about what happened out on the ocean. Neither explains what caused the sinking of the ship, and no one can prove which story is true and which is not. In both stories, the ship sinks, my family dies, and I suffer." "True." "So which story do you prefer?" "The one with the tiger. That's the better story." "Thank you. And so it goes with God.") No politician ever came to power by telling the truth and nothing but the truth. FDR promised one thing but delivered another. Hitler knew when to play ‘moderate’ and when to play hard to rise to the top. Stalin could act like a colorful loyal bureaucrat all the while plotting to take out his rivals. So, the world isn’t about a simple dichotomy of Truth vs Trickery but the strange game between Truth and Trickery, possibly the main thematic obsession of David Mamet. If you want power and if you want to know the nature of power, you better not just demand the truth but master the art of trickery, because truth is to trickery what insect is to spider web on which it’s caught.
Steven Pinker is a truth-teller and a trickster. As a liberal Jew, he has his tribal and political biases, but as a scientist, he is also interested in the deeper truth. The scientific part of him can see clear as day that new data in genetics is lending credence to the biological basis for human differences, whether the differences are among groups or individuals. He knows that in the long run, this truth cannot be denied. And yet, he faces opposition from the Liberal Political Correct wring of the academia/media, so he has to use trickery to make his critics feel that his ideas and findings are mostly compatible with the ideals of a ‘progressive’ society. But there’s another element of trickery in that Pinker is trying to appropriate many ideas and views that have long been the intellectual staple of the ‘political right’. But then, it must be acknowledged that notions such as ‘the races of man’ and ‘eugenics’ came to be associated almost solely with the ‘racist right’ due to the trickery of the media and academia controlled by Jews. In truth, good many liberals, leftists, and ‘progressive’ intellectuals/scientists believed in the scientific basis of race — so did Franz Boas — and in the benefits(and even necessity) of eugenics, and it was only through the academic/media sleight-of-hand in the latter part of the 20th century that such ideas came to be associated entirely with groups like the Nazis and the KKK.
 |
| Negro Chimp and SWPL Bonobo |
The same thing can be said about white folks in general. The safer and more isolated they are from the black threat — and the tide of color — , the more they are likely to be ‘liberal’, i.e. the more ‘conservative’ — homogeneous and white — their environments are, the more ‘nicer and liberal’ they are likely to be. This is rather troubling for white and Jewish Liberals since, even though they promote ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’, many of the affluent and ‘liberal’ communities in America tend to be overwhelmingly white — or at least non-black. Since a community that is ‘too white’ is considered to be ‘conservative’ and ‘right-wing’, the most convenient and easiest way for white Liberals to spice up their communities with ‘liberal diversity’ is stir up a lot of fanfare about the ‘gay agenda’. So, even though most of the successful homos are white, white homos in ‘gay pride’ parades dress up in bright colors and look more diverse than they really are. Even though most birds in the affluent ‘liberal’ community are white, they don fancy feathers to lend an impression of being part of a community of ‘color’. White homos may not be the ‘people of color’, but they are people-of-colorfulness, especially as they’ve claimed the full spectrum of the ‘rainbow’ for themselves(with the full support of the Jewish elites). White homos are the new ‘rainbow coalition’. It’s Liberal trickery, but so many people, being dupes and idiots, mistake the trickery for truth.
 |
| Homo fruitkins, the white 'people of colorfulness' |
So, it will always be the tricksters who control the wealth, the institutions, the industries, the government, and etc. And why would such people-of-power give a truth-teller the podium to reach millions of people through the media that they control? So, even to tell the hard truth to millions of people, you need billions of dollars to control/own the media platform, but then, you don’t make billions of dollars by doling out the truth to people. (It’s like you don’t make money off and gain power/influence over countless ugly women around the world by telling them the truth that they’re ugly. You do it by telling them they’re beautiful and could become even more beautiful by listening to you and buying your products.) Of course, truth applies to how science and technologies work, but power in the social-human realm works not according to the matters of truth but the mastery of trickery.
And those who know the nature of the game and how to play it will always beat those who don’t know or don’t know how to play(even if they do know). It’s like in David Mamet’s HOUSE OF GAMES. Even though the con-man — Joe Mantegna — did trick the woman, he played it according to the rules of the game, the game being the game of trickery. He’s an con-artist and a trickster, so naturally, he played her like an accordion and took her money. So, even though he did something wrong, he did it right by the rules of his world. He is a cheat, but the rules of a con-man is the art of the cheat. Even though the woman gets her righteous revenge, she is, in some ways, the bigger cheater since she uses a gun. Also, she wasn’t angry with him because he stole money but because he stole her money and her heart. After all, she went along with a con of his because it turned her on and made her feel special, made her feel ‘in the know’. Her final act, the bloody revenge, is personal than moral. Though she is triumphant in the end, she is the cheater of both the game and morality. She initially tricked him but ended the game by using a gun, a most crude and vulgar act of a barbarian. Besides, she’d been morally untroubled with his con as long as she was playing the game with him and other people were their victim. She became morally righteous again only because SHE was made the fool. The relation between truth and tricker is funny this way. Perverse too.
 |
| HOUSE OF GAMES by David Mamet |
In contrast, an artist like Robert Bresson, though masterly and expressive in his own way, must be appreciated with a measure of faith. What makes an artist like Bresson or Antonioni special cannot be ascertained ‘objectively’ through mere demonstration of talent. At some point, we have connect meditatively with their works and feel a degree of faith in their vision of truth. While anyone who cares about art and cinema should be able to appreciate an artist like Bresson and Antonioni, their greatness isn’t as demonstrable as the kind of mastery seen in films of, say, Welles, Kubrick, Spielberg, or Kurosawa. Though the slowness and stasis of the films of Bresson and Antonioni are meticulous and deliberate in their own ways, at some point the viewer must ‘believe’ in the vision; the pair of eyes must fold together like hands in prayer. For those who make the leap of faith, the films of Bresson and Antonioni can register as works of depth, meaning, and/or beauty. But for those who cannot make the leap — Welles who could never stand Antonioni — , it’s just a lot of dull and dreary straining by a phony or pompous-ass who takes himself too seriously.
The difference between trickery and (meditative)faith is like the difference between juggling and taichi. Whatever one thinks of juggling, the skill involved is real and irrefutable. It’s an awesome display of coordination, balance, and acrobatics. Even if one thinks it all pointless and stupid, one cannot deny the juggler’s feat. But what about taichi where a bunch of Chinese guys move slowly as if their limbs are drifting like the mist? It doesn’t take any genius of trickery to do taichi. Indeed, even children and old folks can get into it. So, is it just some bogus lazy exercise? Purely on the physical level, it could be seen that way. But those who do that stuff may believe that they are spiritually communing with the harmony of nature, the cosmos, or whatever. Whatever the validity of such an outlook, it requires a degree of faith in the both the practitioner and the observer. As not much trickery is involved, the worth of taichi is largely internal and ‘spiritual’. It is like the films of Bresson. If you are willing to believe, it can be very rewarding, but if you choose not to believe, it’s just bogusness. Even among admirers of Bresson, there are those who believe his earlier black-and-white ones are masterpieces whereas his later color ones are just zombie-like exercises in soulless poeticism or deadbeat nihilism. My first impression of LANCELOT DU LAC was weary-dreary, but its poetry and beauty affected me on my second viewing years later. Same film but seen with different heart-and-mind-set.
 |
| LANCELOT DU LAC by Robert Bresson |
Then, there are cases where a matter of faith can be realized through the worst kind of trickery of the mind. A good example of this is the vaunted position that Chantal Akerman’s worthless JEANNE DIELMAN holds in the film canon. So, why did such a dull, dreary, pointless, imbecile, and ridiculous film come to be admired by so many young cinephiles? Because many clever film critics used brilliant-sounding arguments to argue that Akerman is an artist of the highest order, therefore, many impressionable young cinephiles mindlessly felt they must appreciate Akerman to prove their worth in the eyes of the community, especially since the power of PC — a trickery of the mind in its own right — has convinced young fools that they must automatically praise the works of someone who happens to be Jewish, lesbian, Marxist, feminist, and ‘radical’.
 |
| A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Hobby as Calling |
"Until you were born, robots didn't dream, robots didn't
desire, unless we told them what to want. David! Do you have
any idea what a success story you've become? You found a
fairy tale and inspired by love, fueled by desire, you set
out on a journey to make her real and, most remarkable of
all, no one taught you how. We actually lost you for a
while. But when you were found again we didn't make our
presence known because our test was a simple one: Where
would your self-motivated reasoning take you? To the logical
conclusion? The Blue Fairy is part of the great human flaw
to wish for things that don't exist. Or to the greatest
single human gift - the ability to chase down our dreams.
And that is something no machine has ever done until you."
(Incidentally, even though David is the ‘child’ of the scientist, he’s been programmed to see Monica as his ‘mommy’. I suppose this is like how Europeans are the children of their pagan ancestors, but they’ve been programmed by Christianity to see the Jewish God as their Father and to regard the history of the Jews as their own history.)
If we were programmed — by nature or by scientists — to be only factual, rational, and realistic with verified knowledge, we would only be able to deal with things as they exist. We would not imagine things that aren’t real or actual in the world we find ourselves. But without imagining what isn’t real, we wouldn’t bother to try new things to make them real — we might not even ponder possibilities, true or not, that may lead us a greater and deeper understanding of the reality around us. (Suppose we know very little about our world and touch something that turns out to be painfully hot. Suppose we don’t know why it’s hot and it’s very difficult to discover the reason as to why it is hot. To discover the truth of hotness, advanced science is necessary, but we only have the most primitive of tools. If we are programmed/conditioned to only deal with facts, we would say the thing is hot, so we shouldn’t touch it anymore. And there would be nothing more to be done since the mystery of its hotness is beyond our ability to solve or understand. But if we are programmed/conditioned to imagine what we cannot ascertain and may not even exist, we can begin to ‘theorize’ about what makes the object hot. Our reasons could be spiritual, magical, mythical, superstitious, metaphysical, philosophical, or whatever. They could be totally wrong and fanciful. But at least in energizing our minds to ponder the possibilities, we would be guiding ourselves toward a greater and deeper understanding of the forces around us.) And even if our fantasies and dreams could never be materialized in reality, they could lead us to think, feel, and imagine the world in interesting ways.
It just so happens that certain ideas, concepts, and mental habits are more provocative as ‘mind games’ or ‘mind puzzles’ than others are. For the time being, never mind God or gods. Let’s just imagine people. Suppose someone tells you to imagine how four different persons might see, sense, and think about the world. One person has an IQ of 80 and don’t know much. Second person has an average IQ and has general knowledge about the world. The third person has above-average IQ and knows more than most people. The fourth person has an IQ of 190 and knows 10 different languages, has read many books, and has been around a lot. Suppose you are told to imagine the thinking processes, emotions, and ideas of the four persons. Suppose you yourself range somewhere between the average and above-average spectrum, have a B.A. from college, know two languages — English and whatever you learned foreign language class — , and have been around but haven’t done anything extraordinary. Which person would be the biggest challenge for you to ‘figure out’ through your imagination, empathy, and speculation?
You’d likely feel that the person with an IQ of 80s is pretty much ‘duh’ about life. The person with an average IQ might be like most people: Joe Schmoe. A person with above-average IQ and college degree might be more of a challenge but still wouldn’t be anything special. But the person with super-high IQ, lots of knowledge, and interesting ideas about the world — like Henry Kissinger, for example — would be a real challenge for your imagination. You wouldn’t be able to understand him with mere conventional thinking(accustomed to dealing with mostly average people in mundane situations). To get underneath the skin of the supers-smart and super-knowledgeable guy, you would have to think beyond your own capacities. Of course, no matter how much you try, you will fail because your IQ and knowledge-base would only be between average and above-average. No matter how much you try to understand how a super-IQ mind works, you won’t be able to because of your mental limitations. And yet, in straining to understand a case of IQ-and-knoweldge-base much bigger than your own, your power of imagination and speculation will have been stretched and possibly even strengthened. (It’s like David Bowman doesn’t understand what’s happening to him in the Stargate sequence in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but his confrontation with the infinite has surely inspired him to think and imagine beyond the conventional.) It’s like if you’re told to reach for low-hanging fruits, you only need to stretch your limbs or jump a little. But if you’re told to pick the fruit at the top of the tree, no amount of effort will suffice; nevertheless, your constant jumps, futile though they were, will have strengthened your legs, whetted your appetite, and increased your curiosity.
So, even though most of us can never understand the mental processes of someone like Albert Einstein — though we can gradually come to understand the products of his great mind — , our attempt would be a far more interesting challenge as a mental exercise than imagining what goes inside the heads of the likes of Dan ‘Potatoe’ Quayle or Sarah ‘Moose’ Palin.
This is what fascinates us about books, paintings, films, and music created men of genius. It isn’t merely about the pleasure of appreciation but about the portal through which we may try to ‘enter’ into an inner realm of creativity beyond anything we are capable of. And art is special in this regard because it involves genius that is accessible sensually and emotionally even to those without creative genius. Even those who haven’t a clue as to how it was done can enjoy how it is played. In contrast, in order to appreciate math and science at a genius level, one has to be either a well-trained genius or a non-genius who’s devoted many years toward mastering difficult theories. Of course, there’s a degree of this in art appreciation too, especially with modern art where something will likely make much sense only to the ‘initiated’ who understand the theories as to why something that may seem random or confusing(to the general public) may actually be an ‘important’ work of art. In some cases, Modern Art is something of a fraud, i.e. you’re made to feel ‘smart’ with stupid, illustrating how certain kinds of stupids can only be intellectualized.
Without some degree of ‘intellectual’ training, it’s hard to imagine anyone appreciating Andy Warhol or Chantal Akerman. Or consider the ludicrous Chinese Confucian Exam System where one’s intellectual, moral, and cultural status was measured and defined by how well one performed on the ludicrous ‘eight-legged essay’. There are lots of thought systems that are designed not so much to select and promote real intelligence, especially in relation to truth(which is never convenient to the powers-that-be), but to make one FEEL smart and part of a special club of extraordinary people. So, one clings to his/her intellectual and ideological justifications in seeing value in the films of Akerman. Even though the so-called ‘radicals’ take pride in their supposed non-conformism, they are nothing but conformists in their consensus with near-obligatory likes and dislikes that serve as conditions of their membership in the club. So, you MUST like JEANNE DIELMAN and you MUST join the tiresome chorus that denounces THE BIRTH OF A NATION and fascism; and such programmed robots saunter like zombies through every college town or art school.
In a paradoxical way, ‘radicals’ are bound to be more conformist and narrow-minded than even moderates and conservatives because they conceitedly reject everything that is supposedly ‘mainstream’ and mindlessly commit themselves to seemingly fresh(but actually recycled and repackaged)purist causes. But if you reject the views and values that seem most natural and normal, you’re likely to feel lost and confused. Therefore, you are more likely to cling to anything ‘new’ and ‘progressive’ that promises absolute truth, righteousness, and purpose. Consider the German radical left in the 60s and 70s. In having rejected everything about German society(as they even conflated German middle class values with Nazism and the Holocaust), they found themselves directionless and confused, and so, they committed themselves totally and mindlessly to whatever cause that came along with the ‘cachet’ of ‘radical’, ‘freedom-fighting’, or ‘anti-establishment’. Of course, as their revolution failed, and ‘radical’ boomers and ‘generation X-ers’ entered the cultural and academic institutions, their supposedly ‘radical’ ideas became part of the Establishment and were imposed mandatorily on all the young for whom PC was the only ideological game in town. (Though the New Left railed against capitalism, oddly enough the anti-intellectualism of hedonist-and-materialist consumer culture worked in the New-New-Left’s favor. The rise of hedonism meant the main passions of young people would be popular culture and instant pleasure. Hooked on stereophonics, most young people had no use for books and ideas. Thus, their entire world-view was likely to never venture beyond what was mandatorily taught them in the schools. So, if schools pushed PC, most young people had PC as their modicum as ideas/values, especially as they were too busy looking for new pleasures. If our culture was less consumer-hedonist-materialist-oriented and more intellectual-cerebral-ideological, even those raised on PC might look to other venues to further the debate about issues and ideas. People who truly love ideas wanna seek out more ideas, even different ideas. But if most young people just wanna listen to pop music and shake their booties, their ideas-and-values will never venture beyond what was fed to them in schools. Though Francis Fukuyama spoke of End of History of Ideas, with Liberal Democracy being the big and eternal winner, what he missed was that the real winner was not so much liberal democracy but the cult of power. Liberal democracy had intellectual/moral cachet during the Cold War since it was upheld as the white knight in shining armor against grey, drab, dreary, and oppressive totalitarian communism. But the fall of communism brought an end to grand and genuine ideological struggles. Liberal democracy had been a true ideal, even a precious one, because most nations were not liberal-democratic and because the free West seemed to face a genuine threat from the totalitarianism from the East. Thus, liberal democracy was valued not only for its greater production of wealth and power but for its principles. But with the end of the grand threat and with the democratization of much of the world, liberal democracy is something we can take for granted. And people don’t think about what they take for granted. Instead of valuing liberal democracy as an ideal/principle in its own right, people now value what can be gained and won through liberal democracy; and of course, most people want more money, more privilege, and more power. The film THE COUNSELOR by Cormac McCarthy and Ridley Scott powerfully portrays such a post-ideological world where the value of everything is determined by money, power, privilege, sex, intelligence, ruthlessness, cunning, and etc. Consider how Jews had once been genuinely progressive in their struggle for more freedom and liberty as higher principles. They were indeed on the side of liberal democracy as a good in and of itself — at least the anti-communist liberal Jews were. But look at Jews today. They care only about power, wealth, and privilege. They keep accumulating more and more of money and power through a system of liberal democracy, but as every group and every person scramble mainly for more power, privilege, pleasure, money, & advantages, how long can liberal democracy survive as a higher principle? Indeed, if indeed Jews really value the Rule of Law over Rule of Power, shouldn’t they be outraged by America’s favoritism of Zionist occupiers over the Palestinian occupied? Shouldn’t they be outraged by how Wall Street Jews got their boy Obama to ‘bail out’ the ‘too big to fail’ banks that played loose with rule of law to amass huge fortunes under Clinton & Bush II and then played even looser with the rules to get favorite treatment from the government even though their bad behavior was the main reason behind the financial meltdown? And how did a guy like Marc Rich get pardoned by Clinton? So much for the principles of liberal democracy! Liberal democracy was a higher principle when Jews didn’t yet have supreme elite power in the US and when the West felt compelled to morally demonstrate its superiority against totalitarian communism. [Though Western values are still invoked, the notion of restarting a New Cold War on the basis that Putin is New Hitler and Russia’s banning of homo pride parades constitutes the new holocaust is downright ludicrous, a travesty of history and morality.] But liberal democracy is no longer valuable as an ideal or principle since it’s the defacto system of the richest and most powerful nations on earth. It’s only useful as an instrument, tool, machine, and weapon to get more money, gain more power, and monopolize more power for oneself and one’s own group. [Though whites are constantly reminded to think ‘beyond race’, the rise of multi-culturalism has emboldened Jews, homos and non-whites to think and act increasingly in tribal terms of ‘what is good for us?’ than in the citizenist terms of ‘what is good for all of us?’ With whites being demographically eclipsed by non-whites in the West and with most Jews and non-white groups thinking in terms of ‘what is ours?’ than ‘what is all of ours?’, liberal democracy is all but dead as a principle in the West. Jewish War on Whites work on two levels and fronts: narrow Jewish tribalism in cahoots with vague libertarian universalism. So, one bunch of Jews will insist "Jews must think in terms of Jews, Jews, and Jews" and another bunch of Jews, such as Bryan Caplan, will say "whites must think beyond whiteness and embrace the entire world." So, while whites are admonished to hug the world, Jews busily hug only themselves.] Only a fool would say American Jews serve the principle of liberal democracy than making liberal democracy serve the Jews. As liberal democracy continues to be used more as a means of power than a thing of principle, it will become less liberal and less democratic. It will favor those with superior skills at exploiting the rules of liberal democracy for their own benefit — like the Sicilian-American immigrants who used the protection of law to break the law. And with ever greater power, the new elites have turned their world in a new kind of oligarchy. Look at US and EU today, and they operate essentially as rule-by-oligarchy. In that sense, US and EU, though still stronger on rule-of-law, aren’t fundamentally different from Russia, China, and Brazil. A recent Princeton study said that US is essentially an oligarchy than a democracy. The democratic rules are still in place, but the true power is held by those with the connections, money, and control of elite institutions. What the Princeton study failed to mention is that US is less a corporate oligarchy than a Jewish oligarchy. As the honorable Brother Nathanael pointed out, the power that is even more powerful than the corporate oligarchy is the Jewish oligarchy. If corporate oligarchies do indeed comprise the ruling class in America, Exxon Mobil would fulfilled its contract with Russia. Instead, even a corporate mega-giant had to cave to the demands of the Jewish oligarchy that is waging The Jewish War on Russia. If this keeps up, liberal democracy will fail also, if it hasn’t already. So, it seems the real End of History is not political-and-economic-freedom-in-the-form-of-liberal-democracy as an ideal/principle but as a means/practice by which every group tries to gain the most power and money for itself. Liberal democracy in the West basically serves Jewish tribal gangsterism operating on a global scale. Indeed, what kind of a liberal democracy do we have when GOP hopelessfuls grovel before a casino gangster like Sheldon Adelson whose bright foreign policy idea is to drop a nuke on Iran? How does he get away with such a thing, and why hasn’t a single GOP candidate denounced him for it?) Indeed, there’s nothing more tiresome and dreary than listening to a bunch of so-called ‘radicals’ who parrot the same mantras with drone-like predictability colleges, cafes, and social-networking sites.
Anyway, of course it’s far from true that all of Modern Art was crap — though, because of Nazism and its attack on Modern Art as ‘Jewish culture’, there’s been a tendency to conflate anything Modernist with originality, genius, brilliance, and etc. when, in fact, most Modern Art, like most of anything, was imitative, stupid, pointless, and/or ugly — , but because it generally went against the grain of what people naturally felt about or had become accustomed to expect from art, it needed some degree of ‘intellectual’ argument and justification for it to be ‘properly’ understood and appreciated.
However, if a mathematical or scientific truth has nothing to do with how we may feel about it — even if certain dogged passions may have inspired scientists and mathematicians in their respective fields — , appreciation of art cannot be separated from the emotions and sensualities inherent in the work. In the end, art has to seem, feel, and sound ‘true’. It’s like, in the end, food and wine have to be compel the senses and not just the mind.
Though ‘intellectual’ justification can persuade us to see meaning and even find pleasure when they aren’t to be seen or found(by any sane or honest measure), there’s a limit to how much we can be fooled. (For instance, if Chantal Akerman made JEANNE DIELMAN RETURNS where the woman peels potatoes and shines shoes for 20 hrs, even the suckers-for-Akerman will begin to see through the charade.) Also, something that isn’t pleasing immediately still has to offer some kind of pleasure down the line. Bread or pasta isn’t as immediately gratifying as cakes or sweets but rewarding to the taste-buds soon enough. Similarly, even though a more ‘difficult’ musical piece, film, or book may not be immediately pleasing as a pop song, blockbuster movie, or a Stephen King novel(I never read one), it may gradually reveal its depth and complexity and win you over, indeed more than something that is easy and direct.
This was true enough of many great Modern works of art. The problem was Modernism had a tendency to favor displeasure in its own right, as if a work had greater value for its power to offend or upset(the bourgeoisie, often the the straight man and straw target of Modernism). Even if the purpose of a work is to subvert our conventional expectations of pleasure, shouldn’t there be some kind of reward, some effect other than to upset or offend? Some kind of meaning, some kind of insight, some kind of vision, some kind of lesson? Because if something is just ugly, putrid, and displeasing, what value does it have beyond the immediate impact of raising eyebrows? If that’s the essence of art, we might as well stand around a garbage dump and look upon the mess and inhale all the foulness as the hell we deserve — like the tattered-and-fallen bourgeoisie in the post-apocalyptic wasteland in Jean-Luc Godard’s WEEKEND. Or spend a few hours down in the sewer. Or look at homos like George Takei and his ‘white boy ‘lover have ‘gay’ sex via fecal penetration.
 |
| Kandinsky |
Even though ‘intellectualization’ of art may strike some people as impressive and daunting, it is, more often than not, a disingenuous attempt by uncreative mediocrities to gain an advantage over truly creative individuals whose genius is untouchable. After all, there are many more very smart people — and even more not-so-smart people pretending to be smart — than there are artistic geniuses. Even though great artists tend to be pretty smart, creativity and visionariness aren’t merely about the intelligence/intellect. It’s about the power of imagination, alternative ways of seeing, feeling, and hearing. In some ways, too much intellect can work against creativity since intellect tends to analyze and interpret what has to be ingested and processed through the sublime realm of the subconscious for it to take shape as art. This is why Susan Sontag, as smart as she was, didn’t have it in her to become a film-maker. This is why even the most intelligent music critics wouldn’t be able to write a decent song, let alone a decent symphony. Since artistic genius is untouchable, it’s convenient for the non-artistic(generally critics, scholars, political activists, and sometimes moral crusaders) to formulate ‘intellectual’ and/or ideological conceits about creativity so that one’s ‘intellect’(or set of values) may take precedence over something-of-genius that defies and overwhelms the logic of the mind or the matter of the heart. Once one’s preconceived idea-of-art is culturally made to take precedence over the sublime power of genius, one can invoke the idea to promote something-of-correctness over something-of-genius: Nazis promoting their tawdry neo-classicism over great works of Modern Art, especially by Jews, Communists promoting ‘socialist realism’ over ‘individualist adventurism’, politically correct idiots favoring MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET over IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE because the former as a single-mother, moronic feminists favoring Chantal Akerman over Lina Wertmuller, etc. It’s a form of aesthetic puritanism that insists on correctness-of-the-mind over the power-of-the-senses. It’s easier to fool the mind that something ungreat is great than to fool the senses that something that great is ungreat. Whatever one thinks of Disco as a whole, your honest senses will have to recognize Bee Gees’ "Staying Alive" as a great song.
Whatever you think of Negroes, you have to repress your senses to deny the genius and beauty of Marvin Gaye’s "What’s Going On".
But then, ‘intellectualism’ can also useful to genuine artists since artistic genius is rarely long-lasting. Even most great artists produce genuinely great(as opposed to merely superior) work only for a short duration. It’s like Paul McCartney was on fire as a Beatle from 1964 to 1970 but only a talented pro afterwards. It’s like Robert Altman was on fire with MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER and NASHVILLE but ranged from very good to very bad with the rest of his output. It’s like the bulk of Hemingway’s reputation is based on his first few novels. It is the rare genius, who like Beethoven or Kubrick, cranks out one masterpiece after another over a long period. So, once a genuinely great artist loses his muse, all he has left to fall back on is his legendary reputation and the diehard support of his ‘intellectual’ acolytes who employ all means of sophistry to hail his new work as ‘significant’ and ‘important’ when it’s likely to be forgotten sooner than later. Bob Dylan used to get this treatment in the 70s and 80s, with some music critics ‘intellectually’ twisting themselves into knots to convince the world that Dylan produced yet another great one when, in fact, with the exception of BLOOD ON THE TRACKS, Dylan was lucky to have released a decent album, like PLANET WAVES, DESIRE, INFIDELS, and EMPIRE BURLESQUE.
(In some cases, certain artists seem willfully self-destructive in their preference for intellectualism over sensualism and sense-ism. Though Pier Paolo Pasolini was never one of the great masters of cinema, he made two memorable and powerful works in ACCATONE and THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. He also made some interesting works like HAWKS AND SPARROWS and MAMMA ROMA. But then, he adopted silly theories about film-making and began to dispense with acting & other ‘conventions’ and mostly ordered his camera man and actors to wander around aimlessly, resulting in one dull film after another that may have seemed interesting enough on paper but arrived stillborn on celluloid. It’s telling that Pasolini hated Bertolucci’s sensual-and-powerful LAST TANGO IN PARIS and offered the highly intellectual/theoretical SALO as a kind of rebuttal. SALO is one of the most unwatchably vile, pretentious, and stupid things ever made. It’s so awful that even Pasolini’s fans have a hard time coming to grips with it and with Pasolini’s sanity at the time. Dennis Hopper’s THE LAST MOVIE and Peckinpah’s BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, nutty as they are, are models of sanity and professionalism in comparision. SALO is that horrid.) In the end, no amount of ‘intellectual’ justification can sell us on the worth of an art work if it fails to engage us on some emotional/sensual level. PERSONA is a great work because its ideas have been transmogrified into images and sounds; or, one could argue, the images and sounds that overwhelmed Bergman during his bout of illness have been shaped into semblance of ideas. (Roger Ebert argued that books are better conveyors of ideas whereas cinema is essentially an emotional/sensual art form, and while he is essentially correct, it’s also true that images-sounds-emotions can be pregnant with ideas and thoughts, i.e. while some images/sounds excite us as merely impressive images/sounds and some emotions affect us as merely heartfelt emotions, others have the power to inspire ideas, indeed more so than words do. This is clearly true of many modern paintings. Most traditional paintings have a pictorial quality that is easily processable. While one can pore through them and analyze them, the immediate response is sensual and/or emotional. We may be impressed by their beauty, grace, horror, etc. We may feel inspired, moved, blissful, or saddened. In contrast, there’s an intriguing quality to much of modernist paintings that, first and foremost, provoke questions in our heads. The images suggest at something that elicits ‘intellectual’ participation. Even though they aren’t conveyed in words, they inspire the use of words on our part. This is also true of certain religious works, such as Buddhist mandalas that serve as guides to meditation and thought. In cinema, this was especially true of Sergei Eisenstein, Stanley Kubrick, Alain Resnais, Luis Bunuel, Jean-Luc Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni, Raul Ruiz, and Hiroshi Teshigahara — also, to an extent, Orson Welles and Ingmar Bergman. When we watch a David Lean movie, we may or may not choose to think about it. But even if we choose not to, we aren’t missing much since its power essentially derives from pictorial and emotional qualities. But one cannot approach the full measure of the greatness of works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BARRY LYNDON without thinking about them — besides, thought processes can involve visual cues, as in IQ tests based on shapes and patterns, or board games like Go and Chess, which are like images + math + strategy. As wondrous and impressive as the images may be, there’s an unnerving quality suggesting at a truth that is more-than-meets-the-eye and more-than-can-be-felt. Of course, ideas-conveyed-through-intriguing-ness-of-images-and-sounds cannot be as lucid and articulate as ideas-conveyed-through-words, but paradoxically, that’s why the former can be even more powerful. Whereas ideas-conveyed-through-words can only mean what is clearly stated, ideas-conveyed-through-the-intriguing-ness-of-images-and-sounds can suggest infinite variations of an idea. This is why Arthur C. Clarke’s novel version of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is less thought-provoking than Kubrick’s film version. Same goes for the novel version of THE SHINING by Stephen King in relation to the film version by Stanley Kubrick. To be sure, words are often used suggestively through imagery, metaphors, symbolism, and etc. Words can be used to suggest various and even contradictory ideas within a single element, and the masters of fiction, such as Franz Kafka, were experts at this. Also, if an image can suggest many different ideas, a word can suggest many different images. We can read any number of ideas into an image, but we can see any number of images in a word. If TWILIGHT the movie, Bella only looks like Kristen Stewart, but in TWILIGHT the novel, Bella can look like anything the reader chooses. At any rate, while Roger Ebert was right that words are better are expressing ideas[at least in a clear, rational, and logical way], images-and-sounds may actually be just as or even more effective than words in suggesting ideas. Sergei Eisenstein and other Soviet masters, especially Dziga Vertov, understood this principle about the power of images from the start, which is why their films weren’t only visually impressive but intellectually evocative. They seemed to simultaneously show and say something despite the near absence of words.) PERSONA’s ideas have been turned into ‘erotics of art’ — Sontag’s coinage — through Bergman’s magical mastery of the medium. This is why, in the long run, no one will give a shit about the likes of Chantal Akerman, Hou Hsian-Hsien(how many are talking about him today), Bruno Dumont(forgotten already), and Theo Angelopoulos(the constipated Greek). In the long run, it’s Resnais MURIEL that will be acknowledged as a masterwork, along with VERTIGO and L’APPARTEMENT. Time will tell.
 |
| Barbara 'Freddy' Kruger. Your 'art' sucks donkey dick. |
Indeed, isn’t it ironic that the so-called rational secular community relies so much on faith as to the supposed greatness, beauty, meaning, and truth of so many things? But then, only faith can convince their naturally skeptical minds & senses to accept all the PC nonsense that clutters the media and classrooms. (One prominent fact of the art world is the obvious sophistry of certain critics and ‘experts’ who hold sway over so many dupes who, being mindless, choose to be fooled and over so many cynics who, being savvy, choose to play along to use art as an investment portfolio; like the stock market, the art world is a lot more profitable for the sharks if it’s dominated by hearsay, rumors, opacity, and hype than by careful & patient assessment of value.) Many people prefer faith in certain critics, experts, and scholars than the independence of their own emotions about films, books, and etc. (But what’s truly galling about the current state of affairs is that so much of what amounts to consensus-thinking is sold as ‘independence’ and ‘individuality’. Notice all the feminists who spout the official line of Salon.com but pretend to be free thinkers. Think of all the mindless sheep who go along with the homo agenda but think they made up their own minds. This is the genius of the Jewish oligarchal control over us. The more the Jewish python winds around us and suffocates the air out of us, the more we think we are being freed and released.) Many people are afraid of honest/independent thinking since it has a way of going against the taboos and dogmas of any age, and most people are too chickenshit to think, feel, and say anything that might get them ostracized and shunned. (But then, people don’t like to feel cowardly before oppression either. It leaves a bad taste in their mouths. So, the Jewish trick has been to pressure and intimidate people but also make them feel that their submission to Jewish pressure/intimidation is a kind of liberation and independence. Though Political Correctness is snuffing out freedom all across the Western World, we are told over and over how we should be so happy to live in a ‘liberal democracy’ that is supposedly especially ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ precisely because people in the West are more likely to bend over to the demands of Jews and homos. In other words, we Americans are so free unlike the oppressed people of Russia because, whereas Russians stand for majority rule and Russian pride, we Americans have rejected white majority pride & power in favor of bending over to homos and getting on our knees to suck the Jew. How free are we! It’s pathetic watching John McCain, a shameless running dog of the Jew, barking loudly at Putin as if he himself is a free spirit while Putin is a slave to the old Soviet ways.) And if intellectualism is too much for some people, they suck up to the ‘popular critics’ whose chumminess with film-makers, colleagues, and theirs fans is often sugary and sickening.
(Though there’s a lot of bad art out there — and worse, crooks and liars rule and rig the art world — , we mustn’t throw out the baby with the bath-water because there are still lots of fine artists. The problem is, as the art world has really become a branch of finance, the kinds of art that garner the most attention are those geared to generate the most buzz, and buzz is created by ‘controversy’. Since few things are genuinely controversial anymore — in a world where transgender males use the women’s washroom — , the buzz relies on ‘ironic hype’, an artificial form of ‘controversy’ akin to man-made ‘lighting inside a plasma sphere. So, we have make-believe controversy for make-believe hype for make-believe artistic value for make-believe financial worth. As such ‘art’ has no permanent value — except as artifacts of economic history — , their worth is in the trading than in the preserving. If someone owns a Van Gogh with no intention of selling, its artistic value remains intact. But something by Barbara Kruger, Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, or Jeff Koons only has value as a commodity of made-up controversy among cynical/narcissistic insiders, corrupt/vapid connoisseurs, and active traders/investors. Once the buzz and trading die down, it has no value, which is why Hirst went from a nobody to king and then back to nobody again. As the value of art is determined by the venue of hype and since so much money chases after just a handful of works that fetch the highest prices, most of the buzz centers around unscrupulous ‘artists’ who are really little more than sociopaths adept at playing the game; and of course, there’s something like insider-trading in the art world, e.g. the well-connected could buy something worthless for peanuts and then the worthless item could be hyped in significance and value by curators, critics, and academics who are all part of the circus; and then, the insider-investor made a killing. As for artists of genuine worth who quietly devote their lives to their craft, they get little recognition since art no longer commands the kind of public respect as it did long ago. When was the last time a work of painting was a genuine cultural event? Though Picasso and Dali were savvy businessmen, their devotion to art was genuine and they did produce masterpieces. And their significance would have been recognized even if they hadn’t made a single penny. Today, there is no interest in art in the culture-at-large; traditional art strikes most people are ‘boring’, and the avant-garde novelty of Modern Art has been passe for nearly half a century. So, the only active interest in the arts is financial and status-oriented. If the motto of the academia in the 80s was ‘publish or perish’, the motto of the art world is ‘stink or sink’. Of course, the nature of the ‘stink’ is carefully regulated by the powers-that-be. Hirst and Emin had the right ‘stink’ and got noticed. Though there are many decent artists out there, they won’t get any notice unless they stir up some ‘stink’ by turning their art into some kind of stunt or circus. But then, how did the homo agenda get so much notice? Homo have a knack for making a stink, and the Jew media mixed it with a lot of fancy perfume — just like Wall Street Jews took worthless mortgages and processed them into AAA-rated investment products to peddle all over the world; just like Jordan Belfort sold junk behind the Wasp facade, today’s Wall Street Jewish oligarchs sold junk all over the world by branding their garbage with the American label of reliance & responsibility built up by Wasps. Furthermore, even if an artist wanted to get noticed via controversy, he or she faces two problems. It’s difficult to be controversial in our libertine society. Furthermore, being controversial isn’t as important as being favored by the controversy-generator that is controlled by the elites. After all, what attains the label of ‘controversy’ is usually a matter of selection by the powers-that-be in the media and academia. If one does something controversial but is ignored and/or suppressed by the powers-that-be, the controversy-generator, it will all have been for nought. Something said to be ‘controversial’ becomes part of the national/cultural/social dialogue only if it’s approved and favored as controversy-worthy by the powers-that-be. ‘Controversy’ implies that something is worthy of thought, debate, and argument. If the elites don’t want something to be discussed or argued, it will be condemned as ‘unacceptable’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, ‘divisive’, and/or ‘hateful’ than as ‘controversial’. So, more often than not, ‘controversial’ amounts to ‘approved for discussion by the powers-that-be’. Jewish powers-that-be don’t even acknowledge people like Rick Sanchez and Jason Richwine as worthy ‘figures of controversy’; instead, such figures are relegated to the ‘unacceptable’ category and must be fired & blacklisted, virtually disappeared from the main venues of discourse and discussion. Though Jews rose in power by expanding the perimeters of what was ‘controversial’, once they gained elite power they narrowed the boundaries, indeed to the point where nothing can be discussed in the US if it displeases Jews and their mini-me allies the homos and mulattos. There was a time when David Irving was a controversial figure; today, he’s virtually a banned figure; there was a time when Solzhenitsyn was a controversial but admired figure; today, his book on Russians and Jews has still not been published by the Jew-run publishing industry. So, if an artist or celebrity wants to be truly controversial by broaching certain issues about race, sex/gender, and Jewish power, he or she will realize that, even as our society has become more libertine in sexual areas, it has also become more constricted and restrictive in political, ideological, and intellectual areas. We are essentially living in a Jewish oligarch-gangster state. As for the art world, it’s nearly hopeless. In the past, the connection between money and art wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, most people had little appreciation and patience for serious/high art, and it was up to the rich class to patronize, fund, preserve, and manage high/serious art for the more cultivated and for posterity. High art needed the protection of money outside the usual mass market forces, as indeed many art museums and opera halls would have closed long ago without government funds and/or donations from rich folks who care about Arts & Culture. But the situation today is different, with corrupt market forces even crazier than on Wall Street raging through the art world and determining the value of art. Big money, instead of protecting high culture from the marketplace, has debased high culture into a game of high prices with no consideration of real artistic worth.) Anyway, the special value of great art lies in its being, at once, elitist and ‘democratic’. We are presented with something far beyond us — something most of us couldn’t achieve in a million years — and yet so accessible to us on the emotional/sensual level. (Is art closer to science or technology? To the extent that art often tends to be exploratory and speculative, it might be said to be like a science. But to the extent that unfathomable genius is used to create something that brings joy to countless people, art is like technology that uses the most difficult scientific laws to create machines of remarkable ease.) When we listen to great music, it is within us, as if emanating from our very souls. When we watch a great film, we effortlessly become part of its universe. When we read a great book, we become immersed in the story and characters. Though more intelligent and educated audiences might appreciate the work with greater depth — though ‘excessive’ knowingness may foster detachment and dispassion — , even most ‘untrained’ audience members could feel the full brunt of its power. Of course, there are some works of art that require a degree of erudition, taste, and sensibility(and sensitivity) for proper appreciation, but many people readily recognize the special qualities of great works that have lasted through the ages. One doesn’t have to be schooled to be awed by the Parthenon or Egyptian tombs. Even an ‘Ugly American’ tourist can surely appreciate the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Even an uneducated Iranian from some rural village will surely be stirred by the ruins of Persepolis or the music of Bach.
Anyway, art sometimes functions like a disposable religion. Like religions and mythologies, art relies on our imagination and suspension of disbelief. Novels, movies, drama, poetry, music, paintings, and sculpture do their magic by facilitating our belief in the illusion. Though a painting is materially nothing more than colors brushed onto a piece of cloth, we ‘believe’ in the image on the canvas, indeed as if we’re staring at a ‘heightened reality’(perhaps one that is ‘more real than real’) of people, trees, stars, animals, or whatever. Often, art makes us focus our attention on things we otherwise might not; food items in a kitchen might not interest us but, if rendered into a painting, might seem significant and meaningful. Though sculpture is really a piece of metal or rock, we ‘believe’ in the forms carved or molded from the material, as if we’re looking at humans, animals, or mythical creatures. Though music is artificially created patterns of sound, we feel and ‘believe’ in the emotions they stir as if those are our emotions, sensations, or spirits flowing out of our souls. Without such element of faith and ‘belief’ premised on the suspension of disbelief and the desire of surrender, we cannot feel the full force of art. What’s the point of looking at a painting while reminding oneself every second that it’s just a piece of cloth with colors dabbed onto it? What’s the point of watching a movie while reminding oneself endlessly that it’s just a projected image on a screen from a film imprinted with still images that only create the illusion of motion by being run through a projector at 24 frames per second? For us to get to the heart of any work of art, we have to let ourselves be transfixed or hypnotized to some degree(and the work of art needs a certain quality that has the power to spellbind us; without that element, it is more an exegesis or essay on art than an actual work of art. Even when art makes us think than feel, our thoughts navigate through the sensations and feelings, i.e. the fascination comes from the fusion of images and ideas and/or from the infusion of contradictory meanings in images and sounds or combinations thereof. An idea offered as an idea merely needs to be rationally processed. It works on the level of the intellect and logic. In contrast, ideas offered, presented, demonstrated through, or infused into images and sounds take on ambiguities and complexities that are bigger than the idea: more confusing, more mysterious, more challenging. DNA is the idea of life, but life in all its varieties are the ‘arts’ of life. We approach the DNA intellectually and rationally, but we cannot dismiss our emotions about all the forms of life that come in so many colors and shapes that we call ‘beautiful’. A work of art that encourages thought is like the tale of the Prodigal Son. It’s as if the artist is trying to recover the pure idea lost through its sensual practice in the world. Eric Rohmer focused his attention on various individuals caught up in complicated relations, and from their actions he sought to derive the idea of faith as he believed it to be or wanted it to be as a Catholic. Whether one believes in religion or science, there’s the sense that the ‘in the beginning was the word’. In the Gospel according to John, the Word was with God, the Word was God. According to science, the ‘word’ is the Laws of Nature. From the pure Word of God came everything and everyone that we can possibly see, feel, and know. From the simplest atoms and the Laws of Nature came countless varieties of matter that constitutes the cosmos, from the giant stars to tiny snails. The intellectual tries to understand truth and reality as a system of ideas, whereas the artist tries to represent, reflect, glorify, or explore truth and reality through the imagination of forms: characters, figures, and things through space and/or time. In this sense, all works of art are profoundly ‘idolatrous’ because the ideas and themes are represented through tangible-seeming people, places, and things. While some people are content to be thinkers while some people are content to be artists, others are primarily thinkers who, however, prefer to explore their ideas through art. Aldous Huxley is prime example. To a lesser extent, it’s also true of David Mamet, whose works are theorems on power and paranoia. Sergei Eisenstein primarily saw himself as a thinker/theorist testing his ideas on images, but the power and poetry of his images transcended whatever ideas he was trying to convey through them. Indeed, art has this power to subsume whatever set of ideas that tries to contain and define it. Consider the symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. Though composed to represent specific historical events, the emotions and sensations are deeper, wider, more universal, and more mysterious than the intellectual-ideological-political justification behind them. And then, there are artists like Kubrick and Welles. Do they use images to illustrate an idea? Do they invoke ideas to clarify images? The fusion of idea/thought and image/feeling is so sublime in their works — as in the universe of Franz Kafka — that resolution is impossible). Of course, art, though like religion in some ways, cannot be religion. After all, after our experience with the work of art in question is over, we can dispose of our belief and go on with our lives. In contrast, religion is where your faith remains intact whether you are inside or outside the church/temple, whether you’re praying or you’re playing. If you believe in God or some gods, He or they are always real within your heart. Religion is not like a movie where you have faith in the magic inside the theater but lose it once you’re outside. God or gods are not psychologically disposable like art is — though some works of art or entertainment have a powerful hold on some people: Consider all those creepy STAR TREK fans who even want their cult to be recognized as a religion by the American government.
(There are also works of art/literature that have gained a quasi-religious/spiritual cachet due to either cult devotion and/or establishment support. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE has become like a personal bible for several generations due to both cult following and selection by public education as sacred text for youth. In the case of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, it would likely have been forgotten, but the powers-that-be elevated it to secular biblical status. Indeed, there have been many cases throughout history where the fictional telling became the legend favored over the fact. But then, even real events can be spun essentially into fictions, indeed as Jewish-dominated media’s coverage of recent events in Ukraine has shown. History is defined as a remembrance, study, and understanding of the past, but it is, of course, also a tool of power. And as a political weapon, it relies as much on amnesia as on memory. History remembers not only to remember but to justify or condemn certain groups. As every people seek justification via context, it’s crucial that some things are remembered while other things are blocked into amnesia. After all, if we remember ‘too much’, the side that seeks justification could also find itself accused and condemned. For example, recently the Jewish bosses around Obama ordered monkey boy to bomb ISIS or ISIL in Syria. To the amnesiac, this might be seen as Obama stepping up to the plate to kill some ‘bad guys’ who are spreading terror in the Middle East. But the amnesiac doesn’t know that Syria and Iraq are in such bad shape precisely because the Zionists, Saudi Arabia, and the US have been funding, equipping, and aiding Muslim radicals all over the Middle East in order to destabilize Shia power in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. So, the wider context undermines the Narrative of Obama-finally-taking-action-to-beat-bad-guys. The context reminds us that US helped create the ‘bad guys’. Similarly, consider how the Jew-run media have covered the crisis in Ukraine. All this time, Putin has been forced to react to events that were triggered by globalist-Jewish manipulation and intervention. But since Jewish power/influence is a taboo subject in the Jew-dominated media and think-tanks, we’ve been sold the official history of Putin ‘invading’ Crimea, Russia intervening in Eastern Ukraine, and etc. Because Americans are amnesiac about how Jews created the trouble in the first place, they only see Putin as the ‘aggressor’, the ‘new Hitler’. It’d be like Nazi Germany invading Russia and then bitching and whining that Russians are using violence against Germans. This is how Jews play the game. Their use of history is as much about inducing amnesia on us as about reminding us of certain events. Indeed, the entire history of Jewish-Gentile relations has been rewritten this way by hideous Jews. Jews make us remember all the bad things done to Jews by gentiles but suppress via historical amnesia all the bad things Jews have done to gentiles that might have triggered the anti-Jewish hostility in the first place.) Art is like religion or mythology turned into a fashion where you can ‘believe’ in ‘this’ today, ‘believe’ in ‘that’ tomorrow, and so on. You can juggle various ‘beliefs’ and partake of instant ‘prophecies’ that come and go. In our age of convenience than of conviction, many people prefer something they can put on and take off like articles of clothing. Indeed, religion itself has been made into something more convenient and fun, like an extension of what one seeks in pop music, movies, TV talk shows, and etc.
At the dawn of human culture, creativity and conviction were intertwined as shaman-artists carved and molded objects that were both stimulating to the senses and sacred to the soul; and besides, among the primitives there was no clear borderline between the sensual body and the soulful spirit(or between the world of man and the world of nature). Or shaman-performers carried out songs-and-dances that were thought to be imbued with magical powers, e.g. the American Indian Rain Dance or ritualistic dances of various communities around the world during harvesting times. Among pagan cultures, the entertainment value of creativity need not be an affront to the sacredness of their spiritual order. As pagan cultures generally had many gods of varying dispositions, there could be a god of celebration — and even of debauchery — as well as a god of sobriety and order. So, the Greeks had Bacchus as well as Apollo and Athena. Creativity in the service of spirituality need not even be purely sacred since pagan religions/practices tended to be multi-faceted. It could make room for profane form of spirituality of an almost demonic nature. But in the monotheistic culture of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, creativity was far more problematic because there was faith in only one God who was said to be the one and only God, and the perfect and pure God. So, ideally at any rate, creativity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam must only be sacred and pure. There’s no room for the kind of ‘debauchery’ and ‘profanity’ that were common in Greek mythology and Hinduism. According to Judeo-derived monotheism, the only kind of acceptable creativity is one that pays homage to the greatness of the one and only perfect God. And ideally at any rate, idolatry should be avoided at all cost, and this became central to Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism — whereas Catholics and Orthodox Churches settled for some measure of compromise between the ideal and the idol.
And yet, because creativity became so bound with a restrictive(repressive of the expressive) conception of spirituality, there was a greater impetus for creativity to make a complete break from spirituality in the West than anywhere else in the world. In pagan civilizations, one could be creative in a more free-wheeling, free-flowing, diverse, and multi-faceted way since there were so many gods and spirits to worship, celebrate, pay homage to, and etc. One could build idols to pure gods or to profane gods, one could paint pictures of saintly heroes/heroines or debauched spirits/immortals. Thus, there was no need for a total separation of creativity from spirituality in order for creativity to be relatively free and adventurous. In pagan cultures, one could even creatively ‘celebrate’ and ‘glorify’ the forces of the dark as they too were part of the religious/spiritual pantheon; furthermore, there was no clear division between the pure and profane in paganism, therefore, as often as not, one worshiped the bad with the good. Purity in Hinduism is more ritualistic than moralistic, as can be seen in the film DHARM where the Hindu holy man is more obsessed with Hindu rituals of purity than the moral purity of universal love and compassion. In contrast, creativity in the spiritual world of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity had to take care not to befoul the pure/holy with profanity, i.e. the Godly and Divine were totally pure & good and could not co-exist with anything suggesting less than purity and holiness. (Perhaps, this was why the concept that came to constitute the core of Christianity was offensive to most Jews. While many Jews were willing to accept Jesus as a great man or prophet, the idea that He is the Son of God, therefore God, who got whupped and nailed to a Cross had a way of associating the purity of God with the foulness of the world.) Yet, paradoxically, the more restrictive creative norm in the Christian West eventually led to the explosion of the greatest and freest creativity in the history of mankind. This seems counter-intuitive since one would assume pagan civilizations with more ‘tolerant’ religions — with many gods, heroes, visions, modes, values, truths, etc. — would be creatively more fertile. And yet, because of their relative tolerance on creative matters, there was less impetus among the creative to make a decisive break with spirituality. Since pagan cultures allowed a wider range of expressions in accordance to the multi-faceted nature of their religions — ranging from pure to profane(Hindu god Shiva is a combination of purity and profanity) — , creative people didn’t feel they had to make a decisive break with spirituality to explore and express the fuller spectrum of human imagination. In contrast, Western artists, at some point, realized that they were limited to celebrating only the pure and holy themes within their spiritual order, and therefore, the ONLY way they were going to gain any real creative range was to find some way to separate creativity from spirituality. Perhaps, that had something to do with the rise of secular art in the West.
It’s like if a parent is rather tolerant and permissive, a child may stick with the parent for a long time. Even though full freedom isn’t granted in the house, there’s enough freedom so that the child feels he’s free enough. So, there’s less impetus for him to break free from his parents. But in household where the parents only allow the proper kind of behavior, the child needs to make a complete break from his parents in order to be free. Since his break will have been total, he will be freer than the child who remains in the house of permissive parents who, by the way, still have the ultimate authority over him. So, paradoxically, allowing some degree of freedom may actually dampen the appetite for total freedom, whereas denying freedom outright may lead to a rebellion that leads to much greater freedom. Of course, if the tyranny is powerful enough, the oppressed/repressed doesn’t really have a choice. But if the tyranny is pervasive but far from total, the repressed may choose to make a clean break and find their own way of freedom.
This is why we need to be cautious about democracy-under-political-correctness. Though PC keeps eroding our freedoms and rights away, we still feel ‘free enough’, and that fact dampens our will to rise up and rebel against the system or to make a clean break with the repressive order and establish our own order of freedom. The elites of EU, US, Russia, and China are all, more or less, working along the same principles: allow just enough freedom for us to be ‘sufficiently content’ within the current order. After all, if they decided to take away all our freedoms, we will wake up, rise up, and fight for and demand true freedom in opposition to the globalist order dominated by Jews. Sometimes, your oppressor is a better liberator than your enabler. Your oppressor may leave you no choice but to get off your ass and make a clean break to be free, whereas your enabler allows just enough freedom for you tolerate his domination over you.
Anyway, great art awakens us to a power far beyond what most of us are capable of. Some street musician beating on drums is nothing special. With training, most people could do what the street performer does. But when we listen to the music of a true master(such as Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Burt Bacharach, Carole King, etc), we can’t help feeling it’s beyond the limits of the ‘humanly possible’. Nevertheless, even if we can’t grasp the true essence of the genius(and likely, the great artists don’t know either, preferring to appreciate their talent as momentary gifts that keep on giving until the muse runs dry), it could be argued that our attempt to understand has a broadening and expansive effect on our own power of imagination and wonderment.
What goes for art also goes for religion. When primitive proto-man only felt, behaved, and reasoned in terms of the ‘real’(in direct relation to the physical world all around them), their sense of being could never be anything more than the actual reality around them. And their manner of thought could not expand beyond the limitations of experience.
But when primitive man began to think in terms of spirits, forces, and gods beyond the crude actuality of the human/physical world, his mental horizons also began to expand in terms of his relation to the larger world, which, in turn, may have broadened his sense of potential. (If people only think in terms of the possible in direct relation to the world they know, they are less likely to venture beyond survivalist conventions accepted as the ONLY means available to mankind.) If the world was seen as guided by spirits and great forces, it began to take on a semblance of order and higher meaning. Reality would seem less random and chaotic since one would believe that some spiritual ‘law’ is behind everything. Even though primitive man was ultimately wrong in his ‘theory’ of reality/nature, he began to perceive and participate in the world in a more significant and meaningful way, indeed as if there’s a higher truth/power/principle governing the operations of the world. (Consider the stabilizing & inspiring influence of the concept of the World Tree in Germanic mythology. The world of the Germanic barbarians was dark and brutal, but the idea-image[or ‘ideage’ or ‘imea’]of a great tree that united sky, earth, and underworld provided the Germanic tribes with a profound sense of connectedness to all things natural, human, and beyond-man.) Thus able to feel and think in a more cosmically-ordered way, there was a higher chance that primitive man would create an orderly community from nature and then apart from nature. The human mind increasingly began to work in accordance to the ability to imagine what isn’t than merely in accordance to his ability to assess what is. (This is also true of society-to-society relations throughout history. There is a tendency of a civilization to become overly conservative and arrive at the conclusion that its achievements are the summit of all that are humanly possible. And when such a civilization comes in contact with comparable or inferior civilizations, its self-regarding convictions harden even more. But when the civilization comes in contact with a much richer, more advanced, and more powerful civilization, there could be an impetus toward not only imitation but inspiration. When Japan opened its eyes to the much more advanced West, it wasn’t merely content to imitate the West; Japan also caught the inspiration bug with which to imagine and advance into the future on its own terms — in some areas, even beyond the West. But no people caught the inspiration bug more than Western Europeans did beginning with the Renaissance, which wasn’t merely am imitation of the past but an inspired leaping beyond it. If Western Europeans arising out of the Dark and Middle Ages had merely been good at imitation, they could not have surpassed the Ancients; they would have amounted to a pale shadow of an earlier greater world. They surpassed and went far beyond the Classical World because their power of imagination was sparked and inspired by a vision of a bygone world that seemed infinitely greater than any they could ever achieve on their own. Had the achievements of the Ancients struck them as only moderately impressive, Western Europeans may not have been so inspired. Instead, when confronted with the rediscovery of the Classic World, Western Europeans were so impressed that they believed their own achievements could never match those of the Ancients. And yet, such passion and reverence for the unsurpassable paradoxically energized them with the inspiration and imagination to surpass the Ancients by leaps and bounds in arts, science, math, laws, governance, technology, medicine, and etc. This is something that the Chinese are beginning to figure out. Thus far, they focused on imitation of the West, but it’s beginning to dawn on them that the more important quality they must take from the West is the power of inspiration so that the fire of imagination and innovation will burn within the heart of China itself. Perhaps the fall of Rome and the loss of Classical glory in Western Europe paradoxically strengthened the power of Classical Civilization as an ideal because it was turned into myth, and few things are as powerful as myths. In the Byzantine East, the Classical World lived on and was subsumed by the new Christian order. Though the old pagan civilization was gone, it wasn’t lost and its achievements were visible everywhere. But such continuity made it seem ‘boring’ and ‘static’, mere facts of life and mundane details of their world. In contrast, the sense of tragic loss in the West and the hope of recovery turned the Classical World into a thing of myth, and myths inspire. It’s like Merlin is, in some ways, more powerful when he returns as a dream in EXCALIBUR. It’s like Jews were especially inspired and energized with the idea of Israel because it was like turning a lost myth into recovered reality. Anyway, it could be homos played a key role in the advance of civilization since their unnatural sexual nature and deviant sensibility applied greater pressure to find new expressions and meanings through imagination.) And as mankind grew further away from nature, his conception of spirits took on a more human-form, as most notably with the Ancient Greeks who worshiped human-like gods. Over time, gods became more like ‘high concept gods’, and such gods inspired mankind to think in higher terms; after all, gods not only serve as objects of worship but also as role models. Greater the gods, greater their inspiration to man. Also, worship of gods isn’t merely about making offerings but trying to understand the minds of gods. Since gods are said to be wiser, more knowledgeable, more intelligent, and more formidable than mankind, human worshipers of gods must think harder, imagine deeper, and meditate further to understand the immortal realm of the mind than the mortal one. (To be sure, one could argue that, in some ways, gods are easier to understand than man because, as great as gods could be, they are the products of visions, ideals, and aspirations, whereas even the most ordinary humans are products of reality that is endlessly complex. Religion and mythology, however complex as they may be, are about the meaning we make of the world whereas reality is everything that is meaningful and meaningless. Reality excludes nothing.
As the character of ‘Nixon’ says of the godlike persona of Kennedy in Oliver Stone’s film, "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look me at me, they see what they are." The real Nixon was more interesting than the mythic Kennedy of Camelot. But then, the real Kennedy was more interesting than the Camelot Kennedy. Likewise, the real MLK was more interesting than the mythic Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who’s been elevated into the divine Magic Negro icon to inspire all of mankind. Also, the higher qualities of gods could serve to simplify than deepen one’s search of meaning in the world. This was true of the National Socialist use of mythology where history and politics were reduced to a matter of superior god-like races[Aryans and comparable races]dominating mediocre races and subjugating[and even exterminating]‘subhuman’ races. The neo-pagan Nazi cult of the godly didn’t inspire much in the way of higher or deeper thinking among the demagogues, thugs, and goons of National Socialism. Rather, it cartoonized the world. God or gods can also simplify than deepen one’s sense of morality, and we see this in the character of Mrs. Carmody in THE MIST. Her heartfelt devotion to God has only made her blind and self-righteous. And there are plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Jews who’ve reduced their entire spiritual-moral views into "God’s on our side and that’s that.") Of course, gods never existed, but if a people believe in the existence of great, noble, wise, and awesome gods, they may feel a need to know and understand their gods better since their own destinies are seen to be inextricably intertwined with the power of the gods. To please the gods, to win favor from the gods, and to avoid the wrath of gods, mankind will have to think harder and deeper to understand the animating forces and motivations of the gods(and even behind the gods). Of course, not all gods are alike, and different gods will inspire people differently. If a culture were to worship Beavis and Butthead as gods, the people of that culture need not meditate and expand their horizons much since the highest wisdom of their gods would be ‘boing’ and ‘shut up, assmunch’.
It’s like thinking about a film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is more challenging and stimulating ‘philosophically’ and ‘spiritually’ than thinking about THE TERMINATOR or GODZILLA VS KING KONG. If a culture has greater gods, its people will be mentally stimulated more than the people of a culture with lesser gods. (It’s like children will be stimulated more in the ‘role-model-like’ presence of adults possessed of superior intellect and knowledge. Though children’s minds cannot match those of adults, children seek the approval via aspiration/imitation of the adults in their lives — of course, as children grow older, these adults include not only parents, uncles and aunts, and teachers, but also public figures seen in the news, celebrities of popular culture, and fictional characters of books and novels; I recall how some Jewish kid in the 8th grade became crazy about THE GODFATHER[after it was aired on TV for the first time as THE GODFATHER SAGA], indeed as if Don Corleone was like his mentor or guru or something). If children only hang around other children and have no contact with adults, there will be far less impetus for them to grow out of their shell of childhood. (Perhaps, one of the problems of youth in the modern era is the loss of the apprentice system, both in the professional and psychological sense. There are few meaningful relationships between adults and youth in our world. Family has been weakened through divorce, rise of single lifestyles, pregnancies out of wedlock, porny view of sex. Also, parents since the end of WWII have been less good at growing up. This goes not only for boomers but their parents, the Mr. And Mrs. Robinsons of the world. Also, as Jews waged war on Wasp elite power in the post-WWII era, there was bound to be less respect among Jewish youth for Wasp adult figures of authority. If Jews had ruled America all along, there might have been less of a generation gap and conflict. The gap widened because Jews had a vested interest in making the boomer youth hate their white parents who still ruled America prior to Jewish takeover of elite institutions. Indeed, notice that there’s greater amity between old Jews and young Jews today than there was between Jewish youths and Wasp elite adults in the 60s and 70s. As older Jews now control the upper echelons of power, younger Jews have less reason to feel resentment toward the new establishment of Jewish displacement of Wasp elites. Elena Kagan owes everything to Larry Summers. And Summers and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame also had a mutual understanding, at least according to SOCIAL NETWORK. Sorkin-Fincher’s movie implies that Jews do all the real work because they got the smarts, whereas good-looking and more sociable but less intelligent Wasps[who are A- students than A+ students]have gotten accustomed to the privilege of making appearances and reaping most of the benefits of the actual work done by Jews. To the extent that Wasps had the right look/style in politics and business, there may have been some truth to this, i.e. Jews were traditionally hired to do the brainy stuff while Wasps were favored to be the ‘charismatic’ face of power and even reap most of the rewards. According to SOCIAL NETWORK, Jews have changed this dynamic by fighting to have those who really do the work take the power and reap the most profits: the rule of meritocracy. But if Jews really feel this way, why do they put forth blacks and mulattos as a kind of new Wasp Ideal? How many times have we heard that blacks should be favored for promotion, power, and profits because, despite their lack of brains and knowhow, they have the right kind of charisma and style? So, Wasps were phony with their shallow style and charm, but Negroes are to be praised and promoted for their superficial style and charm as with Obama and Neil Degrasse Tyson the baloney astro-physicist. But then, this goes for ‘muscle fascism’ too. Jews point to the horrors of the ‘Aryan’ ideal of the perfect muscled specimen of Nazi aesthetics, but Jew-run advertising showcases the Negro version of the same thing but promote it as glorious kind of ‘Afro-Aryanism’ that we all worship. Jews are two-faced weasels in everything they say and do. Anyway, the ideal of adult-youth relationship no longer really exists. Fathers aren’t around in many communities. And even when they are, their cultural sense is hopelessly youth-centered. Consider how so many middle-aged critics discuss dance music and dumb blockbuster movies. Or praise silly TV shows as if they’re works of art. Jonah Goldberg the dufus at National Review would have us believe that BREAKING BAD is a great work of art. Francis Fukuyama gushes about the greatness of THE WIRE, especially how it’s so noble to have some Negro fruitkin get his revenge on the thugs. Walter Russell Meade sees world politics through the lens of GAME OF THRONES, some Medieval fantasy revolving around a midget prince. Also, public education has depersonalized the relationship between adults and youth. In the age of apprenticeship, young people learned under craftsman over a long time, and so, there was a personal element in their bond. There is also the problem of progress, especially scientific and technological progress. In a static society where the wisdom and technology remain more or less the same generation after generation, elders will likely know more of everything-that-matters since they’ve been around, learned about stuff, and practiced things for much longer. But in the age of progress, yesterday’s technology is mocked, destroyed, and forgotten — like the old mecha at the Flesh Fair in Steven Spielberg’s A.I. Young people are more adept and fresh at mastering new technologies, therefore they feel little deference to men of old technology that, however awesome it may have been in its own time, may seem laughable to the new generation. Indeed, even the early internet of the 1990s, amazing at it was back then, seems amusing to us today. In politics and the world of thought, men like George Kennan, Leo Strauss, and Henry Kissinger have become dinosaurs. Instead, we see more infantile tantrums of young and young-ish operatives with a know-it-all attitude. Consider the likes of James Kirchick. And does Samantha Powers think she’s still in college? Did George W. Bush ever leave the Frat? What was his biggest regret after leaving the presidency? Trashy rapper accused him of not liking blacks. As Pat Buchanan asked about the ridiculous Donald Sterling case, are we living in a serious country anymore? What passes for higher morality today is ‘gay marriage’. And in arts & culture, fashion has long displaced tradition, so the likes of Lena Dunham get all the attention until some new infantile attention-grabber takes her place, and I think it happened already. We have idiots like Ross Douthat misinterpreting TWILIGHT and fuming at the screen when, in truth, the Cullens tend to be a bunch of mature people. More adults should be like Carlisle and Esme. To be sure, it’s easy to be dignified if you got so much money, especially with the help of Alice Cullen who can see the future, including future stock prices. So yes, the maturity in TWILIGHT is premised on immature fantasies, but then who is Douthat to complain when he’s a big fan of dumb 007 movies? And how did Martin Scorsese revive his career lately? By making WOLF OF WALL STREET, a trashy celebration of scumbag Jordan Belfort. It’s enjoyable, lots of fun, and dazzling, but is this Scorsese’s final testament about humanity? That the power of trick and talent fueled by greed and lust is all that counts? Cormac McCarthy and Ridley Scott’s THE COUNSELOR gets at something similar but presents a truly sobering lesson. Maybe, in some ways, the Rule of Law that still substantially exists in America has a more insidious effect on our souls than the kind of total corruption that exists in Mexico. In Mexico, it’s so disgusting and distressing that we see the clear consequences of a world ruled by greed, lust, brutality, corruption, and heartlessness. It’s hell as hell. But because there’s still some semblance of Rule of Law in the US, we just laugh at the likes of Jordan Belfort as if our system allows some folks to enjoy hells as paradises. We figure that such guys will have a great time and then eventually get their comeuppance, and life goes on. Since the system can withstand such crooks, we don’t really see them as a threat; we see them as celebrities. But look at Mexico, and the lesson is very sobering. If the likes of Belfort do get their way, then the world will be Mexico. And the Belforts of the world, if powerful enough, won’t only steal but slaughter untold numbers of people. Of course, outside the US where Rule of Law is weak, power-lusting Jews do indeed act like gangsters and lay waste to entire regions of the Middle East and now even Ukraine. And just as the borders between US and Mexico have been weakened by Jewish power, Jewish oligarch power has also gangsterized the borders among Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The likes of Bryan Caplan talk a good game about ‘principles’, but deep down inside, there’s no difference between his ilk and Jordan Belfort. They all dish out the shtick about helping the underdog and the little guy, but they are just undermining the system established by white gentiles in order to maximize the power and profits of Jews. One of the negative aspects of the primacy of youth culture is that young people come under less pressure to grow into dignified and mature adults, and as a result, we have so many adults who never matured beyond their teen years.) Olympians, at least some of them, are more advanced and ‘high concept’ than the earlier gods. Olympians, for all their fault, are civilized gods who have tamed and/or gained control of nature and harness & guide its forces whereas many of the earlier gods were inseparable from the tumultuous chaos of nature. So, if one bunch of Greeks were to worship the Olympians whereas another bunch of Greeks were to worship the brutal nature gods, the former bunch of Greeks would have been inspired and stimulated more toward the possibilities of civilization. It’s more interesting to ponder the ‘mind’ of Zeus or Athena than the mind of Uranus or Gaia — though, to be sure, even before the Olympians, Titans had established some degree of order and meaning in the world. Even so, as great as the gods of Greek mythology were, there were essentially superhuman types. The one exception that might have transcended yet to an higher level was Athena, but the Greeks[and later Romans]never fulfilled the potential of transforming their mythology — especially the cult around Athena — into a higher spiritual system. Over time, they grew weary and disbelieving of their gods, especially since the gods were seen as essentially as immortal humans with powers that, though beyond human, were all-too-humanlike in their motivations and dimensions. Things might have turned out differently if Greeks or Romans had found some way to push the Athena cult into a higher consciousness & mystery-mind-game, but once the Greeks and Romans became embroiled in the world of politics, their minds were set more on acting like gods and heroes themselves than expanding the dimensional breadth and depth of the gods. As Greek and Roman elites grew richer and more powerful — and as their knowledge of the world increased exponentially with advances in science, math, and technology — , they increasingly lost interest in the ways of gods. As Greek and Roman gods were essentially human-like, their mystery and awesomeness could never be infinite. And as Greek and Roman elites grew ever more powerful and even built empires, they felt as powerful as the gods, if not more so. Greek and Roman gods were essentially political, economic, and nature gods, and all things political, economic, and natural have their finite limits. Once the power of humans expanded to the point of mastery over the world — especially with Alexander the Great and the Romans creating world empires — the gods no longer seemed so awesome to the Greeks and Romans. Conquerors and rulers of empires can’t help but feel they’ve surpassed the power of the gods.
But such was not the case with the Jews who came up with one of the most profound concepts of God(and who never created an empire, that is until recently by taking over the US & EU and using their powers to dominate the world), though one could argue that Hinduism and Buddhism — and maybe Taoism — are more profound from a philosophical and psychosmic(psychological-cosmic)perspective; the Jewish God is very much fixated on Jewish affairs(and the Christian God is mostly concerned with spiritual morality of the human world). Arguably, the Jewish/Christian God was a useful balance between the far-out psycho-cosmic spiritualities of Hinduism, Buddhism, & Taoism AND the ‘humanism’ of the Greco-Roman mythology. If Greek and Roman gods were too human and thereby limited in their spiritual mystery and awesomeness, the religions of the East were too mystifying and meta-human to be of any use for mankind, i.e. too deconstructive of human dimensionality to be of much use to humans in their practical lives. In contrast, the Jewish/Christian God is wrapped in profound mystery yet intimately linked with the destinies of the Jews and mankind.
An any rate, the profound spiritual conception and premise of the Biblical God provided Jews with infinite mental space to think long, hard, and deep about the meaning of their God. In order to understand God’s laws and His grand plan for the Jews(and even the rest of mankind, especially in relation to Jews), Jews had a lot of spiritual probing to do. Of course, this was a tricky proposition since there is no God and all religions are make-believe. But even when we involve ourselves with mind-games, the nature of the premise shapes the character and the range of our thoughts. If the god we worship is said to be like Big Boss Man or some silly homo, there wouldn’t be much to think about. We would think our god is just some big dumb lug who likes to bash things — like Bam Bam on THE FLINSTONES. Or, if our god was some vain narcissistic fruiter, our image of him would be some silly male deity who dresses like Pebbles. The essence of spiritual morality would be some nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ — and I think the success of ‘gay marriage’ is rather telling about the nature of today’s faux-spirituality shaped by celebrity & Hollywood culture dominated by cynical Jews and rotten fruitkins. Though Paglia is, in principle, opposed to stuff like ‘gay marriage’, the sheer vapidity of her notion of spirituality comes across in statements like: "A woman putting on men's clothes is merely stealing power, but a man putting on women's clothes is searching for God.” So, Chris Crocker and Dennis Rodman are searching for God?
(Even resignation can paradoxically become a kind of power when faced with unfathomable grandiosity. By surrendering to the great power, one feels a part of the great power. And in rare cases, submission to the great power can serve as a portal to taking over the great power. Jews submitted to the power system created by Wasps but then bore through the system with their drill of Jewish will and took over everything. In a way, power-through-surrender was one of the great innovations of mankind, at least on a large scale for its counterparts exist in nature too.)
Solaris is the sort of place that, as a sci-fi concept, invites & provokes thought, speculation, wonderment, fascination, and awe. We’re far more likely to think about such a planet than, say, one that is said to be made of cheese(as kids were told of the moon). Both are equally fictional, but one stimulates the mind whereas the other just whets a Frenchman’s appetite.
So, encouragement to thought doesn’t necessarily have to do with the truth. Besides, the fascination with magic be more provocative than the fact of matter, at least for most of us whose sense of scientific fact is rather limited. To really work in science at a high level, we need a wide range of knowledge and experience, which most of don’t have. And yet, any of us can play mind-games with even the simplest of rules. While any single rule on its own is rather simple, a combination of even a few rules can make for endless variations and compounds. Indeed, consider a game like chess or Go(Chinese) that are deceptively simple. There are some pieces that you either move around or place on the board, and the rules are simple enough for even a child to learn in a single day. And yet, the possibilities in both games are endless. If chess was just played with one rook vs another rook, it’d be simple enough. But with 16 pieces on each side, variations become mind-boggling. And even though the game of Go only has uniform black pieces and uniform white pieces, no two games are alike just like no two snowflakes are alike. It’s like if you have only two letters, you can form only two ‘word’ combinations. But if you have three letters, there are six ‘word’ combinations. And four, five, and six letters will exponentially yield yet many more. So, lots of things are deceptively simple because the rules seem simple enough; however, the implications and permutations can be virtually infinite. And in a way, the Jewish concept of God is both the simplest and the most complex. The idea that there is only one God is simple enough; but when this God is said to be perfect, all-powerful, especially chose the Jews, and etc., things become very complicated. And then, once one tries to square the message of God — as transcribed in the Bible — with the ways of the actual world, one’s mind is faced with more combinations, complications, and contradictions. This is why even radical atheists end up unwittingly arguing with God in whom they don’t believe. Even as they reject His existence and power, they fall into the mind-web of what God is supposed to be about.
And in a sense, Jews have created a foolproof concept of God that can never be overcome with reason. Even though many people, especially in the Western European world, no longer believe in God, God-ness lives on as a concept, mystery, and idea in the way that pagan gods could not — despite organizations such as Asatru that pretends to honor Odin/Wotan and Thor as living deities.
Anyway, if God has been turned into a fascinating mind-game(even for non-believers), why shouldn’t it be equally true of Taoism and Buddhism, especially since they are, in some ways, even more like mind-games than the Jewish/Christian religion? Perhaps, there’s an emotional element to the Jewish/Christian God that is absent in Buddhism and Taoism, which are both about detachment and seeking of truth through either a ‘radical’ rejection of the world or vague harmony with it. Buddhism says the world is an illusion of pain and suffering, and it must be expunged entirely from within one’s soul for one to attain Nirvana. Taoism says everything is part of some cosmic/natural harmony, but in fact, reality tells us that humanity cannot co-exist in harmony with anything. Man is an animal that, like other animals, can only live in contention and competition with the world. Though Taoism is profound stuff, whoever came up with it surely depended on others to feed him and provide for him. And I suspect the kind of nature he was familiar with was something more like Walden Pond than raw nature that bit off one’s arse. One simply cannot meditate in a forest filled with tigers and arrive at the theory of man’s harmony with nature. (This is where Buddhism is utterly different from Taoism despite their superficial similarities. Taoism promises a possible unity/harmony with nature. Buddha was raised in a quasi-Taoist setting where man and nature seemed to exist in harmony. But when he learned of the truth of nature — a bloody and cruel devouring of life by life — , he couldn’t take it anymore. He came to believe that no harmony could ever exist between the soul and reality. Meditation should be to separate oneself from nature/reality than to find harmony with it. Reality must be seen as an illusion and erased from the soul so that the soul itself will finally disappear without the illusion that tricks it into clinging to ‘reality’.) It’s like if you’re privileged and provided for, you can dilly-dally around with flaky New Age ideas. This isn’t to say Taoism is flaky or superficial but merely to suggest that its passive lack of contentiousness makes it less challenging for the mind. While one may note the poetry of life, one cannot live poetically.
 |
| Buddha(with head in Nirvana?) |
 |
| Lao Tzu(in harmony with bull?) |
 |
| Moses(as the cowardly lion?) |
 |
| 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. A 'covenant' between the Monolith and the Ape with bone. |
 |
| Tippi Hedren in THE BIRDS on the verge of being 'contacted' by seagull |
Though the Covenant between God and Abraham is thematically related to what happens in THE BIRDS, the effect is the opposite. The contact between the woman’s inner nature and the world’s outer nature leads to chaos and violence. It’s like opening the Pandora’s Box. In the Covenant story between God and Abraham, there’s a similar idea, but the point is to remind Abraham and his people to control their sexual urges and maintain culture and civilization through control of self and the world. Indeed, those with control of self are better positioned to control the world around them. If you can’t control yourself, you will act like an animal, and then social order will fall apart, and wilderness will take over and reclaim territory from civilization — literally. But if you control yourself, you will have social order among your own kind and then your kind can create even greater social order. So, if you want to tame outer nature, you must first control your inner nature — though if the inner nature is overly repressed and controlled(to the point of snuffing out the spark of ingenuity and inspiration), civilization grows static and stagnant like the Byzantine, Persian, Ottoman, and Chinese civilizations became. In a way, it’s significant that God ordered Abraham to do two significant things with a knife. He told Abraham to cut off the skin off his schlong, and He told Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Isaac and Abraham’s schlong are interconnected because Abraham’s son was created through Abraham’s schlong. (What makes Jesus special is He isn’t connected to the schlong of His social father, Joseph. One could argue He is the product of the greatest ‘cuckolding’ in history as Joseph was rendered helpless before and even supportive of God’s having His way with Mary.) In the end, Abraham need not kill his own son because he’d already taken his knife to his own schlong. In a way, circumcision seemed necessary to the Jews because it was too easy for guys to have fun sticking their schlongs into a whole bunch of pooters(and Jewish men are as horny as they come). If women had sex, they got pregnant and had to undergo the horribly painful process of childbirth; besides the first time for any woman was bound to be painful than pleasurable. So, sex wasn’t just fun for women, whereas it could be for any guy. For women, sex was about pleasure and pain. In contrast, sex could be merely pleasurable for men since they didn’t have to have babies. So, to remind men of the gravity of sex — that it’s not just for fun but comes with real-life consequences and esponsibilities — , it sort of made sense that men should suffer pain too in their sexual organs, and circumcision served that role. Being circumcised was like ‘birthing pains’ for men. In the end, Abrahama need not kill Isaac and instead sacrifice a goat, an animal. In a way, it’s significant that Abraham and Sara only had one kid and in old age too. If Abraham could have had lots of kids with Sara, Isaac’s death might have been no great loss. Sara and he could have relied on other sons. But as Isaac was their only child together, it was a really big deal when God told Abraham to kill Isaac. (In a similar way, the figure of Jesus is especially precious because He is the sole exception, the only product of God and a mortal woman.) Abraham became aware of Isaac’s individuality, uniqueness, irreplaceableness, and preciousness. While each child is special even in a large family, there’s still consolation to be found in other kids if a child were to die. But when there’s only one kid, he or she becomes especially special, indeed like a gift of God. Though God’s order to have Isaac killed sounds cruel, it was through such a command that Abraham came to love Isaac all the more. And it was through God’s sparing of Isaac that Abraham came to see that God is a good God who, though He has the power to end the universe in an instant, spared the life of this only son — Christianity takes this line of thought even further by having God sacrifice His only Son. Whatever Abraham may have felt at the moment when God spared Isaac, it was profoundly human, and it represented both a decisive break from wild nature and from nature-centered pagan cultures. If THE BIRDS is about the bursting of the dam between inner nature and outer nature, the Covenant story is about the damming of the river between inner nature and outer nature with sealants provided by God. And it is more important for men to control their male urges since they are stronger than women, i.e. an out-of-control woman can be handled by a man with self-control, but even self-controlled wouldn’t be able to handle the fury of men who are out-of-control. (This is why Negroes are so dangerous. As they’re stronger and more aggressive than white folks, if they get out of control, there’s little whites can do about it, at least under a system of legal equality. The only true way to control out-of-control Negroes is to treat them like how Zionist Israelis treat Palestinians: with utter ruthlessness. But what is permitted to Jews isn’t permitted to white folks who are brainwashed with the cult of ‘white guilt’ by the Jewish elites.) Women can live in a moral order ruled by men with self-control OR women will have to put out to wild men in a wild world. Though women can be moral creatures just like men, if men no longer act civilized and orderly by controlling their drives and lusts, women will just go with the men who are most aggressive and violent. In a wild world, women feel safest with the toughest men, and nice guys mean nothing. In a wild world, only tougher wildness can beat other wilderness, and women will seek protection by putting out to the toughest alpha. Suppose a nice white guy and a nice white girl end up on an island with big tough muscular Negroes. It wouldn’t do the white woman any good to stick with her nice white guy because he’ll be attacked, insulted, and beaten by tougher Negroes. She will come to hold him in contempt and seek out the toughest Negro who will do with her as he pleases but also protect her from other nasty Negroes with designs on her too. (It’s like how Amy in Sam Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS attaches herself to the toughest thug out of both uncontrollable lust — she finds the white mandingo more sexually satisfying than her dorky Jewishy husband — and need for protection. When another thug attacks her at the end, she calls out for help to the alpha thug than to her own husband. She feels the alpha thug will be the only man tough enough to save her from the other thug. It’s like when Germany was overrun by Soviet troops, many German women sought refuge from mass rape by attaching themselves to especially powerful or high-ranking Soviet soldiers. Better to put out to top dog than all the dogs. As German men had been utterly defeated and pussified — reduced to watching helplessly as gangs of Soviet troops raped their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives — , German women found them useless — and German men, to this day, haven’t recovered their manhood, especially since their total sense of defeat has been compounded with the cult of eternal guilt. Today, the same thing is happening to white males. Pussified and wussified, they offer no protection to white women who, furthermore, have been brainwashed to hate their own fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons as ‘evil white males’. Of course, hideous Jews are behind this.) Whereas men can force order on weaker women who’ve gone wild, women cannot force order on stronger men who’ve gone wild. But then, there is a problem that comes with the triumph of law-and-order in the modern world. In a safe and orderly society where most people have little to fear, women have peace and freedom and no longer feel dependent on men for protection and provision, and therefore, women no longer value men so much and may even lose respect for them. Much of the modern West is very amenable to white women. Despite all the hysteria about ‘War on Women’ and ‘Rape Culture’, most white women have nothing to fear from white men, especially among the upper and middle classes. Among the lower orders of whites, there are, of course, some scumbags, though their thuggery and brutality come nowhere near those of Negroes.
Paradoxically, the success of law-and-order in the West(that made so many women feel so safe) may lead to greater outlawry and disorder in the future because too many white women take their safety and well-being for granted. Indeed, all this stuff about ‘War on Women’ and ‘Rape Culture’ — that blames white men for violence against women — is a kind of privileged fantasy, rather like the KKK hysteria at Oberlin College. If white women really were terrified, they would focus their attention on real problems, not fantasy problems. It’s like if there’s a tiger in the woods near your house, you fear the tiger, not some bogeyman that doesn’t exist except in your fantasy. It’s because most white women feel safe that they can yammer about the horror fantasy of ‘white male rapists’ prowling the streets and raping the coeds. But because most well-to-do white women feel so safe and can depend on the law-and-order, they can favor the PC fantasy of ‘evil white male’ over the social-racial reality of Negro thuggery. If today’s PC white women were sent back to the 19th century frontier town in the West, they’d lose their PC fantasy/innocence pretty fast. As there’s the very real possibility of American Indians killing their men, raping them, scalping them, and torturing them, white women would wake up to the nature of the conflict. But since the system of law-and-order created by white males have done such a wonderful job of protecting white women, white women have little reason to fear non-whites, especially since neo-law-and-order policies beginning in the Clinton Era made streets safer in privileged white areas where the elites and wanna-be-elites dwell. So, white women can embrace the status-mannerisms of PC, make all the correct noises about the need for ‘more diversity’, take for granted her social safety, and make believe that the biggest threat to her well-being comes from ‘privileged white males(especially of conservative bent)’. But if indeed elite colleges are overwhelmingly Liberal and pro-diversity and if the ‘rape culture’ happens to be a big problem on them, doesn’t it logically follow that the biggest sexual oppressors of women are Liberal males(who make up the bulk of the male student body at places like Harvard, Brown, Yale, Princeton, etc.) or males-of-diverse-colors? But then, don’t expect any kind of logic from PC tards. Anyway, because white women have come to feel so safe in the West, they take for granted the danger of increasing diversity in the West. They fail to understand that the law-and-order they enjoy was created and has been maintained by white males. As white male authority begins to erode further — especially under assault by Jewish, feminist, and anti-‘racist’ forces — , the system will be dominated more by Negroes, browns, yellows, Jews, Muslims, and feminists for whom the only evil male is the white male. White males are the roof over white females, but because white women feel so safe under it, they not only take it for granted but attack it as the oppressive lid over them. But as the holes in the protective roof increase, white women will find themselves hit with stronger winds and rains that come through the holes. It’s like in THE BIRDS where the birds tear a hole in the roof and come storming in. The sheer stupidity and vapidity of white female psychology can be seen in the figure of Joyce Carol Oates who, though safe and privileged thanks to an order created by white males, fantasizes about the noble Magic Negro that is just a figment of the Liberal imagination that is utterly divorced from reality.
Anyway, given the premise of Jewish spirituality and God, Jews had more of an impetus to think harder, longer, and deeper than most peoples, though, to be sure, a chicken-or-the-egg question arises to whether Jewish thinking is the product of Jewish religion or vice versa. Judaism also avoided the solipsism of Buddhism since Jews could have a conversation with God in the way that Buddhists never could since Buddhists didn’t believe in any god or gods. Buddhism was a religion of silence than conversation. Judaism was like a special phone line between Jews and God — like there’s special communications between American Jews and Israeli Jews that we dimwit goyim know nothing about as Jews monopolize the elite institutions — , whereas Buddhism cut all the lines as the only reality was said to be within oneself, but then, even one’s inner reality was an illusion. In Buddhism, one had to first detach oneself from the world, then detach oneself from one’s inner phantoms, then detach oneself from oneself, and then detach oneself from the detachment of oneself from oneself. To Buddhism, everything — outer reality and inner reality within the mind — are all illusions, and therefore even the phantoms of the mind(gods, ideas, and values) are illusions. In some ways, Buddhism was the most extreme form of anti-iolatry-ism ever formulated. Jews denounced idols as wicked for they were either representations of either false gods, defilement of the unique creations of God, or foolish attempts to represent God whose ‘image’ cannot be done justice by the mortal hands of man. Idols of false gods were blasphemous, but even idols representing humans and animals could be blasphemous as mockeries of the creative power of God. Even so, Jews, Christians, and Muslims came to believe in the sanctity — even in its fallen state — of the real world as the holy creation of God. In contrast, Buddhism said even the real world is just a false idol of the mind, even gods inside the mind are false idols of the mind, and even the mind itself is a false idol of the mind, and the only way out was to meditate to the point where one entered into oneself and erased all the illusions from within and then finally discovered the mind-machine that churned out these illusions and turned it off, whereby one would reach Nirvana and be reunited with the nothingness. Whatever spiritual or philosophical values Buddhism may have, it also had a tendency to foster solipsism. So, in Buddhism, there is really nothing to understand. Rather, one has to detach oneself from knowing, understanding, feeling, remembering, and etc. in order to be liberated from the processes of the mind. But this is difficult since, in order to ‘unknow’ everything, one had to rely on the knowledge presented by Buddha. It’s sort of like trying to dry oneself with water or wet oneself with fire. It’s like trying to enter into the dream world with full consciousness. To reach Nirvana, one must ‘unknow’ and let go of the mind, and yet, it takes a good deal of specialist knowledge and tremendous amount of mental discipline to reach such a state. It’s like thinking to unthink, feeling to unfeel.
But a greater contradiction(even of moral implications) in Buddhism is that, even as Buddha sought to free himself from fear-and-desire(derived of attachment of one’s ego to the ‘world’) that leads to all sorts of suffering, Buddhism only makes sense in relation to fear-and-desire. After all, one seeks Nirvana out of fear of the world. It is an escape from suffering, and surely, anyone who tries to escape from something is acting out of fear. Also, couldn’t one argue that there is a kind of DESIRE for Nirvana? Such may differ from the desire for the real world — real or illusory — , but it is a desire for something better that promises eternal peace and truth. So, even though Buddhism strives to go beyond emotions, it only makes sense in relation/reaction to emotions of fear and desire, i.e. fear of suffering in the real world and the desire for peace in the ‘other world’.
In contrast to the solipsism of Buddhism, a lively conversational tone and speculative mind-set developed within and around Judaism. While God couldn’t be seen and was thought to be infinite in His mystery and wisdom, there were shades and nuances of Him that could be glimpsed and accessed through prayer, meditation, speculation, imagination, a bit of lunacy, and etc. Also, humans are naturally prone to ‘talk with themselves’. If one does this openly in the presence of others, it’s time to go to the funny farm. But, there are things we make sense of by thinking alone, but in thinking alone, a kind of conversation begins with onself, with an imagined self, with people who aren’t around(and may not even be alive), with fictional characters(especially if one’s a writer who must always imbue his/her characters with inner psychologies), and/or with gods or God(if one happens to be religious or speculative in an agnostic way). Even when people ask questions before God and there’s no answer(which is always the case in terms of reality), the silence of such a moment is different from silences of other moments. It’s like a holy silence where, even without a sign from God, there’s the sense of God’s presence. It’s like the scene near the end in COOL HAND LUKE when Luke(Paul Newman)enters a church and talks to God. Luke may not even be a believer, and he doesn’t expect any answer from God and gets none. And he’s amused that the answer-to-his-prayer is the bumbling and childish Dragline(George Kennedy), but despite all that, the silence that follows his mock prayer to God is not without an element of holiness; and Luke must have been inspired by some kind of holiness — though he would have consciously denied it to the end — to have been willing to play the ‘cool messiah’ figure, even to the point of stumbling upon ‘martyrdom’. The moment of silence is also the only time in the movie when Luke feels something like inner peace; being a ‘hard case’, he can’t get along with other people, but if God is a ‘hard case’ too, maybe they do have something in common. At any rate, while Luke was half-joking in his divining of God, countless generations of Jews ruminated very deeply about the nature and intent of God. But then, Jews weren’t only thinking about God but about everything since God, as they defined it, was the source, master, and mover of everything in the universe. (Such a unity couldn’t exist in the polytheistic realm of paganism since different gods were masters of different things. So, Hephaestus was the god for ironworks, but you wouldn’t go to him for advice/blessing on love. Poseidon was the master of the seas but had no control over the sky and thunder. Dionysus made good wine but was the wrong god to consult for order and reason. Thus, divine masterfulness remained separate and distinct in the pagan world. In contrast, all the workings of the world fit together like all the components of a Swiss watch in the Jewish God who was the master of all.) The negative side of this mind-set has been that, even today, Jews have a habit of trying to explain everything through single all-purpose theories — be it Marxism, Trotskyism, Freudianism, Friedmanism, Randism, Krugmanism, Kristolism, etc. But the profound aspect of this mentality is evinced in the films of Stanley Kubrick that are, at once, single-minded(or single-obsessed) and all-encompassing. From beginning to end, nearly every element of a Kubrick film seems to be contained, even trapped, in the Kubrickian vision/universe, and yet, one would be hard-pressed to find another director whose films explored and delved into so many subjects and themes: space, humanity, history, power, psychology, sociology, individuality, eternity, war, peace, politics, spirituality. It’s no wonder that his films have garnered the most ‘religious’ or ‘cultist’ following in the film community; Kubrick fans pore over his films like Talmudic scholars pored over the Torah and Talmudic writings. Of course, such devotion can get out of hand — consider the lunatics of documentary ROOM 237 — , but there’s no question of Kubrick’s power to unlock new dimensions — be they of spatial, psychological, emotional, spiritual, historical, philosophical, and/or sexual nature. — of speculation and imagination in cinema. Not surprisingly, the artist who has commanded comparable devotion among fans and scholars is Bob Dylan. Partly, the fascination with Kubrick and Dylan owes something to their intellectualism — at least relative to most of their peers as cinema and Rock music have essentially been mediums of popular culture — , but that alone doesn’t explain their appeal. After all, there have been Rock musicians and film-makers who’ve been even more intellectual-ist but without stirring up the kind of obsession(of love and hate) around Kubrick and Dylan. Think of Peter Greenaway and Patti Smith, essentially a creation of critical conceits.
Rather, the hold that Dylan and Kubrick have had over the culture owes something to its ‘Biblical’ quality, and I want to be careful with that word. ‘Biblical’ often implies‘something of Biblical proportions’, like the grand epics of Cecil B. DeMille(though, to be sure, there are some scholars who take DeMille seriously as a true modern visionary in his own right). Another meaning of ‘Biblical’ suggests something old, cliched, obvious, heavy, witless, and middlebrow.
And yet, if we disassociate the Bible and Jewish intellectual tradition from the standard ‘Biblical’ tropes in our popular culture, what stands out is a sense of mystery, sublimity, strangeness, puzzlement, power-obsession, and an odd combination of morbid paranoia & boundless hope. (This meaning of ‘Biblical’ applies to the works of Franz Kafka.) In material terms, the Bible is a book with stories and laws, yet in mythic terms, it is a universe unto itself. The Bible itself is finite in terms of the number of pages from the first to the last page. But the way it was written, organized, and constructed transformed it into a work of endless possibilities and infinite meanings. There’s something about the Bible that is tenaciously un-decode-able even though no other book has come under as much scrutiny and analysis. Most sacred texts of pagan cultures have come to be regarded as myths, stories, fairytales, and fantasies. We still admire Greek and Germanic mythologies — and meanings are still found in them — , but we don’t treat them as holy text; and no amount of pretense on our part could render them holy again. They survive as stories. And despite all the admiration and interpretations inspired by the works of Shakespeare, the Bard’s plays are never going to objects of worship. But there’s something about the Bible that retains its sacred power — something sensed by other religionists and atheists as well — even though literal readings are rejected by modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And there is this dual quality in some of the works of Franz Kafka, Stanley Kubrick, and Bob Dylan as well. They are fiction that seem more than fiction. Their impact goes beyond what we usually expect from storytelling in words, song, or images; they strike a chord within us that is neither primarily intellect, primarily imaginative, primarily emotions, or primarily sensuality. Aldous Huxley was primarily an artist of the mind most famous for a genre known as ‘novel of ideas’. Even though he was a spiritual seeker of sorts, he was essentially a thinker, a rather dry one at that. As for the works of someone like J.R.R. Tolkien, they were primarily works of the imagination. Even though THE LORD OF THE RINGS universe — I’ve seen the movies but haven’t read the book — has countless fans for whom the novel is like a bible, its appeal is essentially escapist and fantastic. If it is a kind of bible of sorts, its power works at a great remove from our own world — the bible relevant to an alternative universe. To enter the Tolkien universe is to take leave of our own and happily lose ourselves in the heroic fantasies of larger-than-life characters, sorcerers, and monsters. In this sense, it is wholly different from the Bible that fuses the realm of God with the world of man. Bible brings the ‘supernatural’ into our lives. (Even if one were to pretend that THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a genuine sacred religious text, it would have little relevance to our lives and our world. However, even if one were to treat the Bible as nothing but fantasies written by ancient Hebrews, one would be struck by how much it says about reality all around and within us.) As in the story of THE TRIAL, the power of religion intrudes into our lives. Though there is an escapist element in religion, religion insists on putting us on trial in the world we live in under the eyes of God or gods. The music of Johannes Brahms or Paul McCartney and movies like THE GODFATHER are appreciated essentially through the emotions and senses. Though not without something-to-think-about, they operate well within familiar human emotions — sentiment, romance, beauty, bliss, sadness, etc. — that immediately appeal to us and are recognizable to us. And lots of dance music and blockbuster movies appeal mainly to sensuality or the ‘viscerality’ of the sight and sound. But there’s something more in the works of Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan, and this essence eludes the self-contained rules of rational intellect, imagination, human emotions, or impassioned senses. All four elements could be involved at once, or there is a profound sense of something more, something mysteriously intangible and yet enmeshed into every molecule of the tangible world. and it is this quality about them that can be said to be ‘biblical’. After all, the Bible isn’t just ABOUT something. It IS something. Similarly, there’s a quality about the works of Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan that is, at once, intellectual and ‘immersive’. (This could also be said of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, even of Ayn Rand and Susan Sontag. Marx, after all, wasn’t the originator of socialism and communism. He merely became the most famous radical-socialist and communist of all time. But why? Was it due to his ‘science’ of history? And yet, things that are thought to be true merely on the material or logical level don’t much interest people. Was it then due to his originality? But the new becomes old really fast, and novelty today is obscurity tomorrow. While Marx’s application of Hegelianism to economics did make for an original view of class struggle as the main mover of history, it was the prophetic and quasi-spiritual element of Marxism linking past history & contemporary conditions with future vision that gave it long-term life; in contrast, Thomas Piketty’s CAPITAL will be forgotten in no time due to its dry and tasteful academism. Some say John Maynard Keynes’ GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT, INTEREST, AND MONEY is one of the greatest book on economics, but its interest lies only in economics, whereas the greatness of Marx — for good or ill — was in having dissolved the walls among various disciplines and agendas. This quasi-prophetic-religious view of the future made Marxism outgrow the fading of the short-lived shock of novelty. Even the freshest fruit rots & withers fast, so there has to be a way to preserve the fruit, and religions work in this manner. Religion turns new vision into long-term value. Marx claimed to be all intellect and social morality, yet there was something more to his ideas that suggested illumination of truth via a higher source, a kind of god-of-history. Likewise, even though Sigmund Freud claimed to be a doctor and insisted on the scientific method in the studying and teaching of psychology, there was something more than mere academism in his theories and teachings that stirred the fascination of so many people. Indeed, it says something about the power of Freudianism that even those who disbelieve in it and attack it still find it so fascinating and worthy of their obsessions. It’s like even those who reject the material/historical veracity of everything in the Bible still find it immensely powerful and profound. So, there’s something about Jews that goes beyond rightness or wrongness. There’s something in Jewish thought that bridges high intellect, imagination, mystery, and sensuality all in one. Sontag spoke of the ‘erotics of art’, and there’s something like the ‘mysterics of thought’ or ‘occultics of intelligence’ in the Jew, even when they appear to thinking most rationally.[It is no wonder that Jews have such a love/hate thing with Richard Wagner and Martin Heidegger, giants of German culture whose power eludes the conventional formulas of the heart and mind. Wagner’s music sounds both transcendent and barbaric, and Heidegger’s philosophy plays on high intellect and dark irrationality. Jews dread most in gentiles what they recognize in themselves; Jews hate gentiles thinking, feeling, and acting Jewishy for their own interests. Though Jews say that, even after all these years, Hitler seems beyond our understanding, what they really fear is that Hitler’s feelings about Jews were, in fact, too easy to understand. Of course, Hitler went overboard, but even such extremism was a natural counter-Jewish reaction on his part. Hitler saw Jews as extreme personalities who had to be countered with equally extreme personalities. Paradoxically, Jews would have us believe Hitler is beyond understanding precisely because he is too easy to understand. Indeed, given the current Jewish behavior around the world, antisemitism should be the easiest thing for anyone to understand. Jews are a combination of high IQ, deviousness, nastiness, hideousness, hypocrisy, and tribal self-interest hiding behind universal rhetoric. Jews were no different in the 1920s and 1930s as they are today. Besides, Hitler’s hysterics were no nuttier than Jewish hysterics about Vladimir Putin being the ‘new Hitler’ and Russia being the ‘new Nazi Germany’. ADL and SPLC’s paranoias are even more looney tunes than Hitler’s. Despite all his exaggerations, at least Hitler was right about the nature of Jewish power, whereas ADL and SPLC endlessly slander white folks with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ that simply have no bearing on social reality. And notice how Zionists treat Palestinians as subhumans but then bitch about how Palestinians are the ones who are the verge of carrying out another Holocaust against Jews. Hitler’s extremism was hardly more deranged than Jewish extremism. What Hitler did understand about Jews is you have to fight fire with fire because Jews are relentless in their hostility, hatred, and nastiness. Hitler did it badly and evilly, but he was right that Jewish extremism can only be countered by extreme passion and measures. Jews are now planning the destruction of the white race in the US and EU. Jews have been the main force behind black-white interracism, the rise of Obama, the promotion of ‘white guilt’, massive illegal immigration, and the homo agenda. Indeed, the terms ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ were coined by Jews, and the Jewish media disseminated it far and wide through control of academia and media. Jews have been the main instigators of all the violence in the Middle East. It’s not difficult to understand Hitler’s antisemitism given the rottenness of Jews. So, Jews would rather have us believe that, gee whiz, Hitler’s ‘irrational’ hatreds defy all explanations. It’s just a devious way of Jews tricking us that they’ve been so harmless and wonderful through all of history that it’s impossible to understand why anyone would want to hate and harm Jews. But Jewish saintliness is a bogus premise. It’d be like the Japanese taking over our media & academia, fooling us that Japanese are the most blameless and harmless people that ever lived, and then wondering, gee whiz, how could anyone have carried out the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In truth, though the nukings were extreme[and possibly unjustifiable]acts, it wasn’t very difficult to understand why the US and much of the world came to loathe Japan in the 30s and the 40s. It was because the Japanese military was acting like monsters and the Japanese public mindlessly cheered on the lunatic military ventures. It’s a false premise that Jews have been wonderful people through the ages. They’ve been hideous a**holes though history just like everyone else. But they were more dangerous than most other peoples because Jews wormed into other societies and subverted the unities, cultures, and values of other peoples in order to weasel themselves to the top and then rule over goyim as if they’re cattle. Look what’s happened to US and UK, and who can deny this? Also, Jewish nastiness is different from the nastiness of, say the Anglos. Anglos and Anglo-Americans can be very nasty. Anglos in the 19th century drummed up a lot of nonsensical hateful propaganda about Russia, especially around the time of the Crimean War. And British propaganda against Germany during WWI was as demented and hateful as some Nazi propaganda later{perhaps, Anglo-Brits and Jews sort of saw eye-to-eye on
some things since both were ‘small peoples’ — small island nation and small tribal race — with ambitions to rule the world, and as such, they were wary of bigger land powers of Blood-and-Soil; Anglo-Brit was essentially Sea-and-Sail and Jewish power was Money-and-Manipulation.}Anglo-Americans made up a lot of foul & phony stories about the Spanish as excuse to start a war against the Spanish Empire and steal Cuba and the Philippines. Even so, Anglo/American nastiness is tactical and political. It’s not deep. Indeed, when the dust settles, Anglos and Anglo-Americans like to bury the hatchet and get along with other folks. US beat Japan in WWII, and both nations get along. Communist Vietnam beat US, but again, no hard feelings. But Jewish hatreds and resentments run deep. A Jew is like a psychotic elephant that never forgets whom he/she hates. So, even though Jews seem to make new friends, there’s an undercurrent of hatred running deep inside. Jews still hate, hate, and hate Christians. Jews still hate, hate, and hate Wasps and seethe about the Golfocaust: Wasp exclusion of rich Jews from country clubs. Indeed, Jewish hatred over minor slights is far more extreme than gentile hatreds over major tragedies. Russians and Poles hate Germans less for what happened in WWII than Jews hate Wasps for Golfocaust. If we do wrong to Jews just a little, they act like they’re God who’s been disrespected by God. It’s like Pauline Kael used to shit on everyone, but if anyone shat on her, she almost never forgave. Indeed, if Jews do us wrong and we get justifiably respond angrily, Jews act as if the blame should be on us. Consider how so many Jews were part of the radical left in the 40s/50s and acted as spies and agents for the USSR. You’d think Jews would feel apologetic over this, but instead, Jews pretend as if those Jewish traitors were well-meaning albeit misguided saints while the anti-communist crusade — aka ‘Red Scare’ — was a bundle of irrational paranoias, fears, and hatreds led by supposedly evil men like Joseph McCarthy. Indeed, Japanese-Americans have less bitter feelings about the ‘Internment’ — though it was far more extreme and unwarranted — than Jewish-Americans do about the anti-communist era despite the fact that many Jews did participate in anti-American acts at the behest of the worldwide communist conspiracy emanating from Moscow.]This is why many goyim don’t really get Jews. When an high IQ-and-neurotic Jew[most high-IQ Jews seem to be neurotic]puts forth an idea, stiff-and-straight goyim think they will understand the Jew — and win the respect of the Jew — if they understand and/or agree with the Jew’s professed ideas, but the real vanity, anxiety, pride, and passion of the Jew lies hidden in a deeper place. Just like there’s more to God than what He says, there’s more to high-IQ-and-neurotic Jews than what they say or write. This is why, deep down inside, Ayn Rand had little respect for those who agreed with her on everything she wrote and said. They ‘got’ her ideas, but they didn’t get the deeper source from which those ideas emanated; of course, Rand didn’t want this part of her to be understood, any more than God would want us to know His true character and agenda. This is why Bob Dylan felt such contempt for the earnest fans who carefully listened to and considered every word of his lyrics without having a clue as to the deeper streams of Dylan’s thoughts and feelings. The fascination with Leo Strauss[known fairly or unfairly as the godfather of Neocons]has less to do with the illumination of ideas than with the intimation of a soul hidden in those ideas. Children trust the mask/face, but deeper truth lies hidden behind it. It’s like the rich powerful folks in EYES WIDE SHUT hide behind masks. Their masks are not their true selves. In a way, what drove Dylan nearly over the edge in mid-60s was his crisis with his mask/persona that was partly of his own making and partly imposed on him by either naivete of his fans or the marketing ploy of the media. Even when he’d dutifully played along with the Folk Movement, it was obvious he was as much a jester and ‘cat’ as Mr. Howdy-Doody earnestly singing about Civil Rights. But not many people seemed to be getting the joke. Of course, part of the joke was in the satisfaction of the people not getting it, but messing with earnest dummies got boring pretty fast. In the D.A. Pennebaker film DON’T LOOK BACK, the concert full of well-meaning Dylan fans earnestly clinging to his every utterance is a rather pitiful sight; even when they laugh at some of Dylan’s jokes, it’s so much on cue, as if even their laughter has to be permitted. Dylan naturally got bored with this, especially as the music scene was changing so fast. So, Dylan got bolder & nastier and altered his persona to be a folk-rocker, a sort of a ‘bad boy’. But the media still refused to get the joke and chased him around for his advice for young people as the ‘spokesman of his generation’. But then, even when media did get the joke and seemed to be playing along, it didn’t satisfy Dylan since what was the point of a joke if even the ‘bourgeois’ squares in the media got it? And the art of the sneer only goes so far. It lacks depth and meaning. BLONDE ON BLONDE is a landmark in the history of music because it, like Jean Sibelius’ Symphony No. 5, dives many fathoms below the surface of expression and manages to complete the feat of retrieving and dredging up all sorts of sunken treasures[along with some junk and skeletons.] It works in the nature of ‘true confession’, a feat rarely achievable in the arts for its paradoxical nature. After all, ‘to confess’ means to pour something forth onto the surface. Shallow confessions are easy enough for all of us. We only need to admit whatever is bothering our conscience. A child who spilt milk knows he or she did something wrong. A man who stole money knows he broke the rules. It may be difficult to confess out of fear or shame, but the child or thief knows exactly what the problem is and what needs to be confessed. But true confession requires one to dig deeper and dredge up even stuff one has repressed over the years and keeps buried in the subconscious. It’s sort of like Freudian psychoanalysis. It’s like the character in THE PRINCE OF THE CITY who initially thinks he has cleansed his soul by confessing three transgressions he committed. But such superficiality won’t do. If he’s to truly confess his sins and cleanse his soul, he has to go way deeper, untangle all the wires & ropes, and drag the sunken ship from the bottom of the sea. In doing so, he has to betray his buddies and himself, but only by such betrayal can he become loyal to his true moral self. By having been ‘true’ to his buddies and the ‘tribal’ order of the police, he’s betrayed his own soul. It’s like what Michael Corleone says to the Pope in THE GODFATHER PART III: "I betrayed my wife. I betrayed myself. I've killed men, and I ordered men to be killed. No, it's useless. I killed... I ordered the death of my brother; he injured me. I killed my mother's son. I killed my father's son." In having been so true and loyal to his calling as a mafia boss and to his ‘family’ business, he’s betrayed himself. BLONDE ON BLONDE is a ‘true confessional’ work in this vein. It’s Dylan diving deep into murky zones of his psyche, going to places where the bodies are buried. It goes beyond the semi-confessional tone of HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED that tends to be accusatory than self-revelatory. Songs like "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Ballad of a Thin Man" confessed the contempt that Dylan that felt for other people. But BLONDE ON BLONDE is as self-exploratory as accusatory; and "Visions of Johanna" dives deeper than any Rock song but still manages to drag the sunken material to the surface. Dylan nor anyone else in Rock ever again achieved anything comparable. Anyway, though Freud claimed to be a scientist and nothing but, the power of his books derived from a combination of facets that were, at once, rational, religious, imaginative, and sensual in nature, thus ‘Biblical’.) Intellectual stuff can engage but maintains an emotional distance and ‘objective’ detachment between itself and the person thinking about it; it’s a meeting of the minds, not of souls. In contrast, when something calls for immersion as well as intellect, the seemingly alert mind haplessly(and even unawares) sinks and dissolves into another dimension — like the character in the liquid ‘milk-sperm-pool’ bed in ERASERHEAD or the male victims in the black ‘tar-pit’ floor in UNDER THE SKIN. The victims of such psycho-social phenomenon are chewed, digested, and shat out in Dylan’s assiduously acidic and biliously mocking "Ballad of a Thin Man", a song about a man-of-the-mind who is, however, clueless as to what’s really happening around and within him: "You've been with the professors/And they've all liked your looks/With great lawyers you have/Discussed lepers and crooks/You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books/You're very well read/It's well known/But something is happening here/And you don't know what it is/Do you, Mister Jones ?" Mr Jones is higher on the food-chain for Dylan’s voracious proto-hipster enzymes than the female precursor in "It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue": "The lover who just walked out your door/Has taken all his blankets from the floor/The carpet, too, is moving under you/It’s all over now, Baby Blue." Of course, the joke is on us as well as on Mr. Jones because we too are ‘intellectually’ engaged with trying to make sense of the song when, in fact, its real power owes to its incantatory power to dissolve the floor plan between the dry land of consciousness and the dream-pool of the subconscious. Whereas Western gentiles tend to think in terms of the dichotomy between sense and nonsense, between reality and fantasy, Jewish thought can be like lucid dreaming: at once intensely intellectual about the irrational and intensely impassioned about matters of logic; perhaps this habit of mind owes to having thought for so long so intellectually about something so unreal, i.e. God, who can never be figured out. (Indeed, this is where Judaism is different from Christianity and Islam. We’ve heard so many times that religion is a matter of ‘faith’ as opposed to reason that is a matter of logic. But if most Christians and Muslims were content to embrace their religions as matters of faith, Judaism has been less about faith in God as an intellectual effort to understand God to the best of Jew-man’s possibility, and indeed, it was this very effort that even led to the emergence of Christianity in the first place. The early Jewish Christians who came up with a heretical form of Judaism — what Christianity was in the beginning — were ‘intellectually’ trying to figure out the deeper truth of God. They were seekers rather than merely believers, which were what most gentile Christians have been through the ages.) Intellectually, we’d like to think we are in on the joke as participants tearing apart and mocking Mr. Jones, a respectable and rational member of the bourgeoisie who has read many books and considers himself so reasonable but, in truth, lacks the key to the dark truth of how things really are. (I suspect "The Ballad of a Thin Man" is playing inside the minds of Jews whenever they interact with gentiles who think they’re so smart and free. On the surface, Jews pretend to speak rationally and sensibly about important issues of the day with non-Jews of impeccable credentials that have earned them slots in high positions. Jews control the academia and think tanks, and being admitted to such spheres makes elite goyim feel privileged to be part of a community devoted to intelligent debate and discussion. As Jews frame the issues in terms of ‘human rights’, ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘world peace’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘free enterprise’, the gentile participants are likely to think they’re all working for high principles and progress. But deep down inside, of course Jews are really out for Jewish power and only using gentiles who submit to Jewish power either out of craven fear, genuine naivete, or clueless idiocy. I’m sure the likes of John McCain and Sarah Palin really think they’re discussing issues of ‘great importance’ when they mull over foreign policy issues with Jews, when, in fact, Jews are merely using them as shabbos goyim to further Jewish interests. One part of the Jew is happy to keep things as they are since it’s better for Jewish power and privilege to keep the goyim clueless. But another part of the Jew must be frustrated with having to keep a straight face in front of all these dumb, stupid, and moronic goyim who fall for this globo-Zionist-Jewish-supremacist bullshit. And this side of the sneering Jew that wants to blurt out, "You goyim are soooo dumb" can be seen or heard in a film like eXistenz by David Cronenberg or "The Ballad of a Thin Man" by Bob Dylan. Or the scene in Mel Brooks’ SPACEBALLS where the blonde goy hero Lonestar falls for the oldest trick in the book in his duel with Dark Helmet. Helmet might as well replace ‘Jew’ for ‘evil’ and ‘gentile’ for ‘good’ when he says, "Now you see evil will always triumph because good is dumb." Though Brother Nathanael relentlessly attacks Jews, I suspect part of his shtick is deriving joy from demonstrating how dumb goy suckers are.) And yet, our cerebral/interpretative interaction with Dylan’s song implicates us in the foolishness too for we are trying to make sense of a song that warns us against trying to make too much sense of things because most things are, after all, only masks that hide the true face of power(of both oppressive and subversive nature, i.e. those with power[privileged elites]and those who want power[hungry upstarts]bend truth for the sake of power than use power for the sake of truth; those favoring truth as end goal will lose to those who favor power as end goal). Or take a song like "Visions of Johanna", a song that both invites and defies analysis. Its complexity calls for interpretation but its power is beyond interpretation. To experience its full power, one has to surrender to it as one does to a dream, as with the works of Kafka. It both awakens and ‘sleepens’ the mind.
.jpg) |
| Bob Dylan - BLONDE ON BLONDE |
Whatever might have been great about Jews, it hadn’t been rendered obviously visible like the representations in Greek and Roman art that depicted figures of great beauty, strength, heroism, grace, and etc. As the old Jewish lady demanded "Where’s the beef?" in the Wendy’s commercial, Hitler wanted to know "Where’s the Beauty?" in Jewish history and culture? He didn’t see any. Likewise, even today, when some folks in the Alternative Right look at modern art, they wonder what was the point of making art that failed to elevate and honor what is beautiful and noble. While many works of modern art are indeed irredeemably ugly, stupid, and not worth anyone’s time, the modernist sensibility did broaden the possibilities of creativity and made us more aware of the intricate links between the great and the ungreat, between the noble and the ignoble, between the high and the low, between the ugly and the beautiful. It’s like if you see a burning pile of buffalo chips, maybe you shouldn’t focus only on the holy-seeming radiance of the flame but also remind yourself that’s it’s cow shit on fire. It’s like even the most beautiful-seeming person on the outside is also a walking bag of shit on the inside. (Imagine someone walking around carrying a bag of shit in his or her hand wherever he or she goes. We would find it gross, but aren’t we all carrying a bag of shit inside of us? Much of our insides are long distended tubes and bags of shit, after all. If Classical Art was limited in some way, it concentrated on the outer manifestations of beauty at the expense of other facets of reality. But, to be sure, the Greeks and Romans had many stories of macabre nature that reminded people of the fuller range of people, animals, and the world. Besides, theirs was a time and place when most people witnessed the slaughter of animals in the streets and in festivals. They could not get away from the foul side of reality. One interesting thing about the Right is that a good many rightists happen to be horror movie aficionados, which I’ve always found a bit disturbing because I hate most horror — though a handful fascinate me to no end. Because of the extreme nature of horror, it has to be very good or otherwise, it is offensive, whereas a bad drama is still just a drama. Anyway, why would people on the Right, who are so harsh on the Jews for their role in ‘ugly’ Modern Art, be so enamored of horror, much of which is way gorier, uglier, and grosser than any work of Modern Art? Maybe, it’s because Rightists see horror as more honest: it’s low culture with low thrills. In contrast, Modern Art offends them because their innate sense of hierarchy expects something nobler and finer in the sphere of ‘high art’. Or maybe some on the Right hate the ugliness of Modern Art because it reflects the ugliness of their own fears, phobias, paranoias, and anxieties. Indeed, it’s ironic that Hitler had one of the grubbiest souls of any modern leader, but he insisted on such clean-looking art. Maybe because his own soul was so dirty, he tried to compensate by washing culture with soap.) You can see this in the works of Marc Chagall that are rustic and ‘primitive’ but also incandescent and dreamlike. In ANDREI RUBLEV, we are shown how all the lowly, putrid, dirty, and sodden elements of medieval Russia were the raw material with which Rublev created his great masterpieces. Didn’t God Himself create man out of mud and clay? After all, alchemy is about turning lead into gold, and while alchemy isn’t real, it’s true enough that diamonds are made from coal, and pearls are the products of diseased oysters. If Tarkovsky had approached the subject in the traditionalist mode, his vision of Rublev would have been more idealized and iconic, like Carol Reed’s treatment of Michelangelo in THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY, a movie about the convergence of the higher powers of God, genius, and politics as if there’s no room for nothing else; it’s based on the assumption that greatness is made of greatness when, in fact, greatness is the accumulation of all the things and factors that, on their own, aren’t great. AGONY AND THE ECSTACY was made in the manner of ‘elephant art’, whereas ANDREI RUBLEV makes us aware of all the termites that went into the creation of a mound that is as big or bigger than any elephant. In ANDREI RUBLEV, the sources of inspiration seem broader, deeper, more varied, and more unpredictable. In the end, an overall design and pattern emerges but with a fuller measure of how the grandest things are interconnected with the littlest things. In that, ANDREI RUBLEV is a profoundly a modern work even though it is steeped in images, details, symbols, and moods of a pre-modern world and harbors an anti-modern moral-spiritual sensibility. (It is ironic that one of the greatest conservative artists was the product of communist Russia, and it’s even more ironic that some of the most ardent defenders of Tarkovsky during his troubles with Soviet authorities were Western leftist artists and critics; Western conservatives all but ignored him, but then, most Conservatives never had any use for art except in the most status-conscious sense, as with the trite and shallow William F. Buckley who was all air and no substance. When all is said and done, there will always be people who recognize and admire superiority in talent. Ideology is a midget compared to genius, which may have been why Hannah Arendt apologized for Martin Heidegger and why Allen Ginsberg sought out Ezra Pound and wept alongside him in respect and appreciation. The failure of the Right to produce sufficient number of artists of first rank or to inspire people of talent to gravitate toward the Right since the end of WWII proved to be huge disadvantage.) Dylan’s small-town roots in Hibbing Minnesota and his arrival in New York had a dualistic impact on his artistic sensibility. In some ways, going from Hibbing to New York was like a tribal Jew in the outskirts of civilization going to Rome, the gentile capital of the world. And yet, already by the early 1960s, New York was like a Jewish Mecca, so in a way, it was like Dylan the rural hick was going to a Jewish cosmopolis. Thus, he felt both an identification with and opposition against the Jew, especially as most NY Jew who ran the music industry initially gave him short shrift and especially as his style of folk music wasn’t what they were looking for. There were basically two kinds of practitioners of folk music: the genuine folks in rural and small-town communities who played traditional music, but then, they mostly played it in their own communities amongst their own kind; most of them didn’t go to New York to ‘make it’ and indeed even harbored distrust of city folks. The other kind of practitioner of folk music was like the guy in the Coen Brothers’ INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS; they were essentially part of the urban intellectual and/or bohemian café culture milieu: sophisticates pretending to be ‘authentic’, ideologically committed, or anti-commercial. They were city slickers singing ‘genuine’ music because it seemed ‘different’, ‘rad’, ‘authentic’, or ‘committed’ at the time. Some were very good, but few felt a deep and genuine connection to the music, and even those who did were more academic and ethnographic than soulful and heartfelt in their attitude toward the music. Dylan was neither the genuine traditionalist of some rural community nor the lifelong city-slicker whose every instinct was urban, urban, and urban from cradle-to-grave. He’d seen and lived enough of rural/small town America during his formative years to feel it in its bones, but he was too intelligent/curious — too Jewish/neurotic — not to be drawn to the allure and thrills of big city life and its opportunities. Also, there was a difference between small-town Jewish life and urban Jewish life. Though Hibbing wasn’t just some backwoods town — it had developed its own progressive credentials and should never be mistaken with hillbilly Appalachia, especially as the kinds of white folks who settled much of Minnesota had Germanic/Scandinavian roots with attitudes and habits far more geared toward unity, organization, and discipline than found among the violent, lazy, and uncouth Scotch-Irish who settled the Appalachia and stirred up endless trouble in Hatcoys-and-McFields fashion, though them folks were sort of okay in COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER — , it wasn’t known for its night-life either, and so, the Jewish community there tended to be more traditionalist, communal, and insular than Jews in New York who were tirelessly into all sorts of individualist, eccentric, or radical antics. Dylan was born to be a city slicker — like Bella was born to a vampire — , but the influence of the Jewish community of his youth and the small town culture in Hibbing had been sufficient to make him somewhat wary of the conceits of city folks.(The Coen Brothers, also having grown up in Minnesota, share some of the ambiguities of Dylan’s relation to rural folks, city life, and Jews. O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU is like their BASEMENT TAPES. BIG LEBOWSKI is like their HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is like their FREEWHEELIN’ BOB DYLAN. MAN WHO WASN’T THERE is like their JOHN WESLEY HARDING. They haven’t made anything yet that comes anywhere near BLONDE ON BLONDE.) Though we generally think of city folks as being smart & sharp and small town folks as being dim & gullible(think of Ratso vs Joe Buck), Dylan felt smarter & sharper than lifelong city folks since he had a double-perspective on their world. Though it may well be true that city folks are indeed more knowledgeable and skeptical about things in general, their conceit of being so individualistic, independent, urbane, intellectual, progressive, radical, and etc. can become foster its own kind of conceited naivete. It’s like those who think they are so smart become blind to their own stupidity. Consider the hipster culture that is so pervasive in so many cities; all those poseurs think they are so hip and cutting-edge, but most are naive simpleton brats. In truth, whether one grows up in a city or small town, most people are idiots and can only affect at being smart and knowledgeable. And as smart people usually congregate with other smart people with similar attitudes, they tend to become insular, conceited, and mutually reinforcing in their view that the world could be understood and changed based on their supposedly superior social theories(that, more often than not, have little to do with real people or the real world). So, naturally, even though the New York Folk Scene was filled with people who thought they were so smart, creative, progressive, and etc, most were just conforming to bohemian/leftist standards. They failed to see their own conformism because they were conforming to what was labeled as ‘non-conformist’ and ‘anti-establishment’. It’s like people who control colleges think they are such free-and-intelligent scholars and seekers of truth even though many of them are brain-dead pod people chanting the same mantra. As long as they hold to the conceit of the academia as a haven of ‘free thought’ and ‘cutting-edge progress’, they remain blind to their own phoniness. So, paradoxically, Dylan was even more slicker than the city slickers in his cynicism because he could see through their phoniness with a perspective instilled in another part of the country. Also, unlike the kind of simple-minded rubes who went to New York to seek approval and validation from supposedly superior city folks, Dylan felt, immediately upon arrival, than he was smarter and more perceptive than most New Yorkers who’d spent their entire lives there with all the arts, culture, theater, libraries, book stores, cafés, and museums. It’s instructive that Dylan mentions in CHRONICLES of how much he learned from reading books in the basement of someone he knew. Before there was BASEMENT TAPES, there was basement books. He got a great deal out of them because he read them with passion and insight. One of the pitfalls of city life or college life is that the impression of being surrounded by venues and institutions devoted to intelligent and creative things makes people feel they are absorbing culture, knowledge, and smartness as if by osmosis. It’s like someone who spends a lot of time in a big library may feel erudite and educated even though he hardly read anything there. In contrast, even though Dylan didn’t attend no fancy college, he learned a hell of a lot more from books in that basement than many people did in fancy colleges or big cities. People in cities like New York and San Francisco think they are so smart, knowledgeable, and ahead-of-the-curve since they are surrounded all around all the time by things-associated-with-intelligence, but such self-regard may actually make them lax and complacent in their experience of culture since they conflate their proximity to culture with the promise of culture. A person in a basement who carefully and passionately reads his limited collection of books will know more than someone in some big library in some fancy college who reads much less or reads in the spirit of privileged laxity — reading more in appreciation of the self for being party to a club that reads such things than reading independently in appreciation of the work for the sake of personal inspiration. After all, this is why a lot of Jews who attended CUNY outperformed Wasps who attended Harvard and Yale in the 50s. One really wonders what Bill Buckley’s purpose at Yale was except to sneer at everyone else and put on fancy airs. Even when he read books or engaged in art, it was to elevate himself and his kind as the sort who knew and cared about ‘high culture’. They wore culture like a robe than pored through the needlework for deeper understanding or possibilities of inspiration. It’s no wonder that even among conservatives who are devoted to ‘serious culture’, what is generally lacking is the kind of intellectual or creative engagement that allows for new interpretations and possibilities. Terry Teachout and Roger Kimball are typical Conservative intellectuals of culture whose main agenda seems to be reminding us that great culture is great culture. We know that already. In contrast, Jews who hadn’t been admitted to the Ivies attended less prestigious schools but poured far intenser effort into their studies and readings, and many of them would have a bigger impact on the America in the coming years than the Wasp graduates of Ivy League schools who, more often than not, rested on their laurels when it came to their presumed superiority over rest of the population.
Anyway, though Dylan songs(especially during his ‘surreal’ proto-psychedelic period) weren’t as accessible as those of the Beatles or the Stones, the listeners could still FEEL something — even foreign Dylan fans who didn’t know a word of English felt the angst & anxiety, heard the snarl and growl — , an experience that often wasn’t the case with ‘serious’ Modern music that made little to the ‘intellectually uninitiated’. If there is a kind of emotion in ‘serious modern music’, it is the emotion of intellectual pique; it’s rather like squeezing tears out of stones or trying to drink a block of ice. And yet, the kind of emotions(undeniably powerful as they were) one encountered in Dylan’s music wasn’t easily discernible or decipherable. A Dylan love song wasn’t just a matter of "I love you" or "you are beautiful" or I’m sad and lonely because you don’t love me." (Even most eccentrics and oddballs of Rock — everyone from Roy Orbison to Rick Ocasek of The Cars — expressed a narrow range of emotions more or less familiar to most listeners. "Only the Lonely" and "I’m Not the One" are either neurotic or oblique, but easily understood. They serve up the kind of emotions that puts one at ease in a consistency of mood. They are mono-tonal despite the element of anxiety or despair.) Rather, songs like "Just Like a Woman" and "I Want You" — and of course, "Sad-eyed Lady of the Lowlands", flawed as it is like a hopelessly deflating hot air balloon herculeanly fired up to remain afloat — lead us into strange terrain where various strains & shades of thoughts & emotions are knotted into ‘a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma’. (Dylan’s music was like early modern art — before the advent of pure abstraction and conceptualism — where things seemed familiar enough and yet ‘different’ enough to disturb and unbalance one’s footing in the aesthetic, emotional, and cultural experience. There was beauty melting into ugliness, sentiment shadowed by fear, transcendence clouded with doubt, purity corrupted by loathing. In a sense, "Vision of Johanna" is comparable to the interior paintings of Vincent van Gogh. Things are not exactly what they seem or what they should be in accordance to conventional expectations. After all, even very fresh things can be conventional in the sense they feel so right. When Beatles exploded on the scene, no one had heard music like that, and yet "it feels so right, yeah, hold me tight, you know I’m the only one..." And the Stones’ "Satisfaction" was one of the most original songs ever, but it too had immediate worldwide appeal. People must have felt the same way when they tasted ice cream or drank Coca-Cola for the first time: fresh and new but totally right and righteous. In contrast, even though the works of Van Gogh have become famous all around the world, there’s still something about them that unbalances and troubles us. And no matter how many times one listens to BLONDE ON BLONDE — or reads Kafka — , there are always pieces that either don’t fit or fit differently in revisiting. In a way, Jews felt at home with Modernism since Modernism, unlike traditionalism, was a movement in exile from its own culture. Traditional art could be sometimes be bold and original, but they were a continuation and furtherance of the images, emotions, visions, and values that had met approval of the culture-at-large, from top to bottom. An cultured nobleman and an ignorant peasant could both marvel at a painting of Jesus or some other high-minded themes. Anyone from highborn aristocrat to lowborn prole who tipped his hat & said "aye guv’nor" could appreciate an English Landscape Painting. However extraordinary and special the talent of the traditional artist may have been, he worked within the range of what were deemed as worthy and noble by the community as a whole. Modernism, in contrast, increasingly went out of its way to drive a wedge between itself and the culture that gave it birth. It underwent an auto-bastardization process. Initially, the proto-artists felt anxiety about being rejected and misunderstood, but in time, when modernism became a full-blown movement, artists were only too happy to be misunderstood and stir up outrage in the respectable bourgeoisie community, though to be sure, it was elements of the bourgeoisie who were the main patrons of Modernism. Modernist works weren’t easily digestible since they were rarely about a single emotion or theme. It’s like Cubism offers multiple perspectives that create an anxiety-of-perception. Jews felt at home with Modernism because they looked different from European gentiles, because their tradition was at odds with gentile Christian tradition, and because they had different personalities. Though some Jews went out of their way to assimilate and become just like goyim, it never seemed quite right since, no matter how much the Jew tried to be like the goy, he felt different inside; it became even more complicated when some goyim seemed to prefer emulating the Jews, which was especially true in the Café Society of Vienna where eccentric Jews were setting the new cultural standards that were admired and emulated by gentiles who wanted an entry into new culture of art, wit, and intellect; oddly enough, one of things that upset Adolf Hitler was he felt like Joseph K. in the new Jewish-dominated Vienna that seemed to have no place for someone of traditionalist or classical tastes; Hitler felt Jews controlled the Castle, and his own kind wouldn’t be allowed in a million years even though Austria had been a Germanic nation for as long as it had existed. Anyway, it’s like no matter how much Woody Allen or Dustin Hoffman might try to be like Robert Redford or Dan Quayle, he is gonna feel different inside because Jews simply have different personalities. And no matter how much Jews tried to look goyim, they still had sloped foreheads, hooked noses, and rubbery lips; and so, it’d only be a parody of goy looks. Then, it’s no wonder that Jews welcomed Modernism more than any other people did. Not that Modernism was about ease and comfort. If anything, it was about disturbance and fracture. Yet, paradoxically, Jews felt more at ease with unease since, no matter how hard they tried, they simply couldn’t feel an organic connection with traditional goy society. Imagine if Susan Sontag and Pauline Kael were to pretend to being nice Wasp ladies of the Better-Homes-and-Garden variety; they’d feel like the feminists of STEPFORD WIVES. They could fake it but never would be the real thing, just like Woody Allen’s Zelig can imitate just about everything without really being it. It’s like a nomad feels at home on the road. Since modern Jews were no longer nomads in the old sense — as many of them found permanent homes in goy nations — , they became nomads of the soul, and modernism seemed more welcoming to them since the essence of Jewishness came to be defined as being at-odds-with-the-norm since Jews had lived in non-Jewish lands defined with non-Jewish norms for so long. It’s no wonder that modern Jews feel such an affinity with Homos as well, and of course, homos played a key role in modernism as well.) Dylan was no Stalin, but he was worthy of a cult because his music had the power to cast a spell on listeners who felt the power of his music but couldn’t really understand the full nature of that power. Dylan was no god, but his music had an element of mystery found in all religions. And this was true also of Kubrick and, of course, Franz Kafka. Dylan later faltered by literally becoming a religious rocker and singing in the name of God, when, in fact, what had been most fascinatingly ‘spiritual’ about his best works was the element of grappling with creative mysteries in the manner that Jacob wrestled with God. You don’t have to be religious in order to be ‘religious-eous’, just like you don’t have to be political(in the partisan sense) to know about the complexities of power. In some ways, the likes of Kubrick, Kafka, and Dylan, in their religious-eous-ness, were more ‘spiritual’ than are the religiously faithful since the latter merely need to cling to dogma and believe/do as they’ ve been told, whereas the ‘religious-eous-ists’ must pursue and discover their own ‘spiritual’ meanings. What does it mean to be ‘religious-eous’? Is it merely about dabbling in the magical, supernatural, or outlandish? No, for if that were the case, anyone working in horror, science fiction, or fantasy would be religious-eous — or in music for that matter as all forms of music are shamanistic to an extent. The essence of religion and mythology isn’t only about their wonderment, fascination, fear, and sense of awe in relation to the magical or supernatural but in their concentrated and meditative will to make sense out of that which that refuses yield any sense. It’s requires the patience of passion, which is difficult. It is also about the synthesis of focus and meditativeness. Focus implies an active rational direction of the mind upon a theme or problem, whereas meditation implies a passive detachment of the mind from distractions of facts in order to gain unity with totality of the cosmos. For all practical purposes, they are opposites, which is why it takes an especially great artist to hold and balance both modes, as indeed Kubrick achieved in films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, which is both the most scientific and the most spiritual of sci-fi films, and THE SHINING, which is both highly intellectual and highly supernatural. This is why something that is purely fantastic cannot be religious-eous. One merely need to surrender to the spectacle with the wonderment of a child. To be religious-eous, one must ‘put away childish things’ and explore the ‘other world’ to illuminate this world. And yet, the great contradiction is that religious-eous-ness tries to be adult with something rooted in the childhood of human history, a mythical time when humans believed in magic in the most literal(or ‘illteral’) sense.
And there is this problem in art too. Art isn’t real; it’s about make-believe, and as such, there’s something childlike — if not childish – about art. Though respectably labeled as ‘Art’ — with all its connotations of high-mindedness and seriousness — , art is really a fairytale for adults. Should adults dabble in fairytales? It’s like golf courses and such are really playgrounds for adults. But adults want to differentiate themselves from children and tell themselves that they’ve put away ‘childish things’. So, they call their own games and toys ‘recreation’, ‘sporting equipment’, ‘leisure’, ‘arts’, ‘culture’, and etc. We cannot shake off the enchanting power of the arts, and in this sense, we are no different from children who are transported to another world through fairytales. Still, when arts or culture merely enchants or enthralls us, it’s not necessarily religious-eous. They are merely magical. When arts or culture provokes us to think, it still isn’t necessarily religious-eous. But when it presents a universe of meanings that opens our imaginations and makes us mindful of the vastness of mysteries beyond rational meanings, then we are in the realm of religious-eous. But most religious people don’t go very far spiritually and intellectually because they’re confident in the blind faith of dogma or fashion(as with the Mainline church idiots who’ve taken up ‘gay marriage’ like a herd of lemmings). If you have faithfully believe in the truth of what you’ve been taught, what need is there for thought? But an artist or seeker in the religious-eous mode cannot rely on received dogma. He is interested in the deeper meanings beyond the norms of values and sanctity. (Though some people go out of their way to profane the norms of sanctity in a given social order, even those who try to be pure and sacred could be regarded as profane because any new vision is bound to upset the orthodoxy of what has been established as pure and sacred. Jesus wasn’t trying to be profane but was regarded as such by many Jews. Martin Luther was a reformer who saw himself as combating the profane corruption of the Catholic Church, but the Church accused him of heresy and profanity. In the case of homos, their movement began in the passion for profanity. Homos took pride and delight in being nasty, subversive, desecrationist, and perverse — like the Pussy Riot in Russia. But such thrills and antics tend to burn out fast. I mean who cares about Robert Mapplethorpe anymore? In the end, people prefer the sacred over the profane. The homo war-of-profanity came to a close with the AID pandemic and the tiresomeness of campy bad taste. So, homos, with the crucial support of Jews, steered the homo movement in the ‘sacred’ mode by cleaning up the image of homosexuality, by wrapping homos in the ‘rainbow’ flag, by infiltrating and forming alliances with religious organizations, by promoting the image of the homo martyr, by associating homos with marriage and family life, and etc. So, we are to believe that homos and trannies who grew ill and died of AIDS were not casualties of their own rebellious/transgressive perversion but tragic & saintly victims — more martyrs than mavericks — in a ‘bigoted homophobic’ society. Homos, like Jews, are never to be blamed for problems caused by their own kind. This sacred-candy-wrapping of the homo agenda in Saul-Alinsky mode has done wonders for homo power as most Americans are stupid childish suckers prone to judging a book by its cover. But there’s a huge difference between men like Jesus & Martin Luther and all the homo degenerates who’ve cynically employed and exploited the ‘sacred’ imagination for their ultimately decadent homo agenda. Whether one agrees with Jesus or Martin Luther, there’s no doubt that they were serious men grappling with profound moral issues of the day. In contrast, homos have no compelling moral case and have cooked up phony ‘sacred’ images of clean-cut ‘gays’ wanting be married and noble Magic Negro trannies wanting to be blonde-wigged Negresses. It’s really a parody of the New Sacred than the real thing. Also, our society has become such a pushover for Jewish power & influence that even Conservatives have been completely spineless and gutless in standing up for their principles and core values of what human civilization is all about. There’s a tendency for liberalism to become most corrupt upon its triumph. The worth of something is often gauged by the worth of its rival or enemy. It’s like the aristocracy was most meaningful and valuable in a world beset by war, but in times of peace, it gradually degenerated into a cult of privilege and decadence revolving around ever more ridiculous concepts of honor, which, when applied to modern realities, led to the disaster of World War I. Anyway, in a world where forces of conservatism were powerful — and when conservatism held onto many stale, moribund, and burdensome customs, habits, values, and beliefs — , liberalism played a most essential and crucial role in remaking the world with better ideas, fresh passions, more freedoms, and greater individuality. As even the fundamental and basic rights of freedom and liberty were lacking in society, liberalism had a very real and valuable role to play. But once liberalism triumphed, all basic freedoms were guaranteed, and individual differences & peccadillos need not worry about political repression, liberalism lost its reason for being. It turned into dogmatic Liberalism looking for or even inventing ever more causes to champion, ever more ‘oppressed’ groups to liberate, ever more ‘equalities’ to implement, and ever more ‘micro-aggressions’ to root out. When there wasn’t enough freedom, liberalism was about making people more free to do and think as they pleased. But when freedom of thought and expression became the rule of the land, Liberalism became more about controlling thought itself. But then, most people weren’t thinking at all since the profusion of freedom had made them more hedonistic and addicted to anti-intellectual junk-culture. Most people didn’t use the freedom to think to think but to turn into mental slobs, so Liberals felt it was their duty to mold the minds of these dolts. Anyway, whenever something loses its reason-for-being, it begins to grow either decadent or extra-coercive, or both. We see this in both American Liberalism and American Conservatism. American Liberalism has grown decadent, what with championing tranny-ism & arrogant illegal aliens being its great moral cause of the day. But precisely because its new values and causes are so ridiculous and mock-worthy, Liberalism has to exert even more pressure to shame, shun, and/or destroy who won’t get along with the program. Without such coercion, who could possibly take tranny-ism seriously? Same is true of American Conservatism. It had a worthy foe in the USSR and the worldwide communist movement. But because American Conservatism became so fixated on combating the ‘Evil Empire’ — as it had given up its fight on issues of race and the Jewish Problem in America — , it felt empty when the USSR collapsed and China turned capitalist and a trading partner of the US. So, the new American Conservatism of the post-Cold-War period became decadent, with silly stuff about ‘Sharia law about take over the US’, endless ‘War on Terror’, stupid panics about Iran getting the nuke, and about Putin as the New Hitler. This is too ridiculous, a parody of Cold War rhetoric. But again, precisely because it’s so ridiculous, American Conservatives have to go out on a limb to pressure everyone in their camp to get with the program or face expulsion from the movement. Isn’t it odd that American Conservatism was actually ideologically more varied and pluralistic during the Cold War than it is today, what with Neocons having purged all the ‘Arabists’ and with the likes of Jennifer Rubin dictating to Heritage Foundation whom it can hire, and with the likes of Victoria Nuland and her ilk pressuring all Conservatives to restart the Cold War with Russia?) And yet, artists like Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan are reluctant to just accept the ‘truths’ of established faiths and systems of thought. They want to think more and know differently of both the world and the forces behind/beyond the world, and that’s what makes them religious-eous. Think of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BLONDE ON BLONDE, a kind of ‘Biblical’ rumination on the mystical dimensions and murky hideouts of love and hate between guy and girl. Though the songs are set in the contemporary world of the 60s, the moods and textures evoke the ‘surreality’ of the Genesis story of Adam & Eve and the paintings of Marc Chagall.
 |
| Judith Roberts in Eraserhead |
Images and sounds alone, without the content of ideas, can be powerful, but their impact generally isn’t long-lasting. In contrast, dry ideas can make a lot of sense but then in a fixed way as a logical argument can either be true or untrue based on the rigors of its own rules.
 |
| INSOMNIA - Al Pacino & Robin Williams |
Things that are too rational and logical in construction lose their fascination and allure once they’ve been figured out. This is why a maze-puzzle that has been solved isn’t worth doing anymore. (As brilliant as the narrative construction of Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION is, its lasting impact owes to the elusive figure of Mal who stalks the pathways of the subconscious that leads to a place known as the soul. The main character of INCEPTION discovered he could engineer mental images and sounds but could not engineer the soul, and the purging that is necessary to free himself of guilt must be sought ‘spiritually’ than logically. Instead of constructing new walls to contain his demons, he must ultimately confront them face-to-face and find within himself the will to confess the tragedy of his shared delusions with his late wife. It is this element — comparable to the angst in THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS — that provides the extra-kick to elevate INCEPTION above and beyond a very clever sci-fi action flick.) It is why video-games that have been mastered just grow repetitious, mechanical, and tiresome.
But when the magic of imagery and the power of ideas converge, the result could be something like the Bible, various high-concept mythologies(as opposed to mere colorful folklore), or the films of Stanley Kubrick. Entering their domains is like finding oneself in a maze that keeps shifting & morphing in patterns and solutions every time. This has also been said of the works of William Shakespeare and Richard Wagner, which is why they’ve inspired so many interpretations and reinterpretations. Both have also been routinely denounced as ‘anti-Semites’ though, of course, Wagner gets more blame because he was German and the favorite artist of Adolf Hitler. At one time, Wagner was to music enthusiasts/cultists what Kubrick is to cinephiles today. In our time, even though Wagner’s operas are still performed and marveled at, anything associated with IDEAS in Wagner’s works is disapproved, and all of us are expected to dutifully join in the chorus denouncing Wagner as a vile ‘anti-Semite’ whose only saving grace was his musical talent; we must only praise his ear, just like we must only praise Riefenstahl’s eye, and nothing else. Therefore, the full depth of Wagner’s vision cannot be considered or appreciated because ‘antisemitic’ ideas have become such taboos. Of course, if Wagner had been a Jew-lover and a passionate anti-waspite, his social and political ideas, no matter how hateful and deranged, would be most welcome and respected in the Jew-run media, Jew-run academia, and Jew-run cultural institutions. Indeed, consider the much approved vitriol of the likes of Tim Wise and David Sirotta directed against white gentiles but how white gentiles are admonished not to get angry and fight back. When Jews spew venom against white gentiles, they are praised as serious commentators on the social scene, but if whites return the favor in kind, they are denounced as ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ ‘angry white males’ even though all they are doing is defending themselves from Nasty Jewish Snakes. So, Jews are not against hatred as long as it’s directed at people they hate, such as Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, Christian Conservatives, and courageous critics of Jewish power — though, to be sure, when Jews hate, it’s not called ‘hate’ but ‘passion for justice’. Ain’t it funny now Jewish ‘love’ does more harm around the world than the goy hatred does? Anyway, in the current cultural discourse, the problem wasn’t so much that Wagner was a hater but that he hated the ‘wrong’ kind of people: Jews of course. Indeed, Jews not only have no problem with hate but go out on a limb to promote it if the object of hate happens to be ‘right’ kind of people whom Jews hate too. After all, Hollywood Jews nowadays fund movies that present Russians as nasty villains, but do you see any opposition from the Jewish community?
(Jews say we must be careful not to say anything that might smack of ‘antisemitism’ since hostility toward Jews led to the Holocaust that killed millions of Jews. But Jews have no qualms about indulging in the worst kind of ‘Russophobic’ rhetoric even though anti-Russian sentiments also took on a racial tinge and led to the deaths of millions. Because Russia had once been ruled by Mongol overlords and because Russian imperialism incorporated non-Russians[even some non-whites]in the peripheries of the empire, some Europeans came to see Russians as tainted with impurity, and such a mind-set was behind Hitler’s plan to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs to make room for German settlers and to enslave the rest permanently into a race of helots to serve the ‘Aryans’. Because the Nazi Germany waged a total war of extermination and enslavement, Russia wasn’t fighting merely to win but to survive as a people and culture. But what drove Hitler to despise Russians and hold them in such contempt? Because of radical racist views of ‘Russophobia’. But then, ‘Russophobia’ had been fueled by the British as well. As Brits conceitedly saw themselves as a great sea power spreading liberty around the world, they came to fear Russia as a great land power and rival in Central Asia and Middle East who stood for Slavic barbarism. In order to rally the British public in the campaign of encirclement against Russia, hysterical ‘Russophobia’ was employed during the 19th century. Of course, with the rise of Germany as the premier land power, Britain’s ‘Russophobia’ abated somewhat periodically, especially during World War I when Brits found themselves on the same side with Russia against the ‘German Huns’. But if British ‘Russophobia’ was political and strategic than racial in character — even though British were, by far, the most racially conscious and discriminatory of the great imperialist powers — there was a strain of ‘Russophobia’ among the Germans that became increasingly racial in tone. As Brits had defamed the Germans as ‘Asiatic’ Huns during World War I, Germans of radical racist persuasion saw Russians not only as the puppets of Jewish Bolshevism but as subhuman mongrels who occupied land that should rightfully belong to clean and industrious Germans. Such a mind-set led to an invasion of extermination and enslavement, and even though Russians weren’t initially targeted for mass extermination in the way that Jews were, they faced the same eventual fate and indeed millions were killed, and of course, it took millions of lives for Russians and their Slavic allies to drive the Germans back. So, WWII in the East wasn’t just about Judeocaust but about Russocaust. Hitler’s mind was poisoned not only with extreme antisemitism but extreme ‘Russophobia’. So, if we follow the logic that we should be careful about spewing ‘antisemitic’ sentiments lest such pave the ground for a new Holocaust, then it also follows that we should be careful about ‘Russophobic’ sentiments since such might lead to another Russocaust. But Jews don’t care about the millions of Russians who died in World War II, and they apparently don’t care if millions of more Russians die — no more than Jewish communists and leftists did during the 1930s when Stalin and Jewish communists killed millions of Russians, Ukrainians, and others through forced collectivization, slave labor in the Gulag, and outright executions. Jews certainly don’t care about Palestinians and all the Arabs who’ve died as the result of Zio-con or Neocon meddling in the Middle East. Consider what Jewish-controlled foreign policy has done to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, and Syria. Similarly, Jews don’t care if millions of Russians die or suffer in coming years as the result of political or military crises triggered by the agents of World Jewry. Jews will collectively target and harm an entire people just to have things go their way. If anything, Jews have been fanning the flames of extreme ‘Russophobia’ in the West — and for this reason, anti-Jewish-ism is not only justified but necessary as we should hate those who hate us. Jewish hatred isn’t aimed only at Putin and his inner circle but on the entire Russian nation and culture. We saw how ludicrous the Western-Jewish coverage of the Sochi Olympics was. We saw how slanted and ridiculous the Jewish-Western coverage of the Ukraine crisis has been despite the fact that it was Jewish-controlled US that destabilized the democratically elected government in Kiev and then gave full support to the new Kiev regime’s war of ethnic cleansing on the Russian populations in Eastern Ukraine. So, Jewish attitudes toward Russia are hardly different from those held by Nazi Germany. Jews, like Nazi Germans, see Russians as subhuman cattle who should be owned and controlled by Jewish oligarches as the rightful rulers of Russia. Jews love to promote hate — even genocidal hatred — as long as it’s ‘good for the Jews’. Jews don’t care if hateful sentiments against Russian might lead to another Russocaust if tragedy for Russians will mean triumph for Jews. As Jews see it, all gentiles are potential Palestinians who should be crushed and dehumanized for the sake of Jewish supremacism. In a way, Jews and Anglos are very different, but they sort of came to see eye to eye by accidents of history. Britain is a small nation but, for a time, became the premier power around the world. This was bound to make the British both very proud and very anxious since the only kind of permanent power is demo-geographic. It’s like China is still China since Chinese hold a lot of territory, and India is still India because there are lots of Indians there. This applies to Russia as well, though one could argue there are too few Russians to hold sway over all that territory, and Russians should worry about Chinese encroachments into Siberia and the burgeoning Muslim population — though, to be sure, most Muslims in Russia are white folks who are rather a handsome bunch: consider the Chechens, a strikingly attractive people even though a bunch of them happen to be into bomb-mom-hood. Anyway, Brits were awful proud but also very anxious because their empire could fall like dominos, and that is just what happened soon after World War II. Especially when UK lost India, the Jewel in the Crown, the empire came tumbling down and there was nothing Britain could do about it. In contrast, even after the fall of dynasties and regimes, China is still great China and Russia is still great Russia. Thus, the Anglos felt a certain affinity with the Jews and vice versa since both their powers were very great but also very unstable and vulnerable — indeed, if Jews hadn’t taken over US, Jewish global power would be far more limited. If British power depended on British elites ruling over natives in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Jewish power depended on Jews gaining influence/control over gentile elites in gentile-majority nations. Jews understand that real power rests with the elites, so if you control the elites, you control the masses. But Jewish power is more pernicious than Anglo imperialist power ever was because, at the very least, natives around the world could tell who the real bosses were: the British overlords, though to be sure, British Imperialism, via ‘indirect rule’, did employ native elites as buffers in some areas. In contrast, since Jews hide behind their gentile fronts-buffers-puppets, the gentile masses went on thinking they were still being ruled by their own kind. But really, do the likes of David Cameron and Mitt Romney lead their own people or do they serve their Jewish masters who hide behind the curtain? Jewish power is real but depends on the power of elite networking, and if that falls apart, Jewish power can vanish overnight, and it may not be recoverable again. So, Jews naturally hate the kind of power that Russia represents: gentile elites leading gentile masses over a huge territory. Anglos hated Russia for the similar reasons.[All the Russia-bashing is also a means to prop up the myth that the West is all about ‘liberal democracy’. With the rise of Political Correctness, Jewish supremacism, the coercive cult of ‘diversity’ crammed down the throats of whites, the nasty homo agenda pushed up the butt of the entire nation, expansion in speech codes, and blacklisting-firing-and-shunning of any real dissident voices, the West hardly stands for liberal democracy anymore, and of course, the Jewish elites know this. So, in order to cover up the repressive nature of Jewish-controlled West, we’ve been fed the false dichotomy of the Free West vs autocratic Russia and China. True, China is a repressive nation, and Russia, though a democracy, is corrupt and autocratic in certain ways, but the West today, with its PC and Jewish-supremacism that pressures all politicians to grovel before AIPAC, is in no position to tell anyone about liberal democratic values. Thus, the only way the Jewish elites in the West can fool the populace that they are living in a ‘liberal democracy’ is to create a us-vs-them situation whereby we in the West are supposedly so free whereas Russians are so enslaved. But in truth, most Russians feel more empowered under patriotic Putin while most whites in the West feel totally browbeaten and castrated under the rule of Jewish kings and homo queens.] As for Anglo-Americans, they developed a certain yen for Jews — despite lingering distrust and even hostility — since the myth of America’s founding was like the narrative of Jews settling the Promised Land. And even though Anglo-Americans eventually became settlers, they had to be in nomadic mode to claim a piece of turf for themselves. As the only book many adventurers and settlers carried with them in their Westward expansion was the Bible, the Anglo-American narrative became ‘existentially’ intertwined with stories in the Bible — stories not only as read but as relived — , and this may explain why much of the American narrative seems more in tune with the Old Testament than with the New Testament. After all, the story of Jesus is about a lone Man going against a giant established power[of Rome] and the entrenched orthodoxy & corruption of Rabbinical authorities. In contrast, Anglo-Americans who moved westward faced no great power; there was nothing like the Roman Empire to stand in their way. Also, as they were moving into wilderness, they didn’t have to worry much about the crushing weight of established orthodoxy. Rather, they had to contend with the wilderness, displace primitive natives from the territories, and build a moral/social order from scratch; and in this endeavor, Anglo-American settlers of the westward expansion were more likely to find parallels with Jews in the Old Testament than with Disciples in the New Testament, especially as Anglo-Americans weren’t too keen on spreading the Gospel to Red Savages whose fate was rather more like that of Canaanites and Philistines rubbed out the Ancient Israelites. Also, as the American mythology was about newly liberated people using freedom to find happiness and success, there was bound to be parallels with the Jewish narrative of the Emancipation from the discriminatory practices of traditional Europe. Anglo-Americans and Jewish-Americans flattered themselves that they were a forward-moving people marching away from the strictures and repressions of Old Europe. But despite such conceits, both groups also shared a profound sense of the past because, after all, the culture of Anglo-Americans had deep roots in Britain and the culture/identity of the Jews went back over 3,000 yrs. Both people were also very race-conscious even though, due to the accident of history, Jews came to be associated with ‘anti-racism’. But in truth, Jewish ‘anti-racism’ was paradoxically a means to protect Jewish race-ism. Only by promoting racial tolerance and diversity among the larger gentile population could Jews protect their own race-ism from the race-ism of the gentile majority. It’s like hardline Muslims in Europe politically side with ultra-Liberals and Leftists, not because they care for Liberalism or Leftism but because the PC policy of Tolerance provides the Muslim population with the leeway to protect and promote their own intolerance. It is natural for the dominant people of any nation to uphold their own racial/cultural identity as THE essential character of the land, and this could lead to pressures on minorities to either depart or assimilate to majority norms. If indeed Jews were really ‘anti-racist’, the first thing they would have done is reject their own cultural/racial identity and assimilate with the rest of humanity. But Jews wanted to maintain and serve their own racial/cultural interests, and ironically, the most useful way of going about it was by promoting ‘anti-racism’ among the gentile majority so that the racial identity of Jews would be protected under the umbrella of Tolerance; it’s like Rahm Emanuel is an extreme Zionist and Jewish-supremacist but also one of the leading figures in the Democratic Party that is supposedly about ‘liberal values’. It’s like Jews used the peace movement in the past to aid and abet communist war-mongering. By promoting peace in the West, leftist Jews were trying to render the non-communist world defenseless against communist aggression. If indeed Jews were really for peace during the Vietnam War, why didn’t they press upon North Vietnam, China, and the USSR to stop the aggression as well? Why was all the burden placed on America and South Vietnam to lay down arms and promote the peace? Similarly, if Jews were truly ‘anti-racist’, why didn’t they forgo their own ‘irrational’ and ‘atavistic’ identity based on blood-and-God? But then, Anglos and Anglo-Americans also had a rather complicated view of race. Paradoxically, it may have been that Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a special dislike for Nazi Germans precisely because they themselves were so ‘racist’. After all, Anglo imperialists were far more racially conscious, exclusive, and discriminatory than were the Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese[who promoted some degree of race mixing with other Asiatics, especially Koreans and Taiwanese], Russians, Turks, and others. And Anglo-America enforced far stronger taboos against race-mixing than was the case with Latin America or French-Canada that, from the beginning, instituted a policy of race-mixing between the French and native savage population. Yet, because Anglos and Anglo-Americans were so race-ist, they were very mindful to keep it respectable and classy. Their race-ism would be orderly, calmly rationalized, and compensatory. It’s like the Southern conceit of ‘separate but equal’ or how the British elites window-dressed their race-ist attitudes by summoning the genteel element of class in their dealing with non-white natives. So, even though the Anglo attitude was "if you’re black, step back" and "if you’re brown, stay down[you silly clown]", Anglos elites would invite and entertain non-white elites on certain occasions to demonstrate that, when it came to class at least, the best Anglos were on par with the best non-whites, indeed more so than with the white underclass. So, even as Anglo elites offended native elites with a racial attitude that said ‘my race is better than your race’, the bad feelings were somewhat assuaged with the message of ‘our higher class — white or brown — is better than the lower classes of any color’. So, the native elites might feel somewhat flattered to the extent that they were considered superior to lower-class whites by the upper-class whites; and of course, such attitudes still linger among the British elites that would rather rub shoulders with rich Pakistanis and Saudis while turning a blind eye to poor ‘trashy’ white girls raped by Muslim thugs. Anyway, as far as the Anglos and Anglo-Americans were concerned, their own race-ism was civilized, decent, well-mannered, and sort-of-fair. So naturally, they were bound to be offended by the raw, crude, and openly nasty ‘racism’ of the Nazi Germans who seemed utterly lacking in proper manners and form in the management of race-ism. It’s like hunting aficionados are more likely to be offended by people who hunt badly. As hunting is unpleasant and bloody business, hunters wanna show the world and convince themselves that they do it right and responsibly. So, when others do it badly, they see it as an affront to the proper ritual/sport of hunting, as an embarrassment that reflects badly on ALL hunters. Likewise, Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have especially loathed Nazi Germany not so much because it was ‘racist’ but because its crudeness gave race-ism a bad name. And this is why some Liberal Jews are worried about Israel’s brazenly right-wing antics. Even though most Liberal Jews are race-ists when it comes to Jewish identity, power, and interests, they wanna present their Jewish ethno-consciousness as something classy, sympathetic, and enlightened. So, when right-wing Israelis candidly spill the beans about how they really feel about goyim and act like gangster thugs out in the open, Liberal Jews get mighty nervous.) Because the Jewish elites have waged war on Russia — in order to depose Putin and replace him with Jewish oligarches — , they not only tolerate but encourage any amount of anti-Russian hatred. With Jews acting so vilely, it’s no wonder so many peoples have hated Jews through the ages. Jews are a vile and hideous people who, as Mel Gibson said in his more ‘sober’ moment, start all wars. In a crazy world intoxicated with PC, you sometimes have to get drunk and lose your inhibitions to speak the sobering truth. In a tyranny, soft or hard, there are too many things you cannot say. Ideally, a sober mind should be best able to assess the truth. But most people will choose the truth-of-the-situation over truth-of-the-matter. If speaking the truth-of-the-matter will endanger one’s place in the truth-of-the-situation(controlled by Jewish power), the sober mind will choose career over courage. Remember in CITIZEN KANE where the Joseph Cotten character mustered the courage to speak the truth under the influence when the election was lost, thereby endangering his friendship with Kane. Years later, he gets drunk again to write an honest review of the disastrous opera debut of Susan Alexander, and it leads to him getting fired. In a free world, the drunk are likely to say stuff that are less true. In a tyranny, the drunk are likely to say stuff that are more true. That Mel Gibson spoke his greatest truth — that Jews have triggered so many crises around the world — under the influence is a good indication of the kind of system we are living under. We live under the iron heels of Jews, and most sober people do their best not to say anything — no matter how true — that might offend the Jewish elites who can destroy their reputations and careers. And most people will say anything — no matter how ludicrous — to please and appease their Jewish masters. It’s like in highschool where a bunch of kids who wanna be ‘popular’ will go to any length to be approved by and allowed into the ‘popular’ crowd. Wall Street and Washington D.C. are like highschool for adults. Just look at Walter Russell Mead, one of the biggest goy whores to Jewish power.
 |
| Walter Russell Mead - Worthless Suckass Sockpuppet of Hideous Jews |
Anyway, it’s worth speculating that Jewish profundity and intellect grew out of their particular concept of God. Of course, it needs to be said that the Jewish concept of God did change over time, but even from the beginning, there was something in the nature of their conception that allowed their God to broaden and deepen in scope that the gods of most other religions could not. Such malleability and multi-faceted-ness are testaments to the complexity of the Jewish contemplation of God. Most pagan concepts of gods were finite, i.e. each god came with a specific form & a set of characteristics and was limited to his or her apportioned set of powers.
(Having pagan gods was like kids getting action figures or dolls as gifts, whereas having the Jewish God was like kids getting a chess set. In time, kids outgrow action figures and dolls, whereas chess has infinite value as a game. A Luke Skywalker action figure and a Princess Leia action figures are what they are and nothing more, whereas every game of chess is different from all others. Incidentally, it’s interesting that ‘God’ became synonymous with the Jewish God. In a similar vein, perhaps, there’s something Jewishy in homos hogging terms such as ‘gay’ and ‘pride’. At one time, ‘gay’ didn’t mean homo but a kind of effete, dandy, and precious style that, though more prevalent among homos, wasn’t limited to homos. Plenty of stylish straight men of sophistication were referred to as ‘gay’. But ‘gay’ was made to mean nothing but homosexual. Even more jarring is the current effort by Jews and homos to associate or ass-ociate ‘pride’ with homosexuality. As if homos hogging the ‘rainbow’ isn’t enough, they must also own ‘pride’. We now live in a world where kids are raised so that the first thing that will pop in to their heads when they see a beautiful rainbow or hear the word ‘pride’ is a bunch of men who indulge in fecal penetration or a bunch of weirdos who undergo so-called sex-change operations[or ‘gender-reassignment surgeries’ — so creative with terminology, aren’t they?]by having their sexual organs mutilated/amputated and their bodies pumped with artificial hormones. It is incredible that Americans and Europeans have chosen to submit themselves and their children to this kind of lunacy, but of course, homos and trannies could never have done this on their own. They had the crucial support and protection of Jews. Just as Mussolini was able to take Greece only because the Germans backed him, homos were able to take over the West because Jews, as the neo-Hitlerian gangsters of the West, backed the homos in their assault on all that was noble, dignified, and beautiful about the West. The way things are going, maybe even ‘god’ will one day become synonymous with Jews and homos.) Once Jews began to ponder their God as formless, infinite, all-powerful, perfect, and all-wise, their concept gained the spiritual equivalent of the mathematical formula for infinity; I guess Google, being a virtually infinite number, is the god of the internet. But then, if God were only super-duper great and awesome beyond mysteriousness, He would be entirely opaque and inaccessible to mankind — it’d be like pondering some black hole a billion lights years away — , and therefore, Jews made it so that God had an intimate side that could be accessed personably by people, especially the Jews of course. Also, even though God could theoretically do anything as He pleased as He was so great and powerful, He too was under restraint because He was as Good a God as Great a God. But then, as the Book of Job demonstrated, God was also beyond morality — at least human morality — and was never to be judged by man. So, the grand concept and the thorny contradictions gave Jews endless opportunities to wonder and ponder about their nature of their God in and of Himself and in relation to mankind, especially the Jews. It became a mind-game of Infinite Justice, some of it accessible to man but a lot more of it impenetrable yet not entirely without cracks so that Jews might slip in through the cracks here and there, as with the Wailing Wall.
This process is both ‘revolutionary’ and ‘conservative’ for it requires a whole new start but along the blueprint of timeless truths bound with God. So, in that sense, the hopeful side of the Book of Job is the lesson that we shouldn’t ‘idolatrize’ life no matter how precious it may seem to us. In the end, what really matters is the power to go on despite everything than the position of illusory permanence. In this, the Book of Job challenges the conservative side of Judaism that hopes for the utopianism of the Promised Land where Jews can be happy and safe under the eyes of God forever. It instead suggests that the real power of Jews is their ability to start over again and find as much value in the new as in what they already have. And if God giveth and taketh away, there really is no other option in the long run as nothing is permanent or fixed. It’s like many people love their dogs or cats so much that they want to be with the same dog or cat forever. But dogs and cats die before their owners do. Sad as this is, if not for the deaths, people would never get new dogs and cats that, in time, become just as valuable as the departed ones. It’s like the Akira Kurosawa film MADADAYO where the teacher almost gives up on his life because his dear cat disappears one day and fails to return. But another one arrives, and though it can’t the console the teacher over the loss of the first one, it becomes as dear and valuable in time. While it’s natural for us to cling to what/whom are dear to us, every attachment blinds us to all other possibilities. Consider how a man or woman might consider his or her spouse to be The One, indeed the ONLY person he or she was meant to be with. But under different circumstances, he or she would have fixated in the same manner on another person. Or, in settling down in one place as the one and only place, we are likely to believe that we were meant to be in that place and nowhere else. But everything that seems certain, fateful, and necessary is also accidental and random because no one decides when or where he or she is born, and there are countless forces at work in the world that rolls our lives like dice. So, even when we meet someone that seems to The One we are meant to meet and be with forever — like how Bella Swann and Edward Cullen feel about one another in TWILIGHT — , it’s really all an accident. So, if God is indeed a ‘jealous God’, He may want to shake people out of doldrums of the conceit of life’s certainties. The only certainty should be God Himself. Everything and everyone else, however dear and precious they may seem, are grains of sand and dusts in the wind that could have been scattered and arranged in infinite variety of ways.) And yet, in using Job to demonstrate His truth, one could say God was bestowing a blessing on humanity. Because without someone like Job to suffer as he did, God couldn’t have demonstrated His truth with as much drama, eloquence, depth, and mystery. (In this sense, God is like Shakespeare of the cosmos. In order for Shakespeare to express something deep and dark about mankind, he had to create characters like King Lear who suffered hell on earth. If Shakespeare didn’t want any of his characters to suffer, his plays would have been very narrow and limited. Likewise, God as a ‘tragedician’ had to create powerful scenarios of life to draw out the deepest meanings of life. People like Richard Dawkins blame the writers of the Bible of presenting a violent and spiteful God that visits all sorts of horrors upon mankind, but they should really blame nature than the authors of the Bible. It was nature that produced asteroids-hitting-earth, volcanos, diseases, earthquakes, fiery infernos, hurricanes, floods, and etc. that scared the hell out of early man. It was nature that produced all sorts of dangerous animals that attacked man, and it was nature that created the aggressive and murderous ‘human nature’ of man. What religion did was to try make sense of all that natural sense. Since the great forces of nature was dangerous and since the soul-nature of man was so dark, it was only natural that religions that sought to explain the world of nature and man were also dark and fearsome.) Also, the Book of Job is one of the greatest blessings to the Jewish people since it instilled them with the power, will, and meaning to carry on against adversities. To that extent, Job’s suffering was his greatest blessing, notwithstanding the fact that he’s most certainly a fictional figure. If not for what God did to Job, he would be either a nonexistent or forgotten figure. Whether Job really existed or not, he represents the experiences, emotions, and questions of so many Jews, and in that sense, he is like one of those ‘based on a true story’ characters. He’s a ‘composite character’ of so many trials and ordeals of the Jews. And the story is especially prophetic and timeless in relation to Jewish history in the 20th century. After all, Holocaust is up there as one of the absolute horrors in human history, and yet, in a perverse yet profound way, it has also become the greatest blessing for modern Jews for it has elevated Jews to the status of a Holy People. It’s as ‘6 million’ little Jewish Jesuses died for the sins of mankind, and we must find our salvation through our devotion to the Jews as the god-race. That Jews derived profound lessons from the Holocaust, we cannot deny. And yet, just as the Book of Job hints at the corruption — however concealed — of the Jewish God, the Holocaust cult also suggests at the profound corruption of the Jews.
Anyway, one could still argue that there was no guarantee that Jews would necessarily grow smarter or deeper in genetic/biological dimensions just because they wondered and pondered about a profound God. If people could grow more intelligent that way, Lamarck would have been right, i.e. the attributes of straining — mental or physical — of one generation will be passed down to the next generation.
And yet, might not culture affect genes in the following sense? Once Jews devised a profound mind-puzzle that encourages, allows, and even demands much thinking, memorization, argumentation, discussion, imagination, and introspection, they were able to divide the wheat from the chaff in mental ability among their children. If Jews had no grand-deep-profound-intellectual scheme/system, they would have had little use for intellectualism, therefore, it wouldn’t have mattered if some Jew kid was smart or dumb. He would have been expected to just herd goats and swing his dong at Jewish girls. But once Jews had a mental system of deep study, thought, and discussion — that applied to the entire community as God didn’t just bless the Jewish elites but all Jewish people, even the poor — , they had a means to measure which kids were best at memorizing the sacred texts, making sense of them, forming new ideas, and proving themselves especially adept at scholarly pursuits. Since the Jewish God and religion were infinite in their dimensions, a very smart Jew could dazzle other Jews with his profound insights, and being favored for his super-intellect, he would be admired and given women to hump and have kids with.
In a similar vein, suppose there’s a community with no use for exercise and sports. The community decides that as long as kids grow up to herd goats or till the fields, that’s all that matters. So, it doesn’t matter if a kid is particularly strong. He’s just made to do things like everyone else and isn’t favored by the community in anything, not even access to women.
But suppose the community devises a difficult set of physical challenges and has the kids compete to see who is the strongest, fastest, and toughest. Then, kids will compete extra-hard to excel in these difficult challenges, and the ones who achieve the greatest glory will be prized most, and he might be showered with lots of prizes and women to hump and have kids with. Thus, the community grows stronger since it has an systematic means by which to divide the athletic wheat from the weakling chaff. Of course, even without such means, it’s easy to tell which ones are stronger than others. But it is through such means that the community can measure who are really fast or really strong, and pick them out for special attention.
Anyway, because the Jewish concept of God was profound, deep, elusive, and weird, it was bound to favor not only the very smart, imaginative, and verbal but also the very neurotic, which may account for the weirdness of Jewish personality that seems almost space-alien-like: Einstein, Rand, Kubrick, Kafka, Mamet, Allen, Freud, Trotsky, Charlie Kaufman, and etc.
Greek philosophy(and Greek mythology) favored the logical thinkers of facts, ideas, and emotions that could be explained with a degree of clarity. In contrast, Jewish religion and culture is a strange and contradictory blend of logic and mystery. The logical element comes from a set of premises about the nature of God and His moral nature. And yet, this logic can meander endlessly within the Godly realm that vacillates between infinite justice and infinite jest.
With Greek thought, it’s possible to arrive at some kind of conclusion through rules of math, ethics, or facts. With Jewish thought, there can be no real conclusion since the truths, trickery, and mysteries of God are infinite. It’s about thinking through the impossible. The sort of mind that could best navigate this infinite realm tended to be sort of ‘aspergergy’, and that may explain the over-abundance of ‘spergy’ types among the Jews. Jewish religion could have, in this sense, profoundly affect Jewish biology. In the Jewish community, the ideal of mental achievement by thinking about God favored the ‘spergy’ types who became much admired and were maybe given a bunch of women to bang and have kids with. Someone like Kafka might have been happier as a religious Jew in a traditional community because, despite his natural-born neurosis, he would have had faith and solace in the mystery his mind was navigating through. (Also, a troubled person like him might have easier access to women in a society where matches were made by elders.) It’s like Job becomes depressed, but despite his agonies, he never loses his faith in God who remains his source of comfort. In contrast, Kafka was born with a mind that had been shaped and molded by thousands of Jewish history to seek the meaning of God, but he was a modern Jew in a world without God. His mind had been programmed by Jewish history/culture/genetics to create mazes in search for God but found itself without God... yet the structure of the maze remained even with the loss of what it had been designed to search and explore. Even though Kafka could consciously accept the absence of God, his mental mold still imagined a vast and profound network of power governing the mind, soul, society, and the universe. And this power felt malevolent since it could not be God who was ‘dead’ in the modern world. God was gone from the modern Jewish mind, but His shadow lurked in every corner of the world and every corner of the Jewish soul, and this filled Jews with a powerful sense of paranoia. Jews felt as if trapped in the world of Fritz Lang’s M. The ‘M’ character is, in some ways, a diabolical double of the ‘K’ character in THE TRIAL. Joseph K is an ‘innocent man’ in a world without God, yet he is still stalked and sacrificed by awesome god-like forces. ‘M’ is an ‘evil man’ but in a modern world that no longer has much use for the unscientific notion of the ‘satanic’. From a purely scientific viewpoint, one could say he’s mentally ill or sick, i.e. he too is a victim like a diseased person. And yet, despite such modern notions founded on the science of medicine, we sense a profound shadow of Evil lurking all throughout the film. Both THE TRIAL and M are modern stories with a medieval feel to them. God and Satan may be dead, but as the mental molds of humans had been formed for so long in the images of God and Satan, people feel the presence of supra-normal powers everywhere even in the absence of God and Satan.
In a way, the works of Franz Kafka are fascinating for they expose the naked anatomy of the Jewish mind disrobed of God. For thousands of years, the Jewish mind-body had aspired to be worthy of wearing or being fitted into the mysterious holy robe of God. So, generation after generation, the Jewish community most prized those Jews whose intellectualism/scholasticism were most adept at sliding its cerebral limbs into the infinitely multitudinous and multi-dextrous sleeves of this holy robe. And as long as Jewish culture was fitted inside this robe, all the Jewish neuroses that had built up over the years in search of understanding of what could ultimately not be understood remained veiled with conceits of holiness, comfort, and wisdom. But once the robe was removed by secular modernity, Jewish neuroses no longer had any place to crawl to and hide. And yet, because it had become so accustomed to moving inside the infinite robe culturally and temperamentally, the modern Jewish mind still exhibited the old neuroticism(that could no longer find shelter in the old religion). There was no more God, no more holy robe for the Jewish neuroses to tailor themselves to. This is why the works of Kafka seem both so holy and unholy, so pure and perverse. There is a sense of commitment, devotion, and even repressed passion to know or access the truth. But in a world without God, there is no such thing as The Truth. There are only infinite little truths. And yet, the Jewish mind, due to its long-developed habit, still seeks the ultimate hidden truth, even if there may be none. When figures in the Old Testament seek God, their weird ventures don’t seem so weird since we can suspend our disbelief and accept the existence of God in the Biblical universe. But suppose those figures were to seek the Godly in a world where no such exists. Their behavior would seem merely strange, weird, and even mentally ill. Kafka might have been a great Talmudic scholar centuries earlier, but in the modern world, he was the alternate-prophet without a map. A man who consciously knew God didn’t exist but subconsciously searched for Him anyway. And such a mind can never be satisfied with the truth-as-most-of-us-understand-it since it always suspects and seeks something more, something more whole, something that unites all. (Most goyim are content with either simple superstitions or simple truths/facts, but Jews are satisfied with neither. Jews seek entire systems of thoughts whether it be spiritual or scientific. They seek the truth behind the truth. Jews don’t care about angels or miracles but about the nature of God’s power. Jews seek beyond empirical facts to derive some grand theory behind them all.) In a way, the element of the imponderable mystery is very convenient for the ‘heroes’ of THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE. Even though they could posture or be perceived as ‘victims’ for having been ‘falsely accused’ or prohibited from entering the inner sanctum, it is this sense of temporal/spatial ‘victim-hood’ that provides them with a perverse faith in the existence of the Great Hidden Truth. Indeed, suppose Joseph K.’s case had been transparent and cleared right away or suppose the K character of THE CASTLE had been immediately welcomed into the Castle. There would hardly have been any sense of mystery. The problem would be solved but the reality would have been made much smaller and simpler.
It’d be like discovering the wizard behind the ‘Wizard of Oz’.
And yet, even when everything seems very clear and transparent, the Jewish mind still craves for the grand truth or the hidden power. In the modern secular world without God, the great letdown for those with the Jewish mentality is the sense that there might no longer be any great mystery left once science reveals or solves everything. And yet, the Jewish mind will always crave for the mystery to wrap itself around since the Jewish mind has grown accustomed, even addicted, to such mental habits over thousands of years. And the key feature of the Jewish mental habit is ‘thoughtability’. Jews are not content with mere faith in mystery; the nature of the mystery must accommodate their need to think about it incessantly. This is why it’s something of a bummer when the travelers in THE STALKER(by Andrei Tarkovsky from the novel ROADSIDE PICNIC by the Jewish science fiction writers Boris and Arkady Strugatsky; my guess is that Tarkovsky Christianized what was, in the original telling, a very Jewish mental exercise — indeed, with the holy fool at the center of the film, Tarkovsky emphasized the power of faith and devotion, as he did earlier with the story of SOLARIS by the Polish-Jewish Stanislaw Lem; in Lem’s telling, the story becomes essentially a philosophical-mind-game, whereas in Tarkovsky’s presentation, it’s about the power of faith and soul above the mind and intellect; the emphasis of Christianity is purity of faith, whereas the essence of Judaism is in the depth of contemplation, which is why the Jewish mind is better at stuff like chess). For thousands of years, Jews regarded the world in terms of God’s presence being everywhere. Jews were likely more sensitive to and even paranoid about God’s presence in the world since Jewish laws were far more specific about what Jews could and couldn’t do in their daily lives. If Jews did something wrong — eat the ‘wrong’ food, touch the ‘wrong’ people, do the ‘wrong’ thing on certain days — , they could get stoned to death or at least shunned real bad. Judaism wasn’t just about the matter of the heart but about the hands and feet. So, Jews had to be very mindful of the world and their physical relationship with it. Even though they were careful to avoid idolatry — confuse worldly man-made objects with the holy or Godly — , they were aware of how the way of God could be written on every grain of sand. Also, Jews didn’t think much about the afterlife and the core of Judaism rejected such notions, and therefore, Jews measured one’s worth in accordance to how they lived by the laws of God in this world. In contrast, Christianity rejected most laws in the Torah — especially stuff about diet and clothing and all that, not least because Christianity had to appeal to so many diverse gentile communities with different customs and habits on food and dress — , and therefore, Christians were less ‘paranoid’ about doing the right/proper/correct thing at all times and in all places. They need not worry that they’d be cursed because they ate some shrimp or pork ribs. Also, as Christianity emphasized how eternal afterlife with God could be attained through pure devotion, Christians came to emphasize the matter of the heart over the matters of the hand-and-feet in relation to the actual world. Christians were also less ‘paranoid’ in regard to other peoples since Christianity, in theory, embraced all peoples. Even Godless heathens could, after all, be converted and be embraced as members of the flock. In contrast, Jews saw the division between Jews and gentiles as permanent and unbridgeable. Jews were forever the Chosen People, and gentiles were forever those-Jews-couldn’t-break-bread-with. If Jews decided to become gentiles, they were forever lost to God according to Judaism, even if they, as Christians or Muslims, still worshiped the same God as the Jews did. For a Jew to be a good Jew or any kind of Jew at all, he had to worship God as a Jew in the bosom of his Jewish tribe. If a Jew converted to Christianity or Islam and worshiped God as a non-Jew, he was seen as cursed by God in the eyes of Jews. Also, even though some Jews allowed some degree of gentile conversion to Judaism, most Jews didn’t want an open tent policy, and indeed, the requirement of circumcision was enough to dissuade most gentile men from joining the Tribe. In some ways, Jews were more mindful of the material world than Christians were because there was much in the Torah in regard to how Jews must always carry out their right/correct/proper duties in their lives. And yet, Jews also felt a greater dread about the world since most of the world was Gentile and not Jewish. If Jews, like the Amish, were mostly content to settle down and become farmers in an enclosed community, they might have been left alone by Gentiles and vice versa. But Jews were a merchant people and often a nomadic people, which meant that Jews constantly bumped into various gentile groups. Of course, other peoples also constantly rubbed shoulders or battled with other groups in the Near East, North Africa, and Southern Europe that were the hotbed of much cultural, economic, and political ferment. Still, interrelationships with other groups was always more complicated with Jews since they were exiled from their ‘homeland’ so often and because the nature of their God was so dismissive and hostile to other religions, cultures, and belief systems. While Greeks and Romans might trade gods and myths — and may even lift the deities from other cultures — , Jews insisted on the truth and uniqueness of their one and only God, a characteristic that both amused and irritated — and in some cases fascinated — the Romans and Greeks to no end. Ironically, Jews came to know more about gentiles than gentiles did of other gentiles because, whereas most gentile folks stuck with their own kind, Jews came to rub shoulders with so many gentile groups. So, if most Germans stuck with Germans, most Russians stuck with Russians, most Persians stuck with Persians, and etc., Jews got to know just about every gentile group in the Old World stretching from North Africa to Northern Europe. And as the world become increasingly interconnected and proto-globalized, Jews all around the world began to identify with one another and share notes. It was this sense of common Jewishness that bound them together even though there were tensions among Jews of different nationalities, e.g. sophisticated Western European Jews looking down on Eastern European and Middle Eastern ones.
Several factors brought many Jews around the world together: Marxism, Americanism, Holocaust, Hollywood, and Zionism. Via Marxism, many Jews of different nationalities favored radical internationalism over (gentile-centric)nationalism; indeed, one wonders if Jewish preference for internationalism was due to idealistic commitment or due to its convenience in undermining gentile nationalisms that were the thorns in the side of global Jewish power. After all, many leftist Jewish internationalists ultimately came to favor Zionism and Judeo-centric globalism over color-blind internationalism.
And then there was Americanism that melded different Jews from different nations speaking different tongues into a single Jew, the American Jew. Indeed, Jews didn’t so much assimilate and meld into Anglo-America as use Americanism to mold Jews of different nationalities into the ‘American Jew’ who remained distinct from most other Americans.
This is why ‘Jewish assimilation’ works differently from other versions. When an Irish-American marries an Italian-American, their kids just become ‘American’. But when Jews marry, say, successful Chinese or rich Anglos, it’s like a marriage of power, like what the aristocrats used to do when, say, a Russian nobleman married a German noblewoman. It was a way of strengthening bonds among the rich and powerful. As Anglo elites are rich and as Chinese are rising in the world, it’s useful for Jews to forge blood ties with such people as the mixed-race kids will serve as a bridge between the powerful Jewish community and the privileged Anglo elite community and rising Chinese community. Though Jews still bitch about Anglo elites and ‘white privilege’ — the kind that kept rich Jews out of Wasp golf clubs long ago — , Jews no longer fear the white/Anglo elites as Wasps are now totally willing to whore themselves out to the Jewish elites. In some cases, Anglo-Americans without privilege or wealth but of some talent or intelligence will seek a special alliance with Jews to be put on the fast-track to success since richer Wasps don’t seem to be very helpful. This was the case of Bill Clinton who was born into a modest household and hardly a favorite son of the Wasp establishment. Like the character of THE GREAT GATSBY who gained success by working with Jews, Clinton the upstart Wasp threw his lot with rising Jewish power in the Democratic Party. Today, most Anglo/white ELITES will do ANYTHING to be chummy with the all-powerful Jews.
What worries Jews is that the white conservative MASSES still want some kind of white unity across class lines and hope for white elites to serve as leaders of the White Nation. Jews want white elites as collaborators serving the Jewish elites and certainly not as proud white leaders of the white masses. This is why Jews especially want to destroy Vladimir Putin. Jews hate what he represents. Putin is profoundly Russian and sees himself as a Russia leader of the Russian masses, and he has some ties with rising nationalist parties and movements in Western Europe.
In the US and EU, the white elites are collaborationist vassals of globalist Jewish elites, and Jews want to keep it that way. Though Jewish elites and Jewish masses are united, Jews don’t want white elites and white masses to be likewise united. The fatal flaw of white power in the US is that it’s divided not only ideological but along class lines. White elites still have lots of power, but instead of using it to lead and represent white people, they seek to guard their privilege by cozying up to Jewish supremacists. Of course, the bulk of American Conservative masses are blind-as-a-bat and don’t know what’s happening because they’ve failed to realize that the lack of white leadership is due to Jewish power and influence. White American Conservative masses suck up to Jews no less than white elites do in the crazy idea that Jews are ‘fellow whites’ and share in ‘Judeo-Christian’ values(when, in fact, most American Jews have more favorable feelings toward Muslims than to Christian Conservatives). True, Jews are mostly white in the racial sense, but in the cultural-political sense, Jews are the most anti-white people in the US and EU. If American Conservatives really want unity between white elites and white masses, they need to realize that white elites have been hijacked by the Jewish elites who now give orders to the collaborationist white elites. Why won’t the likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rand Paul, and others stand up for white rights, white interests, and white power? They are too busy sucking up to Jews. So, why are so many American Conservatives blind to this? Because so many of them get their news from Fox News and Talk Radio, both of which are dominated by Jews. When American Conservative dummy masses listen to the likes of Michael Medved, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage, they have this crazy notion that most Jews are on their side and that white interests and power are all about waving the Israeli flag... when, in fact, what’s been done to the Palestinians is now being perpetrated on whites in both EU and the US at the behest of Jewish supremacist power. It was the Jews who put Obama in the White House, and it was Jews’ Boy Obama who appointed the likes of Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The idea of honoring the Jewish community even after it has committed such terrible transgressions against the white race is surreally retarded. It’s like waving the Rising Sun flag right after Pearl Harbor. Indeed, the Japanese imperialists and even Alqaeda posed far less danger to the US than Jews have done. The Japanese only wanted to neutralize the US navy so that it could consolidate its power in Asia. Muslim radicals struck the US because US policy made a mess of the Middle East. Neither the Japanese nor Muslims had any plan to invade and rule America, change its basic laws, alter the demographics, turn white women into mudsharks, instill whites with ‘white guilt’, encourage blacks to attack and victimize white people, take over Wall Street to rob everyone, and etc. It was Jews who were determined to conquer America and turn whites into their soul-slaves.
Paradoxically, the true ‘mental nature/character’ of a culture can sometimes be best observed when a person or a people are removed from their ‘natural’ environment are placed in a foreign one. Within the original environment, the person’s habits, thoughts, feelings, assumptions, prejudices, and values are in tune with the prevailing culture. He will feel ‘comfortable’ despite restrictive confines of his culture because those restrictions are integral to the culture itself.
Furthermore, insofar as all souls seek some measure of individuality and freedom even within cultural confines and to the extent that every culture is restrictive in unique ways with its own set of taboos and tolerances, people of different cultures develop different ways of expressing their individualities. For example, some cultures are very restrictive in manners while more tolerant in ideas while others more restrictive in ideas while looser in manners. Traditional Brits were of the former type of culture. So, the Jewish way of individuality/freedom is different from, say, the Hindu-Indian mode of individuality/freedom. The British found their individuality in witty banter, Jews found it in intellectual-spiritual eccentricity, Germans found it in running around naked in the woods while singing melodies from Wagner, Japanese found it in sitting underneath a freezing waterfall and meditating about fish. So, not only are all cultures different from one another in their restrictions/repressions but they are also different from one another in their allowances of freedoms/liberties — which explains why, even in the modern globalized world with so many liberties and freedoms, peoples of different cultures go about practicing their freedoms differently. And yet, all such particular styles of freedoms were paradoxically shaped and formed(and deformed) by different kinds of cultural restrictions/repressions around the world. In feudal Japan, there was great emphasis on duty and loyalty to the lord. And yet, because Japanese were never as moralistic as the Chinese were — Japanese elites were military lords than Confucian bureaucrats — , Japanese society tolerated a good deal of sexual weirdness as long as Japanese kept their peccadillos apart from their moral/social life. Japan hasn’t been feudalistic for a long time, but the old way of Japanese freedom/individuality still can be found in Japan that expresses much of its individuality/freedom through weird sexual expressions, such as rapacious tentacles in so-called ‘hentai’ anime such as the foul LEGEND OF OVERFIEND. Even with many of the old socio-cultural restrictions/repressions gone from modern Japan(at least in legal terms), the Japanese mentality still seeks individuality through modes of freedom developed during centuries of feudalism. Perhaps, one of the dangers of German nature-worship as the preferred mode of German freedom/individualism was it could function as a powerful outlet of irrationalism and blind passion. German society, for the most part, was conformist, repressive, and rigid in many respects, but once in awhile, it was permissible for Germans to take off their clothes, swim in lakes, run naked in the forests, and act like pagans in tune with nature. So, modern Germans came to associate freedom/liberation with nature-worship, and this fusion of modernity and primordial-ism was something the National Socialists played on. Though many like to believe that Hitler and Nazis were only about oppression and tyranny, they were seen as liberators by many Germans who’d come to associate freedom with taking off clothes, loving animals, and worshiping nature — things celebrated by Nazism if done properly; Nazi sexuality was a paradoxical expression of Victorian Liberationism; one could ‘celebrate’ nudity but through ideal posturing.
Depending on how the system/power exploits the tropes of freedom, even the oppressed whose freedom has effectively been taken away can feel liberated and free. Though Nazi Germany was lacking in liberal democratic freedom, Germans were encouraged to feel liberated from the claws of the wicked International Jew. Likewise, though Russians were under communist tyranny, they were told they were free from capitalist exploitation and tyranny. Though blacks were second-class citizens in the US, they were told to value their individual liberty as ‘free Americans’. Of course, every form of ‘freedom’ necessitates the suppression of certain other kinds of ‘freedoms’. For homos to have the ‘freedom’ to marry, those who believe in true marriage no longer have the freedom to define marriage in a way that is meaningful to them.
Consider the problems of ‘freedom’ in the current West, especially in UK and US. As Anglos had been orderly and self-restrained — and relatively sexually repressed — , they developed a way of expressing and experiencing feelings of liberation/freedom through hardiness of sports and commitment to moral progress. Consider the issue of moral progress. As long as the media yammer on and on about MLK and fighting ‘racism’, white Americans think they are marching for ever greater freedom and liberty... even though they’re being turned into powerless running dogs of the Jews. Even though US foreign policy is now geared toward serving globalist Jewish/Zionist interests, many Americans think they are spreading freedom all over the world because there’s so much yammering about ‘spreading democracy’. In the 1960s, a new kind of Americanism found freedom and liberation through sex, drugs, and Rock n Roll, and those mantras have become so much a part of the Boomer Narrative about freedom/liberation that, as long as America seems doped out and over-sexed, Americans think they are so free... even though they are really under the tyranny of Jews. Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD was prophetic in this sense. As long as Americans think they’re getting more porn, more drugs(legalization of pot), more free contraceptives, and etc. they think they are the freest people on earth. (While legalization of pot makes sense, potheads are likely to be more non-resistant to tyranny as they’re too doped out, feeling ‘groovy’, and laughing at stupid stuff to unite for decisive action against the elites. Potheads’ idea of moral progress is toking more soma.) In the past, tyrannies thought the populace should be tightly controlled, ruled by fear, and denied all sorts of freedoms to nip rebellious and individualistic instincts in the bud. Consider how communist nations were anxious about the influence of Western Rock music, and indeed, it’s often been said that Rock culture brought down the USSR — in the case of Libya, it appears Gaddaffi & his pampered sons were more into Rock celebrity culture, and it was the anti-Western Islamic radicals who brought their regime down, with the aid of NATO air power of course. Anyway, what the Narrative of the Cold Culture War between communism and the West ignores is that Rock culture can also be used by the Powers-that-be to keep the people infantile, docile, stupid, and foolish. Just look at all those minion-fans of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. Why should the Jewish overlords fear the foolish masses whose primary purpose in life is to be ‘wage slaves’ earning money to spend it to make the Jews even richer? Consumerism is more out-of-control than ever before. In the past, naked consumerism and mindless celebrity-ism had their critics and counterweight in moralistic Catholics, ‘puritanical’ Wasps, Jewish leftists, and even Jewish businessmen who were afraid of the gentile backlash if they were to push things too far. Especially Catholics and Anglo-American conservatives were suspicious of Jewish control of Hollywood and popular culture — seen as vice industries — , therefore, Jewish moguls were eager to show that they were ‘good Americans’ who respected ‘community values’. As for Jewish leftists and liberals, even though they were often at loggerheads with gentile conservative censoriousness or prudery, they were also hostile to capitalist commoditization of culture and often championed such things as the ‘art film’ and ‘serious literature’ over Hollywood and ‘trash’. But conservative gentile culture critics have all fallen by the wayside, and even the children of Jewish leftists grew to work in the pop culture industry, so what we have today is the total supremacy of Jewish-dominated consumerist-celebrity culture that floods us with trash 24/7. If it smells, it sells. Also, there’s something about hedonism that is so addictive that even gentile conservatives who oppose vice industries and their products in moral principle find themselves too addicted to that stuff to resist it publicly lest they accused of hypocrisy. Indeed, consider all the Christian preachers who got exposed for adultery and porn. Consider conservatives who turned out to be degenerate gamblers. Consider powerful Republican politicians who banged secretaries left and right. While many conservatives may still disapprove of such behavior, too many — especially the powerful and privileged — are too steeped in that sort of thing(via either personal indulgence or financial dependence on vice industry moguls like Sheldon Adelson) to raise much of a moral fuss about them. After all, we live in a time when most prominent Conservatives are quiet about the homo agenda since they rely on the support of Jews(who push the homo agenda) and because they have homo friends, allies, and partners in high places. Power has its own logic apart from right and wrong. (We need to be ever more careful of terms like ‘empowerment’ because the rules and conditions of the various forms of ‘empowerment’ are really beyond the power of individuals to shape and define them. Consider how, in the 60s, the likes of Black Panthers & Nation of Islam defined ‘empowerment’ in their own self-serving manner: For black people to be ‘free’ and ‘empowered’, they should adhere to new set of rules defined not by the black majority but by the black radicals as the new vanguard. So, ‘empowerment’, more often than not, means coming under the power of the new would-be elites. Most people are too dumb, unoriginal, or un-individualistic to define and shape their own meanings of freedom, liberty, and power. They must rely on others to define the terms and perimeters for them. And all such means of ‘empowerment’ demand a new form of conformity, which is why the ‘empowered’ homosexual community attacks homos who refuse to endorse ‘gay marriage’ and attacks transvestites who still use the term ‘tranny’. Likewise, according to Nazism, the only way to become ‘empowered’ and ‘free’ as a German had to be its way or the highway. So, even as Nazis promised liberation and freedom from Jewish exploitation and freedom, they demanded that all Germans seek ‘empowerment’ only through the Hitlerian and National Socialist formula. And communists claimed to liberate the workers and peasants, but the latter had to sign onto Marxism-Leninism or else. The world we live in offers far more freedom than the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, but even most Americans seek ‘empowerment’ through means and modes as defined by various elites and would-be-elites. So, a lot of women think they are ‘empowered’ because they yell ‘vagina’ at rallies, take part in ‘slut pride’ parade, and throw hysterics about ‘war on women’, all at the behest of the elite feminist establishment funded by Jews. Or, some young women are dumb enough to swallow the BS that porn is ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’, which is like cows in a dairy farm feeling ‘empowered’ by having their teats milked 24/7. As for American Conservatives, they think they’re ‘empowered’ if they wave the Israeli flag, suck up to Jews, bark rabidly at Russia, and sing hosannas to MLK. How do those passions help white American Conservatives in any way? Of course, they don’t, but as most American Conservatives are too blind and dumb to see and think for themselves, they find ‘empowerment’ only through the dictates and guidelines of the American Conservative establishment that is overwhelmingly controlled by Jews directly and indirectly. Directly because Jews like Sheldon Adelson hold the purse-strings, and indirectly because Liberal Jews control the media & government and will viciously strike against any American Conservative who dares to redefine conservatism in terms of white power and white interests. So, people need to beware whenever someone talks about ‘empowerment’. Listen carefully, and it’s usually the case that most instances of ‘empowerment’ amount to little more than conformity to the rules of elites or would-be-elites. Even though many people pretend to be against the mainstream or the system, their views of the world usually fall into one of the politically correct categories of Simple Think. Besides, even most people who take pride in their so-called ‘anti-normativism’ and ‘anti-mainstream-ism’ simply want to replace the existing normality and mainstream with their own versions, in which case they become the ‘new normal’ or the ‘new mainstream’. Almost no one has the guts to speak about the REAL power in this country, and of course, that is Jewish Power.)
As for Jews through most of their history, in which manner were they allowed a measure of freedom within their taboo-laden community? One way was intellectual-spiritual upmanship via Talmudic studies, and the other way was economically ripping off goyim and driving them crazy. Jewish laws were dogmatic about how Jews must treat Jews as fellow tribesmen and brothers bound by holy Jewish blood of the Covenant, but these laws didn’t apply to goyim, though, to be sure, there were plenty of unscrupulous Jews who ripped off other Jews.
So, if it was rather risky for Jews to cheat other Jews — if found out, he could be shunned or stoned by other Jews — , it was permissible for Jews to fool, hoodwink, and/or rob gentiles. So, over many centuries, Jewish freedom/individuality came to center around ‘how to rob goyim and drive them crazy’. A Jewish elder or leader could come down harshly on a Jew who violated laws on intra-communal affairs, but he could be forgiving of and encouraging toward a Jew who acted deviously inter-communally. It’s like Gypsy elders have no problems with Gypsies robbing from non-Gypsies. And we see this Jewish habit persisting in the modern world. Even though Jews are now free and liberated, they still find so much fun, pleasure, and thrill in robbing from goyim and driving them crazy. It tickles the Jews to steal from white goy men and to reduce white daughters, wives, mothers, and sisters into a bunch of interracist whores sucking Jewish or Negro cock. It’s like the Ziegler character in Stanley Kubrick & Frederic Raphael’s EYES WIDE SHUT gets a kick out of using goy women like sex meat. It’s like Kubrick himself enjoyed using Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise as his private toys. Because the Jewish habit of freedom developed within the Jewish historical/cultural context that emphasized intellectualism and driving-goyim-crazy(but dissuaded other kinds of freedoms), such a mentality lingers in the minds of modern Jews even though they are now free to seek other healthier means of exploring and enjoying their freedom. Jews just love to debase goyim, and that explains why Jews spread all this homo stuff around the world. They take pleasure in seeing goy nation after goy nation fall like dominos to the Jewish shtick of not only moral debasement but moral debasement sold as the ‘new morality’. It’s like it’s one thing to argue that marijuana should be legalized but quite another thing altogether to promote it as the panacea to all problems. Whatever benefits pot may have, the truth is it is NOT medicine for most people, and it will cause a lot of problems. It’s evident from Marx Brothers pranks, Howard Stern & Sarah Silverman routines, and Bill Maher antics the degree to which Jews take pleasure in slinging mud and shooting cum at goyim — when not lobbing bombs at Palestinians to kill a whole bunch of women and children. Indeed, some Jews in Israel even find entertainment value in the sight of Gaza being bombed back to the stone age.
Anyway, mentalities are like smells. When a Hindu lives among other Hindus in India, he doesn’t smell the curry since everyone smells like curry. So, curry-odorousness is odorlessness in India since everyone smells so much like curry that hardly anyone notices. In order to know what a Hindu really smells like, he must be placed in a non-Hindu society where the people, unused to curry smells, will notice that the Hindu reeks of that stuff.
Same goes for mentalities. The kind of mentality or mental habit that is normal in a Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia will seem out-of-place in a non-Muslim nation. People really take notice of something when they find it to be ‘wrong’ or ‘out of place’. It’s like we don’t notice the presence of our organs when they function properly but begin to notice when they begin to malfunction and cause discomfort or pain. (This is why social change is usually difficult. When something has been established as the ‘proper norm’ in a society, most people don’t sense or notice that there’s anything really wrong with it. It’s just part of their culture. It’s like most Americans, Conservative or Liberal, find nothing wrong with eating pork even when it entails the mass slaughter of highly intelligent and emotionally complex creatures. They are just used to seeing bacon and ribs as part of their diet. Or, it’s like when everyone reeks of curry, stinking of that stuff isn’t seen or smelt as a problem. For India to rise above excessive curry stink, a Hindu with extra-powerful nose must notice it within himself and declare it as a problem in the hope that others will come to agree with him, and then, perhaps there will come a day when most Hindus will notice their own stink and change their ways and eat less curry. And then, those who continue to eat ‘too much curry’ will be seen as being outside the norm of the new India. Jews want white people to be aware of their own stink. Jews figure whites were tolerant of their own stink since the stink of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ hung in the very air that white folks inhaled and exhaled. But once the white moral nose has been made extra-sensitive to ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ stink — and even ‘homophobic’ stink — , white folks took PC showers and scrubbed themselves with ‘inclusive’ Jewish soap, Negro soap, and homo soap so that they’ll be washed clean of old odors. There was a time when almost all Americans found the idea of ‘gay marriage’ stinky and putrid, but today, the majority of young white Americans think homosexuality is the most morally fragrant thing and that those who reject ‘gay marriage’ are the real stinkeroos. But then, conservatives could argue that white Liberals haven’t made themselves morally clean but only made themselves accustomed to the stink of Jewish bullshit. Ironically, Jews, Negroes, and homos have totally stuffed-up-noses about their own stinks, though, to be sure, they do notice the stinks of one another despite pretending not to in their united front against white conservative America. So, blacks are impervious to all the foul stink they stirred up in Ferguson, Missouri. They are still dousing themselves with the stale Negro perfume that pretends that Michael Brown was a ‘gentle giant’ who was ‘murdered’ by a white cop. And homos think their agenda is so sweet and rosy... despite the fact that their idea of ‘marriage’ includes two fruitkins who indulge in the gross act of fecal penetration. It’s like feces is the new fragrance, or ‘fagrance’ as the case may be. But it’s the Jews who are most obnoxiously impervious to their own epic stink of collusion & corruption, Zionist tyranny, Wall Street robbery, warmongering in Ukraine and Middle East, culture of deception, and rabid & virulent hatred for white Americans.) Indeed, this is one of the reasons for the difference between so-called ‘blue states’ and ‘red states’. Both have their taboos, correctness, and social pressures that happen to be invisible and ‘odorless’ in their own communities but reek outside it. So, a ‘blue state’ Jew feels at home in Jew-dominated NY but, in a ‘red state’ setting, begins to notice that everything about him that seemed so proper and wonderful in NY suddenly seems so ugly, stupid, putrid, and retarded in the new environment that is steeped in a different set of values and attitudes. But since the arrogant and pushy Jew feels himself to be right no matter wherever he goes, he accuses the ‘red state’ of harboring intolerance and irrationality when, in fact, he is no less intolerant of the ways of the ‘red state’. But many people in ‘red states’ feel the same way about people in ‘blue states’. What ‘smells’ normal about themselves in their own communities stink to high heaven in other communities. One way is to assimilate by changing one’s own ‘odor’ to fit the general ‘odor’ of the society, but the chutzpah-istic Jewish way is to insist that everyone else must change their ‘smells’ in order to be pleasing to the Jews. So, if a Jew smells like shit and goes to a goy community that finds him to smell like shit, the Jew will insist that he’s the one who smells good while it’s the goyim who smell like shit, and so, they must smear shit all over them so that THEY will be pleasing to the Jew. So, Jews push the homo agenda all over the US and even into Russia. Jews want to smear the entire world with the smell of homo fecal penetrative shit as the ‘new cultural normal’.
Paradoxically, one could argue that the Jew developed a keener and stronger sense of Jewishness because he roamed ‘eternally’ in the lands of the non-Jewish, against whom the meaning and image of Jewishness became more clearly etched. (If Jews hadn’t possessed the faith of the Covenant, they likely would have just assimilated and melded into the larger gentile communities. But because they simultaneously possessed the most tribal form of consciousness and practiced the most tireless form of nomadism, the sense of Jewishness became ever more powerful because Jewishness developed in stubborn contrast against goy cultures. When a culture is premised on living in the world of the Other, all the while resiliently maintaining one’s separateness from it, it is bound to grow more powerful. Swedes and Japanese need not think much about maintaining their uniqueness and differences in identity since they could take it for granted as their nations existed apart from other nations. But Jews had to make an extra effort to maintain their separateness since they lived in nations that were not their own. It’s telling that Japanese-Americans and Swedish-Americans have become, for the most part, become Americans, whereas Jewish-Americans still have a powerful sense of Jewishness. Jews are used to making an extra effort to remain different by invoking history, culture, religion, and identity. Most other peoples are used to taking their unique identities for granted. So, when they are placed in foreign land, they are more likely to just meld with larger community as they aren’t used to making an extra effort to maintaining their uniqueness.) For most of Jewish history, Jews-as-Jews in their own communities felt natural as Jews — though there was some degree of anxiety and unease from the fact of co-existence with large numbers of gentiles. So, a Jew being Jewish was the most natural and ‘comfortable’ thing in the world within the Jewish community. Even when Jews were persecuted, they felt a certain security in knowing that they were Jews who felt as Jews, thought as Jews, behaved as Jews, were hated as Jews, and were persecuted as Jews. Times could be tough, but whether things were good or bad, Jews felt ‘at home’ in being Jewish among other Jews. Even as suffering Jews, they suffered Jewishly as suffering Jews in the company of other suffering Jews, and as suffering Jews, they could always pray to their Jewish God.
But when Jews became secularized and modernized, they could no longer fall back on the template of Jewishness. Rather, the Jewish mentality was exposed to and released unto a world in which Jewishness was something different, alien, and even hostile(and wicked). Now, things might have been simpler if Jews found some way to ditch their Jewish mentality and adopt the mentality of the goyim, but this wasn’t easy since cultural habits have a way of becoming deeply ingrained into the personalities and outlooks of a people. Even when Jews dumped Jewish religion, culture, and identity, the Jewish mind-set remained. Indeed, the Jewish mentality could even be genetic. After all, if Jewish culture/community had long favored and prized certain kinds of attitudes and mind-sets over others, then those Jews most abundantly equipped with such natural traits would have been favored over other Jews, especially in the choice of mates and opportunities to have kids. For example, if a society prizes loyal, docile, and quiet members, then the nasty, pushy, and rowdy ones will be exiled or even killed; and future generations will become more docile and submissive. But if a society prizes wily, cunning, pushy, and brazen members, then such people will be favored over the quiet, dim, earnest, and Dan-Quayle-like. (How many Dan-Quayle-like personalities are there among Jews? I haven’t met a single one.) The favored ones will gain control of the community and produce more kids with similar traits. (In this regard, there’s something peculiar about the Jews. Most civilized gentile communities favored genetic traits of conformism, subservience, submissiveness, loyalty, and etc. After all, ruling elites required loyal retainers[even among the warrior class/caste] and obedient subjects. If unruly traits prevailed among the populace, it would have been difficult for the elites to maintain order, especially as civilization is like an ant colony or beehive. It’s about the ability of various groups to know their places and proper roles. This is why class/caste systems were so important to civilizations. Though class/caste systems could be stifling and repressive, they also maintained order by having people in different roles/occupations accept their allotments in life. While Jews also stressed order and stability in their own community, their culture also came to prize the unruly, the wily, the difficult, the neurotic, the eccentric, and the weird. One reason was the ‘democratic’ nature of Jewish religion that tended to have a limiting effect on class/caste mentality. If all Jews were equal before God, something like the Hindu caste system would have been unthinkable among Jews. Another reason was the element of moral righteousness and intellectualism in Judaism. In most pagan cultures, there were priests to carry out spiritual duties, and everyone else followed in rituals and customs. There was no need to think about stuff. Also, most pagan religions were about pleasing the gods, not about being righteous with the Word of God. Since the Jewish God was a complex figure, it was natural for Jews to think endlessly about Him, and this fueled intellectual tradition that favored propensity over propriety. Also, as the Jewish God was moralistic, Jews got into the habit of yammering endlessly about right-and-wrong. And since the concept of right is at odds with the concept of might, even relatively lowly Jews could become engaged in moral debates and win the argument via demonstration of wit, knowledge, and sheer mental-emotional stamina, as was clearly the case with St. Paul who, though the founder of Christianity, was a very Jewishy character. RUN-DMC’s song "You Talk Too Much" could well have applied to him. Even the lowest Jew could invoke God to make his case. But another reason why Jews came to favor troublesome traits — the kind disfavored by most gentile civilizations — was because Jews often lived among non-Jews. If most Jews had lived in a Jewish-dominated world for thousands of years, perhaps Jews would have also come to favor traits of obedience, submission, conformity, and etc. Jewish elites would have preferred loyal Jewish retainers & managerial class who, in turn, would have preferred loyal Jewish subjects who worked hard and just shut the hell up. Like with the Japanese. But as Jews had to survive and earn their bread in non-Jewish lands, they had to have extra-strong personalities to gain advantages. So, the troublesome Jewish traits that might have been deemed as problematic and discouraged[and weeded out] in a purely Jewish social order were advantageous in a world where Jews had to hustle, bustle, scramble, shuffle, and fiddle-and-skittle to win the extra bread. In a stable order, the elites want the subjects to obey, and the subjects want to follow the elites. But among Jews-in-exile, Jewish elites could hardly offer protection to the Jewish masses who, in turn, had to rely as much on themselves as depend on Jewish elites for their survival. Also, Jewish elites had to be more adept at serving gentile elites than relying on the loyalty of Jewish masses for their success. So, oddly enough, despite the powerful cultural and spiritual glue that held the Jewish community together, Jews developed the kind of personalities that always threatened to tear it apart along eccentric-individualistic lines.) So, it wasn’t easy for Jews to ditch the Jewish mentality. The likes of Sigmund Freud, Leon Trotsky, Franz Kafka, Ayn Rand, Stanley Kubrick, Susan Sontag, Pauline Kael, Woody Allen, Don Rickles, Mel Brooks, David Mamet, Larry Summers, Howard Stern, Mark Levin, and Victoria Nuland were born with Jewish mind-sets and personalities. Even if Howard Stern had been raised by a clean-cut Mormon family, he would have eventually come around to acting ‘Jewishy’. It’s in his genes.
Though traditional Jews faced many worries and even frights as they maintained their identity-and-culture in goy majority societies, at the very least they knew who they were and what their culture was about. They were the Chosen People, the people with the Covenant with God. A people whose culture was rooted in ancient history.
But once Jews became the Modern Jew, they were confronted with something very strange. They could no longer tell what they were, and yet, they still felt something powerful as legacy of what their people had been through the eons. It’s like someone who’s been in prison for a long time still has the habits of a prisoner even after he’s been released. He has an inbuilt prison-of-the-mind. With Jews, it wasn’t as simple as being let out of prison. Though the ‘Emancipation’ did open up whole new opportunities for Jews and was a means by which they could abandon the ‘superstitious’ and reactionary burden of Judaism itself, their earlier existence as Jews-in-exile had also been a kind of home, a kind of freedom. Though discriminated by gentiles, they’d also discriminated against gentiles and kept their Jewish community/culture free of filthy gentile influences. With ‘Emancipation’, Jews could walk out of ‘past prison’ and freely join the gentile order, and this was certainly a kind of liberty. But it also meant the Jew becoming insignificant like a bug in the grand edifice of another culture/people. It’s like one can feel as a king-as-prisoner-of-his-own-castle but feel as nothing as a freeman-in-the-larger-world. Fidel Castro is both the king and prisoner of Cuba in the sense that he can only be king by remaining stuck in Cuba. It was the same thing with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Within the confines of Iraq, he was king. Outside it, he was a nothing. Today, Jews rule the world and own the West, but in the late 19th century and early 20th century, Jews weren’t only thrilled by new freedoms but also anxious of newfound insignificance because they’d lost the comfort of traditional Jewishness yet hadn’t gained mastery in the modern world into which they’d crawled as cockroaches. The ‘emancipated’ Jew no longer needed to feel as an ‘exiled Jew’ because he fully or nearly-fully could take part in the gentile order, but in assimilating into the gentile world, he might feel exiled and estranged from Jewishness. He went from being a Jew-in-exile to a nobody-exiled-from-Jewishness. He had cast off his Jewishness but had yet to complete the transformation via assimilation into the gentile. It’s like a butterfly has to change from a caterpillar to a chrysalis before it can turn into a full-fledged butterfly. The newly ‘emancipated’ Jew was no longer the old Jewish caterpillar but neither was he the full-fledged gentile-ized butterfly. He was in the state of transformation. But what if what finally emerged from the chrysalis was not the gentile butterfly but a different insect altogether? It’s like the Jewish kid in EUROPA EUROPA is afraid that his German comrades will discover that his Jewish caterpillar-pud can never transform into an ‘Aryan’ one. The ‘emancipation’ had been enacted in the hope that Jews would transform into bona fide Europeans, but many Jews and anti-Semites were agreed on one thing: When Jews finally emerge from their Chrysalis form, they won’t resemble and behave like other European butterflies but act like aggressive roaches. Of course, Jews savored this possibility since they were obsessed with gaining supremacy over the Western world, but anti-Semites were disgusted since they wanted the West to be ruled by its indigenous peoples. The idea that someone like Albert Brooks or Bob Dylan could metamorphose into someone like Clint Eastwood or Ronald Reagan is ridiculous when you think about it.
Glazer’s pretentious film has been compared with the works of Kubrick, but I don’t see much of a resemblance. The style of UNDER THE SKIN is more akin to the ‘improvisational’ mode of Jean-Luc Godard’s 60s films and other Euro-Art-House mannerisms. It does have some striking images, but either the original material(novel by Michael Faber)was too slight for creative expansion or Glazer & his co-scenarists hadn’t thought things through. As such, UNDER THE SKIN the film strains for allegory but in the vaguest of terms. One might argue it was meant to be suggestive than expository, but I’m not sure Glazer was even clear on what he was suggesting. The overall effect is evasive than suggestive, as if the film isn’t sure where it’s going and dreads having to admit that it isn’t really going anywhere — rather like the journeys in EASY RIDER, BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, and APOCALYPSE NOW.
It’s evocative of Godard’s films because of the metaphor of prostitution, whereby the ‘prostitute’ is both a victim and a collaborator in the parasitic scheme of things. Scarlett Johansson’s character is like a cross between a prostitute and a Nazi SS executioner. She uses the promise of sex to lure men to their extinction, and she seems emotionless about it before something is triggered within her. (Like the Replicants in BLADE RUNNER, the longer she experiences reality among humans, the more she comes to adopt their emotions against her own programming.) On that level, UNDER THE SKIN has a very universal theme. Most life-forms will do anything to gain advantage over other life-forms or to feed on them. There’s no pity involved in this core mechanism of life. It’s either ‘me vs others’ or, if the organism is social in nature, ‘us vs others’. And the way of nature is so tough that hungry, frightened, and vicious animals have no room for pity for their ‘victims’. (Even humans are without pity when hungry, desperate, and/or weary.)
Furthermore, there are plenty of organisms without consciousness or emotions that function in the same ‘cruel’ and ‘heartless’ way. Indeed, what we call ‘cold-heartedness’ is the default mode of nature. Long before life-forms gained consciousness, their DNA programmed them to be ‘ruthless’ in gaining advantage over other life forms. Virus act viral not because of malicious intent or aggressive emotion but because of its genetic programming. The basic code of life is to consume and reproduce. In this sense, flesh-eating zombies whose basic mode/program is to consume human flesh are amoral, not evil. They feel no hate and are driven by mindless mechanism of hunger; they are like leeches sucking on the blood of animals. The very code of life is to consumer and reproduce. But as the process of evolution continued, some organisms developed proto-emotions and proto-consciousness. Proto-emotions made some organisms more ‘hyper’ and ‘aggressive’ in their reproductive and consumptive activities. It was like the formula of life on steroids. Though they did the same thing that simpler organisms were doing, they did it with greater ‘zeal’. And proto-consciousness provided organisms with a sense of direction and focus so that they were better able to find/detect food and flee from danger. Simple organisms were voracious and prolific; they were expansive in a shotgun-manner without being defensive. They spread out in all directions in the ‘hope’ of stumbling upon food. They prevailed by sheer numbers. But proto-consciousness made it possible for organisms to seek out food with greater discernment and defend & hide from danger by better identifying the harmful from the harmless. It’s like bees and ants, though not conscious in the conventional sense, are proto-conscious enough to distinguish ‘friend’ from ‘foe’. They have active defensive mechanisms lacking in, say, grass and moss. If you trample on grass, there’s nothing they can do about it. But if you try to trample on ants, they will scramble to run and hide. To be sure, even without proto-consciousness, organisms can have defensive mechanisms. It’s like white blood cells fight germs, but the process is purely mechanical and programmatic than active and ‘charged’(as among ants that become highly aggressive and driven when engaged in combat with enemy ants or devourment of other organisms perceived as food stuff). As consciousness and emotions developed further, they acted to make organisms into more aggressive attackers and motivated defenders. Also, the power of memory reinforced their aggressive nature. Ants and bees with fight fiercely depending on the situation, but they are not driven by vengeful feelings. In contrast, even after the battle is over, more intelligent animals with complex memory will continue to hate the ‘enemy’. It’s like elephants will hate a person or an animal that did it harm for a long time. It’s like a person can hate another person for the entirety of life; indeed, the person may go on hating his enemy even after the latter is dead and gone from the earth. And humans have created religions that would have us believe that the good shall gain eternal while the bad shall burn in hateful hell forever. Needless to say, most religious people see themselves as good and their enemies as evil. In this sense, religion is the hope of living forever to hate one’s condemned enemies forever and ever. To enter Heaven is to be eternally with God in hating Satan and the fallen who are to burn in Hell forever. Many people would like to believe that our aggressive, destructive, greedy, and ‘evil’ nature comes from our emotions of ‘hate’. Some religions and philosophies argue that we’d be better off without our passions that blind us to the ‘harmony’ of things. But this is something of an illusion. After all, long before emotions and consciousness developed, life forms had evolved to consume and reproduce, and both processes ‘ruthlessly’ came at the expense of other organisms. To consume means competing with other organisms for the same food or killing/eating other organisms. And to reproduce means to produce more of your kind that will not only ‘ruthlessly’ compete with other kinds but also with its own kind. After all, ants kill ants, frogs kill frogs, rats kill rats, cats kill cats, and bears kill bears. Anyway, before emotions and consciousness existed, the rule of life was to reproduce and consume/feed. Life didn’t need consciousness and emotions to be ‘avaricious’, ‘aggressive’, and ‘ruthless’. Those were the natural mode of life from the beginning. What consciousness and emotions did were to facilitate the rule of life in a more zealous, efficient, and economic manner. Because primitive life wasn’t efficient and economic, it had to produce millions of offsprings. After all, most offsprings of simple organisms die before reaching maturity. A tree has to produce thousands of seeds so that one might grow into a tree. Fish have to lay countless eggs so that one might grow to fish-hood. Sea turtles lay lots of eggs, out of which maybe one out of a hundred or thousand grow to adulthood. But with more highly developed consciousness, more complex animals could take better care of themselves and their young. Thus, they were more efficient in procuring food and reproducing; therefore, they need not have so many offsprings. Also, emotions made them very attached to their young, making them more protective, not least by exhibiting extreme rage and hatred toward those who might harm their young. Attachment to or love for one’s offspring and/or own kind made organisms especially hateful toward other organisms perceived as potential dangers to one’s own kind. It’s like lions and hyenas hate one another. This is why Zionist Israelis and nationalist Palestinians hate one another: They are full of love of their own kind and see the other side as a threat. This is why sound borders are so important for peace among tribes. The rise of love also leads to the spread of hate. When European Jews and Palestinians lived apart from one another, they felt no bad blood toward one another. But once Jews begin to practice their form of tribal love in the Holy Land, it was incompatible with the Palestinian form of their own tribal love. Jewish love meant Jews loving Jews on the Jewish homeland, and Palestinian love meant Palestinians loving Palestinians on the Palestinian homeland. How Jews defined and practiced love and how Palestinians defined and practiced love were as at loggerheads. It’s like lion-ism and hyena-ism lead to intense mutual hatred.
Observing nature, it soon becomes evident that higher forms of animals use the combination of consciousness and emotions to gain advantage over other animals. It’s like a tribe of chimpanzees will howl and holler like Negroes to expand and defend its own turf against other tribes of chimpanzees. It’s like a pack of baboons will growl and attack like Negroes against other baboon packs or dangerous predators like leopards or cheetahs. The paradox of civilization is it could only have been achieved by warm-blooded mammals with heated emotions but only by cooling those emotions to reptilian ‘cold-bloodedness’. If humans acted like angry chimps or wild baboons, they would be like sub-Saharan Negroes and never amount to much in civilization-building. (Needless to say, a people can be hot-blooded and heartless just like a people can be cold-blooded and heartless. Blacks who riot and burn down cities act hot-blooded but are heartless about the harm done to their victims.) Negroes love to act apelike and holler & shit, but they haven’t been good at building and/or maintaining civilization. And yet, emotions are what makes us human. Fish, frogs, and reptiles, though not entirely lacking in emotions, have less in common with us humans than dogs, cats, pigs, and dolphins do. And yet, civilization means self-control, poise, calmness, and stability; therefore, humans must cool their hot emotions and become ‘reptilian’ in some way to work together and build something like complex civilization. This is why Leonard Jeffries the nutball Afro-centric scholar said white folks be the ‘Ice People’ as opposed to the ‘Sun People’ who be the funkyass Negroes. For white folks to be rational, they must be ‘cold’. This is where the paradox sets in. The development of hot-bloodedness was an evolutionary advancement when reptile-like creatures changed into bird-like creature or mammal-like creatures. Organisms went from cold-blooded reptiles to warm-blooded mammals capable of hot-blooded emotions. But the next stage in evolution was cool-bloodedness(emotional than physiological) that, while maintaining the warm-bloodedness of mammals, calmed emotions down so that the mind could work more rationally and less ‘intemperately’. While emotions aid mammals in charging them with greater aggression and defense, they have the detriment of making mammals act Negro-like. So, cool-bloodness sought to control the emotions by re-introducing certain cold-blooded reptilian traits. And indeed, this is a feature of cats. If dogs hunt by barking and running around like crazy, cats have the element of stealth and icy control. Cats can be 100x more fierce than any jive-ass Negro, but they can also be ‘cooler’ and more self-controlled than any ‘cold-blooded wasp’. Anyway, for the rational mind to work better, the emotions had to be put in the back-burner, and this back-burner-ization of feelings was one of the keys to the development of civilization. Though mammals are more intelligent than fish, amphibians, and reptiles, there is something about fish, amphibians, and reptiles that could be said to be more ‘proto-rational’. Though fish, amphibians, and reptiles have smaller brains and thus less capacity for reasoning than mammals do, their relative lack of emotions make them more focused on the essentials and ‘factuals’ of survival. A fish is focused on what is food, what isn’t food, what is danger, and what isn’t danger. Frogs likewise function like machines in a way. They are very alert to the essentials of survival. And same goes for alligators and crocodiles. They have infinite capacity of calmness and patience for the opportunity to strike suddenly for food. In contrast, while advanced emotions are highly advantageous to mammals, they can also get in the way of the essentials and basic necessities of survival. Suppose a leopard comes near a chimpanzee tribe. Chimps will act wild like Negroes to scare the leopard away. Their emotions will run wild, and the leopard will likely feel, "them niggers is crazy!!" and take off. But it’s also likely that a chimp will get so carried away with its emotions that it will chase after the retreating leopard, whereupon the leopard will turn around and kill it and have it for lunch. It’s like Michael Brown could have fled with his life intact, but his wild-ass apelike side just had to charge at the white officer who had no choice but to play the role of ‘white hunter’ forced to gun down the charging Negro-rhino. While crocodiles can be aggressive, once something is outside their zone of food or danger, they instantly return to their default mode of sunbathing and taking it easy. In contrast, a hippo or rhino can become so filled with fury that it will keep attacking even if doing so is a detriment to their well-being. Whoever heard of a crocodile charging a man standing 100 ft away? But rhinos and hippos have been known to charge people further away. It’s due to their fiery emotions. Of course, fish, amphibians, and reptiles act more ‘careful’ not because they are smarter or more self-controlled in a conscious manner but because they operate closer to the basic programming of life. While more complex emotions and consciousness in mammals have opened up new horizons for them, both feelings and thoughts(or proto-thoughts) can ‘distract’ or ‘divert’ the organism from the basics and essentials of life and survival. Among humans, some individuasl are emotionally so out-of-control that they are less good at survival than lesser organisms are. And some people become so distracted by things-of-the-mind(such as spiritual concepts, philosophical conceits, arts & entertainment) that they lose sight of their primary purpose of existence, which is to procreate and fight for survival, competition, and/or supremacy. The very things — thoughts and emotions — that can improve survival and competition can also serve as stumbling blocks or mazes in which one become lost. Indeed, if judged on surface behavior, fish-frogs-and-reptiles can seem to be more ‘civilized’ than chimpanzees, hyenas, baboons, wild dogs, and Negroes. A frog is more likely to act like an English gentleman, and a turtle is more likely to act like a Hindu brahmin. In contrast, the chimpanzee, the most intelligent animal next to man, often act like Negroes, the least civilized of all human races. But then, frogs and turtles act calmer and more ‘temperately’ than warm-blooded mammals not because they are intelligent, wise, mature, or civilized(which they are not), but because their simple minds are fixed on the essential priorities of life. Other than food and avoiding danger, they prefer calm rest(though frogs can go nuts during mating season with all their croaking to attract mates, but then even such ‘hysteria’ have a single-minded purpose behind it). In contrast, self-control, calmness, and temperance don’t come to humans naturally. The natural mode of humans is to act out-of-control, and this is especially true of Negroes. Because emotions so often go off the rail — it begins with babies bawling day and night — and because the mind easily becomes filled with fantasies, imaginations, faulty memories, useless hopes, and nasty vendettas, humans can easily become crazier, loonier, and nuttier than any other organism. Have you seen a frog take a razor and cut itself up in a psychotic masochistic ritual? Have you seen a real lizard act like ‘Jim Morrison’ the ‘lizard king’ in Oliver Stone’s THE DOORS? Have you seen a fish act like the Al Pacino character in DOG DAY AFTERNOON? Indeed, humans can become even crazier than chimpanzees and baboons as their minds and emotions can magnify craziness to the nth degree. And such nuttiness can make people blind to reality/truth. Though science and factual truth are seen as the highest achievement of man, our pursuit of them is paradoxically requires a kind of reversion to the fish-ian, amphibian, and reptilian mode of interacting with reality. Fish, amphibians, and reptiles are focused on the essential truths of survival. Even though they have no intellectual understanding of their own natures or reality, their ‘mind-sets’ or ‘mind-setups’ and their behavioral modes are interested on essential necessities and nothing else. They cannot be distracted or diverted from what is essential. You can fool a dog and make it run around in circles for no reason, but a frog reacts only to stuff that looks like food. Thanks to human emotions and the human mind, humans have been able to imagine all sorts of things and create all manner of stuff in arts and culture. And music and dance. But a lot of this had nothing to do with the essential truths and needs of survival or with the actual way of reality. Though the impetus behind arts, culture, and music is rooted in human nature — much of it revolve around making pretty images and sounds to attract mates — , it can take on a life of their own and divert humans from the essence of life. This is why civilizations sometimes grow decadent the more they become advanced and complex. While their arts and culture may be said to grow & flower and become finer, more creative, or imaginative, they could also become less associated with the basic needs of survival grounded in reality. It’s like the Romans became decadent and dissipated with the profusion of images and sounds that lost connection with the essence of life and the facts of reality. It’s like the power of myth overtakes the balance of reality in Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA. It’s like the Chinese got to practicing something like Foot-binding due to distortions of their culture. While humans who are crudely engaged in the basic essentials of life may remain stuck in tooth-and-nail barbarism, humans who become overly engaged in the arts & culture(that are divorced from the essential energies of life) turn decadent, dissipated, demoralized, and weak. It’s no wonder that some of the greatest civilizations crumbled after they reached their apotheoses. In rising so high, they lost the crucial connection with the essential facts of life. Since culture is more the product of human imagination than human understanding of reality and facts, it’s built on untrue premises; therefore, if built too high, the myths cannot sustain the weight of ambition and arrogance. The Nazis and Japanese Imperialists certainly discovered they couldn’t win based on the power of myth against the material superiority of US and USSR. All those Muslim volunteers who joined the Taliban to resist US invasion following 9/11 found themselves helpless against the Daisy Bombs of the American Air Force. The Chinese Boxer Rebellion didn’t get very far when, alas, the Boxers didn’t turn out to be bullet-proof after all. Chinese mysticism as the premise of Chinese civilization turned out to be utterly useless. And Western neo-mythology of ‘spreading democracy’ didn’t pan out so well in Iraq and Libya. While culture can bind a people together and give them hope/meaning/purpose, it can also fill their minds with silliness, fantasies, fashions(such as ‘gay marriage’ and homomania), superstitions, illusions, and delusions. It can also make people go crazy and become obsessed over or with dumb and retarded things. Consider how so much of the energies of the advanced world are wasted on mindless celebrity culture, sports & entertainment, gossip on Twitter, and other forms of childishness. Consider the ridiculous cults around Obama and Oprah. Those weren’t rational or moral involvement in politics and society but mind-numbed wallowing in the worship of false idols. Consider the sickening neo-religion of Holocaustianity and Jew Worship. It’s one thing to admire the Jewish people and find much to learn from their culture & history, but it’s something else to look upon Jews as the new god in a world where God is dead. While culture can deepen and broaden our emotions, it can also turn them into jelly, poison, or gunk. One wonders about a world where the worthless song-and-video "Gangnam Style" by some Korean idiot who calls himself ‘Psy’ has gained the kind of attention it has. More often than, the human mind prefers to expand on emotions than focus on facts. It’s a lot easier for the human mind to turn an emotion into ‘hope’, ‘dream’, ‘magic’, or ‘vision’ than to probe into matters of factuality of reality. Of course, mythic thinking can tell us something insightful or revealing about human nature and human relation to the larger world, but they can also make people prefer what they want to believe over what they really need to know. Though the human mind can process a lot of information and discern what is true apart from what is false(especially through simple observation of limited experience), its natural tendency is emotional, escapist, and fantastic than realistic, factual, and serious/sober. It takes a good deal of effort and control(external-via-instruction-or-tough-experience and self-driven)for the mind to become fixated on facts. With fish, amphibians, and reptiles, this isn’t a problem. With limited brains, the only facts they need to care about is food, danger, and survival. And with simpler and ‘colder’ emotions, they don’t get carried away with passions deviating from the essential truths of survival. In contrast, humans have big brains and complex emotions, and both have ‘logics’ of their own. Brains want to make up stuff, and emotions want to run wild. And this makes it difficult for humans to focus on factuality and reality. Furthermore, as humans are complex creatures, they are often not content with the simple/essential truths of survival. They need to know more, discover more, figure out more, and etc. But more often than not, this need is satisfied through religion, arts, culture, and magic that not only have little relations to facts but blind people to reality, not least because taboos associated with religions and cultures that forbid certain kinds of truth and honest observations, no matter how factually true they may be — indeed taboos are often enforced so powerfully precisely because the truth is so ruthlessly true and threatening to the sacred narrative of the culture, whether it be Conservative or Liberal(in politically correct manner). And since taboos are founded upon powerful emotions, the seekers of truth could be reviled as heretics and end up dead or be forced to remain silent. (In the case of puritanical Christianity, Stalinism-Maoism, and Political Correctness, even silence isn’t enough as everyone must be watched and pressured at all times so that they will sincerely come to love Big Brother, Big Jew, Big Negro, or Big Homo.) It’s like Galileo had to repent for speaking the truth, and things were often worse in other cultures. And today, the science of race is taboo in most ‘social science’ circles. Science and truth are ‘cold’ and ‘ruthless’, and that upsets a lot of people. Christians wanted to bask in the warm glow of Earth being at the center of the universe. After all, if God had a special love for man, why wouldn’t He have placed Earth at center of everything? Besides, the sun in the sky appears to move up and down from sunrise to sunset. So, religion and common sense worked against the truth of the real relationship between Sun and Earth. But the truth of astronomy was ‘ruthless’. It didn’t matter what Christians wanted to believe. If the Earth revolves around the Sun, that’s that and nothing could be done about it. It’s like the Negro is tougher and stronger than the white man, and no matter how much whites shouted and screamed at Jack Johnson as a worthless ‘nigger’, he was kicking all the white butts. Likewise, deluded white Liberals may want to believe in the MLK myth and the holy image of the Magic Negro in movies like THE GREEN MILE, but the truth is the real MLK was a loutish thug, and a big Negro is more likely to be like Michael Brown of Ferguson than a ‘gentle giant’. No amount of white Liberal fantasizing can change the fact that Negroes are naturally bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and less self-controlled, self-critical, & self-reflective. Science is war on untruth for the victory of truth, and true science takes no prisoners where falsehood is concerned. This is why Liberals, for all their conceit of being secular/rational/skeptical, fear aspects of science that ruthlessly undermine their Magic Theory of Progress. But radical racists also had their Magic Theories to feel glib and arrogant in their false sense of superiority. Despite all the elaborate theories of ‘Aryan supremacism’, the science of race proved that blacks are tougher(as when Joe Louis clobbered Max Schmeling) and faster(as when Jesse Owens outran German sprinters). Of course, Liberals try to spin Louis and Owens’ victories as having "destroyed the myth of Aryan supremacy" without mentioning the fact that those events also established the fact of Negro superiority in athletic matters that, if expanded to social reality, implies that most interracial violence will be black-on-non-black since blacks are stronger, tougher, and faster. But then, this fact of racial-physical differences tend to be overlooked by so-called secular ‘alternative right’ figures as well since it’s threatening to white male pride in areas of warrior pride and sexual competition. (Though ‘alternative right’ types are quick to point out that white guys are better at sports than yellow and mestizo guys, they are reluctant to notice the even more striking differences in athletics and physical attributes between blacks and whites.) ‘Alternative Right’ types prefer to discuss dry matters of intelligence in the upper extremities of the mind than the wet matters of the lower extremities of limbs and genitalia since the black man can whup the white man who is being reduced to a ‘pussified’ biological slave status who helplessly stare at the increasing phenomena of white women abandoning white wussy boys in favor of Negro studs — even when white women marry white guys for economic security, they talk their white husbands into allowing ‘Mandingos’ to hump them on their beds. Of course, white Liberal boys will try to hide their shame by pretending they are okay with interracism since it’s about ‘tolerance’, spreading love, ‘diversity’, and etc. but Negro men know they are whupping white boys and conquering white women(and taking delight in it) and white ‘mudsharks’ know they are going with black men as the new winners and dumping white boys as sorry-ass pussy boy losers. White Liberal boys can spin it anyway they want, but racial-sexual defeat is defeat just the same, and no amount of sweet-sounding BS can hide the truth that means glory to Negro men and enslavement for white men reduced to ‘white boys’, as black men derisively refer to white males whom they find to be soft, flabby, lumpy, and slow. Anyway, true science is ruthless when it comes to favoring truth over falsehoods. Some truths might be ‘ugly’ and some falsehoods may be ‘beautiful’, but science always favors facts. It’s like being diagnosed with a deadly illness may be ‘ugly’ and it may be ‘beautiful’ to believe in some magic cure or afterlife, but the fact is you’re going to die and there’s no cure that will save you and there’s no proof of any ‘other world’ after this one.
Though civilization was made possible by restraining, and controlling natural/animalistic emotions and channeling/directing the mind toward higher matters, there was no guarantee that conceptual foundations of civilizations were true, especially as modern science(as the only reliably valid way of discerning the true from the untrue)came late in the history of man. Even the remarkable Ancient Greeks, for all their accomplishments, were a very superstitious people, not least because only the elites in a few city-states like Athens had any real kind of learning. So, civilizations were more about controlling passions in favor of taboos than truths. Taboos helped to create, unify, and consolidate a civilization, but they often stood in the way of truth-seeking as they came to be revered as the sacred foundation/cornerstone of civilization itself. Also, though taboos could be forbidding and tyrannical, they also provided a sense of comfort, meaning, continuity, sanctity, and stability. For most of history, people preferred taboos over truths, indeed they conflated taboos as truths.
But the rise of modern thought began to change everything. The Enlightenment emphasized the power of the mind to seek the truth. The rise of positivism in the 19th century demonstrated through science and technology the practical potential of the rational mind and individual freedom. What Enlightenment had theorized, Positivism practiced as new cities were built from scratch(especially in America), new machines were invented, and all sorts of diseases were stamped out. As science and technology seem to make such wonders possible, many people came to see history and the world in terms of repressive-tyrannical taboos(rooted in religion and tradition) and progressive-productive truth(based on science). In the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century, science and social thought seem to be more or less on the same page. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was adopted by Herbert Spencer to formulate what came to be known as ‘social Darwinism’. 19th century ‘classic liberals’ saw liberal democracy and capitalism as not only social models but scientific models of human organization and progress. Democracy and capitalism were seen as having ‘liberated’ mankind from old repressive & irrational ways of organizing, behaving, producing, and trading. Its parallel in the sexual realm found its voice in Sigmund Freud who envisioned a future where people could be ‘liberated’ from irrationally repressive old, puritanical, or Victorian taboos that led to all kinds of complexes that, in turn, led to all kinds of mental and physical ailments. A kind of free-market-place of love. Adam Smith said, "Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition." Whether it was the ‘invisible hand’ or the Portnoy-ic hand, things were changing rapidly.
And yet, Freud wasn’t an enthusiast for free market capitalism nor for sexual libertine-ism. He could see how the release of such energies in economics and sexuality could lead to chaos and disorder. Even though repression of natural drives, emotions, and passions could be irrational, the free release of such drives, emotions, and passions could override rationality/order and turn men and women into animalistic beasks(such as Negroes). Paradoxically, the liberation of man had to be accompanied by the ‘controllation’ of man. New freedoms were promising and could release energies of the body and mind for greater progress, but they could also lead to ‘anarchy’, instability, and the clever & greedy exploiting the masses of dumb folks. This is where Karl Marx disagreed with the ‘classical liberals’. Though both sides were all agreed on the great role in science in liberating mankind from taboos, superstitions, and tradition, the crucial difference was as follows: Whereas the ‘classical liberals’ believed in the organic role of the ‘invisible hand’ to balance things for the interests of all, Karl Marx believed that the new freedoms based on individuality would allow the cutthroat capitalists to collude and maneuver to grab everything for themselves. The ‘invisible hand’ would secretly sweep all the profits to the upper classes, especially the Jews who were better than anyone else with money and business. So, while Marx was agreed with the ‘classical liberals’ on the liberation of man via the rejection & abandonment of old taboos and traditions, he was also at odds with them because he believed that a powerful state had to prevail(at least for a duration) to create a new order where everyone will gladly and willingly cooperate with others so that they can all be equally free, productive, and protected.
But he was agreed with ‘classical liberals’ on one issue, at least to some extent. He believed that the revolution had to come organically. It couldn’t be forced. According to ‘classical liberals’, capitalism would ‘organically’ balance things out for the mutual interests of all groups and classes. According to Marx, capitalism would ‘organically’ lead to development of socio-economic crises that will inevitably facilitate a revolution. Another area in which they were agreed was the need for violence to smash the old order(at least at opportune moments). Though capitalist liberal-democracies took pride in the pluralism of their social models that made room for religion, tradition, progress, tolerance, and etc., they believed in the right of capitalism to transform the landscape of entire communities, indeed almost overnight. Though this generally didn’t entail mass-killing or enslavement, countless peoples were uprooted from their communities and compelled to migrate to cities and work with machines that led to the creation of even bigger and more powerful machines. Also, capitalism could be very violent and aggressive as a form of global imperialism. They could force non-western nations to open their borders and trade with the West in the name of spreading freedom, progress, technology, and truth. Though Western influence had great benefits for the entire world, the amount of violence employed in the Westernization of the world shouldn’t be underestimated. In some cases, nice-sounding cliches about ‘progress’ were invoked to commit horrible plunder, as was the case in Congo under Belgian imperialism. The Soviet Communists also believed their violence was justified as a form of history-as-application-of-science-upon-humanity. If science is a war for truth against untruth, then social violence in the name of the ‘scientific truths’ of Marxism seemed justified. After all, wars are fought and won ruthlessly, and revolution is a war against the tyrannical past for the glorious future. If General Sherman was justified in smashing Atlanta to win the Civil War, why would it be wrong for communist revolutionaries to use ruthless force against those who resisted historical truth and necessity? As scientists ‘ruthlessly’ sought the truth in the lab, social-scientist-revolutionaries ruthlessly sought historical truth(supposedly based on ‘scientific ideas’) in the social realm. So, British Imperialism and French Imperialism were justified on grounds of progress and science, communism was justified on grounds of progress and science, and even Nazism made similar claims in its ruthless revolution and war. As far as Hitler was concerned, it was scientifically irrefutable that the ‘Aryans’ were the superior race, and therefore, they had the ‘scientific’ right to invade other nations and take over as the ‘master race’. In THE GODFATHER movies, characters often say, "It’s not personal. It’s just business." The great powers of the 19th and 20th centuries were likely to say something like, "It’s not personal. It’s just science." Such a ‘scientistic’ cult came to pervade just about everything. And no side(national, cultural, ideological, etc.) was immune to or ‘innocent’ of such justification. So, Stalin and Mao’s mass terror campaigns were ‘scientifically’ necessary. The Holocaust was ‘scientifically’ necessary. The massive bombings of German civilians and Japanese civilians(including two atomic bombs)were necessary for the triumph of the free ‘rational’ West against the ‘irrational’ forces of Teutonism and Yamato-ism.
Though scientists are people too and have human emotions, there is the archetype of the cold-hearted & cold-eyed scientist who, in his unremitting search for truth, will commit monstrous deeds. Consider the scientist in SOLARIS(the Andrei Tarkovsky film)who seems to be practicing vivisection on ‘visitors’ who are conjured up by the oceanic-mind-planet. And of course, there are scientists who are involved with animal experimentation that involve a ghastly horrors and cruelty. Oddly enough, it was the Nazis who were the first to ban vivisection. People are naturally upset that scientists can be so cold-hearted in their ‘mistreatment’, ‘torture’, and killing of animals(and humans). After all, it confounds us that science, the most advanced endeavor of man, could co-exist so calmly with some of the worst horrors that could be visited upon living things. And yet, the scientist could justify his methods as a means to gain greater knowledge so that improved tools and procedures could be developed in medicine for the benefit of countless people and animals. It’s like surgery is gross, but the doctor has to overcome the horror-and-shock of handling gore in order to cure the patient. Though great many animals have been sacrificed in medical science, one could argue it had all been done for a higher purpose. Such an argument is convincing in the mind yet not compelling to the heart. But then, the same logic applies to foreign policy and wars. We know many civilians(even womenfolk, old folks, and children, as well as dogs and cats)will be maimed or killed, but we tell ourselves that the victory will bring about the higher good. Madeline Albright thinks the US-led sanctions in the 1990s that may have led to the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi civilians(mostly women and children) was ‘worth it’ in the grand scheme of things. There were all sorts of justifications behind American warmongering in Iraq and Libya. If such arguments aren’t quite ‘scientific’, we tell ourselves that it’s either ‘rational’ or for the triumph of the rational values of the West against the backward tyrannies of the Muslim world(though the Jew-run US government also aids Muslim radicals against the secular regime of Assad in Syria).
Though Nazism has been associated with ‘barbarism’ and ‘savagery’(for good reasons), it was not only the product of a highly advanced civilization but justified on ‘scientific’ and ‘civilized’ grounds and promoted as the highest manifestation of civilization and culture. Though it’s tempting to dismiss Nazi claims as either lies, delusions, or madness, the relationship between civilization and violence has never been simple one, especially from a moral angle. Gandhi famously quipped that "‘Western Civilization’ would be a good idea." But his sarcasm regarding the moral claims of the West could be directed at just about any civilization. Civilizations have rarely been ‘civilized’. And even the polite, genteel, and well-bred modes of behavior among the elites were made possible by the ‘exploitation’ of the masses. And much of the wealth of civilizations through the ages were accumulated through plunder and rapacity. Even the French armies led by Napoleon(that proclaimed freedom and liberty) committed innumerable acts of violence, brutality, rape, and looting. Furthermore, civilization has been built more on ruthless intolerance than on kindly tolerance. Though Western Liberals love to pontificate about ‘tolerance’ and ‘multi-culturalism’, would they tolerate Islamo-African female genital mutilation in the West? Or Chinese foot-binding? Or Mexican dog-fighting? Or Korean dog-eating? Or African albino-hunting-and-sorcery? The Pakistani sale of daughters?
The French used to be enthusiastically pro-multi-cultural, but they’ve lately instituted laws that prohibit Muslim women from veiling their faces in public places. A civilization may hope to be racially tolerant, but no civilization can survive for long if it tolerates all sorts of cultural practices at odds with one another. It’s one thing to rule over an empire and tolerate different cultural practices in different parts of the world. But if the very homeland of the empire becomes diverse and tries to tolerate various contentious cultural norms, things will begin to fall apart. It’s like the Confederate Flag is sacred to many white southerners but anathema to a lot of blacks(for understandable reasons).
White Liberals are under a delusion due to the history of the last several centuries. Because the White West was dominant for a prolonged period, non-whites came to fear, respect, and obey whites. Japan is still like a US political colony. And in the past, blacks, Indians, Asians, Mexicans, and other minorities submitted to white authority and sought approval of the white socio-political norm. They wore western clothes, spoke English, adopted white historical narratives, and took on the ‘American’ identity steeped in ‘Euro-centrism’. But such ‘good behavior’ on the part of non-whites took place within the context of white power, superiority, and domination. (The kinds of traits white Liberals value among non-whites developed only under white power and superiority. White Liberals like to feel compassion for non-whites, but compassion is premised on feeling sorry for inferior peoples who need a helping hand. It was the awe and fear of white power that instilled admiration and docility among non-whites toward whites. As non-whites came to accept white superiority, all they could hope for was equality or decent treatment under whites. They never dreamed of superiority over whites. And this ‘docile’ attitude among non-whites inspired compassion among white liberals for non-whites. But then, even as white liberals worked to offer equality to non-whites, their compassion was premised on non-white docility that was the product of white power and superiority. But then, non-white docility isn’t the natural state of things but the result of white domination of the world in the last several centuries. The natural state of all races/nations/cultures is to gain more power and seek superiority. In this light, white Liberals need to realize that even as they revile ‘white superiority’, the traits they favor in non-whites would have never existed in the first place without the predominance of white power in the past several centuries. The natural mode of African blacks is to be fierce warriors chucking spears at hippos and humping women, not to be singing "Old Man River" and acting like Uncle Tom. Those ‘traits’ developed only under the might of whites. If most non-whites only sought equality with whites in the last century, it wasn’t because they were by nature so nice, kindly, and well-meaning but because the idea of surpassing white power and the West seemed impossible and inconceivable as white power seemed so awesome. But today, blacks in America and Europe wallow in black supremacist arrogance as they go around whupping white males and conquering white women. And Jews cackle with glee as Jewish elites and oligarchs lord over white elites and masses who’ve been reduced to mental and economic slaves of World Jewry. And China isn’t only seeking to catch up with but to surpass the West.) So, a degree of force, pressure, and repression was involved in making non-whites bend to the will of whites. But White Liberals came to take for granted the ‘good behavior’ of non-whites as if it was the most natural thing in the world. Also, they came to take their white domination for granted that they failed to see the danger of encouraging non-Western & anti-Western cultural modes and attitudes in America and Europe. Furthermore, they grew so decadent and soulless in terms of identity and culture that their diluted idea of the West became a Proposition based on vague notions of promoting ‘diversity’, ‘equality’, ‘open borders’, Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship. As the meaning of Western identity & culture grew weak, decadent, & silly AND as non-whites were encouraged to develop adversarial cultural attitudes against whites, the ‘multi-cultural’ experiment was bound to turn sour. Multi-culturalism Lite might have worked as a manner of balancing assimilation with a sense of cultural roots, but the PC-devised form of multi-culturalism that came to be widely disseminated had the effect of turning non-whites and would-be-non-whites(like Jews and white Hispanics) into self-righteous, nasty, blind, venomous, and vicious creatures. So, we have all sorts of culture clash issues in the West, especially in Europe where homogeneous nations with long-standing cultures, identities, and roots were suddenly flooded with tons of Muslims, Asians, and/or Africans. And this problem isn’t just about ‘left’ vs ‘right’(especially as hostile non-whites tend to be ‘culturally rightist’ and ‘politically leftist’)but about Liberal vs non-white. A lot of Muslims in France and UK have no use for stuff like ‘gay marriage’, though, to be sure, they vote for the ‘pro-gay’ party because it offers promises more public programs and immigration & ‘diversity’. Anyway, such crises goes to show that civilization cannot be built and maintained on ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ alone. For a while, the West could be magnanimous in promoting ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ because white power seemed so dominant and permanent as far as the eye could see. It seemed a matter of conscientious rich-and-privileged whites being ‘nice’ to non-whites who just want a ‘little more’, like Oliver Twist in David Lean’s movie. But with rapid demographic and global economic shifts, such complacent assumptions are being exposed as morally vain and politically foolish. When over 50% of London is now non-white and when possibly one third of newly born children in France are to non-Europeans, it’s no longer a matter of kindly rich-and-privileged whites being nice to poor, helpless, and sappy-eyed non-whites but a grave matter of their own racial and cultural survival on the chopping block. Though the conscience of the ruling class can be a noble thing, it can also be a blind thing. Suppose a master feels sympathy for the lowly slave and wants to help out. All fine and good. But it would be foolish for the master to think that the slave is lowly, servile, and obedient by nature. The slave cowers and smiles meekly because he’s been raised and trained in a state of fear. If the slave is freed, he may remain friendly as he was conditioned to be servile. But there’s no telling what his children and his children’s children might do in the future, especially if they, like Negroes, are naturally stronger, tougher, and more aggressive(and furthermore indoctrinated with a narrative that fills them with endless enmity against the race that had enslaved them earlier; in America, Negroes are not only naturally stronger, more aggressive, and more self-centered but culturally-morally-ideologically instilled with boundless self-regarding sanctimony and righteous rage/hate against non-blacks, especially whites; it’s a toxic combination of extreme animality and pompous morality whereby blacks conflate their bad behavior with righteous moral passion, so it shouldn’t be surprising that blacks act the way they do in Ferguson, Missouri). That blacks suffered under whites is incontestable, and one would have be heartless not to admire the Abolitionists who struggled to end slavery and offer a helping hand to the Negro in bondage. But they were foolish in thinking that Negroes were Uncle Toms by nature. Negroes were Uncle Toms(though to be sure, the character of ‘Uncle Tom’ was just a figment of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s naive imagination, indeed not unlike the neo-Wilsonian fantasies about Libyan rebels being a bunch of freedom fighters struggle for ‘liberal democratic’ values) because they had no other choice. They had to keep their heads low and call the white man ‘massuh’ because if they acted like Mike Tyson or Michael Brown, they would have been whupped real good. A lot of white do-gooders failed to see that if Negroes were freed and allowed to do as they please, a whole bunch of them would turn into Mike Tysons and Sonny Listons than continue to act ‘docile’ and sing songs like "Old Black Joe". Similarly, US in the late 70s and early 80s saw a very poor China trying to open up to the world. They saw the munchkin Deng Xiaoping as the ruler of China and find him cute and cuddly like a harmless toy or something. And as China was so poor and backward, most Americans(elites and masses alike)mainly felt amusement or sympathy. Back then, the Soviet Union and Japan were seen as the main menaces. John Pilger of the BBC was so sure that the Japanese GDP would surpass that of the US. Today, China is a much bigger power, and it’s throwing its weight around. And look at Jews. After World War II, how could any decent man not take pity on Jews who’d survived the Holocaust? The problem is people mistook Jewish tragedy-by-circumstances with Jewish-tragedy-by-nature. It was if Jews were, by nature, a sad and tragic people(like the Jewish store-owner in WEST SIDE STORY). But it was just a fallacy. Suppose we horribly mistreat Lena Dunham and make her our victim. Suppose we whup her and treat her like a slave. People would be right to be feel sorry for her. But it’d be foolish to assume that she’s nobly ‘tragic by nature’. No, she’s tragic-by-circumstances, and if freed from bondage, she would return to being the same disgusting Miss Piggy pile of turd she is by nature. (None of this is to argue that some peoples should be kept in bondage but merely to remind ourselves that we should never mistake tragedy-of-suffering with nobility-of-character.) White folks must break free of the PC ‘white guilt’ mold. The Narrative has white folks believing that their power and privilege are so boundless and tainted(by past exploitation of non-whites) that they must forever be good-hearted and dole out favors to non-whites, Jews, and homos. But this world-view is increasingly irrelevant in today’s world. Sure, most rich folks are white, but many super-rich folks are also Jewish, and of course, Jews hate whites. Also, China and India are now major powers. Also, rich white elites have no connection to most white folks, so this called ‘white privilege’ should really be called ‘white urban elite privilege’, especially as its interests are hostile to the interests of most whites. If anything, most white elites who hog ‘white privilege’ are actively working against the interests of their own race in the US and UK, often at the behest of their Jewish friends, colleagues, handlers, and/or masters. Furthermore, most white folks were hard-working stiffs through most of history, and they hardly enjoyed any kind of privilege. If any people played the role of slave-master, it was the Jews who usually found some way to take over the financial institutions of a nation.
The problem of Nazism wasn’t so much about barbarism-against-civilization as about civilization-against-civilization. Though Hitler was one bad son-of-a-bitch, he did expose the ruthless core of civilization-building by pushing his hyper-civilizational agenda to extremes. What he did wasn’t so much anti-civilizational as ultra-civilizational. Problem is anything taken to radical extremes is bound to be evil. Everything the Nazis did to create a new order, other civilizations had done too, albeit with less zeal. After all, Hitler admired white Americans for their Manifest Destiny vision and practice of taking the American West from the ‘savage red man’. And white Americans also enslaved other peoples and committed what some people call ‘genocide’. White Americans believed it was justified to use blacks as slaves because they themselves were civilized whereas blacks were savages who deserved to elevate and ruled by superior white Christian folks. And white Americans thought it was only right that ‘red savages’ and wild animals should be cleared from the land to make room for civilized white
folks. And the British Imperialists shot the natives of Australia like animals. And they use firearms to quell peoples around the world to establish British rule. The Anglo-Brits thought themselves culturally and racially superior to other peoples. And Russians also built their empire through wars and conquests, as did the Chinese as they spread southwest ward into Tibet and northwest regions with Muslim populations. Indeed, no civilization was ever built without conquest, war, mass killing, tyranny, ruthlessness, and etc. The problem with Nazism was (1) it was defeated(and losers don’t get to write the history) and (2) it pushed its utopian idea of civilization to extremes based on the conviction that ‘Aryans’, as the most civilized race, should have a free hand to remake the world to serve its image. And to create such an empire, the Nazis were indoctrinated, programmed, and trained to be cold and ruthless.
To create a new civilization, one’s soft emotions have to be held in check. Before a new civilization can be constructed, the land has to be conquered and the people must be pacified. As it requires a great deal of bloodshed and tyranny, one must be utterly ruthless and cold-hearted. It’s like turning a swamp into a golf course. In draining the swamp, think of all the fishes, turtles, frogs, birds, and other creatures that will have to die. But if you want the golf course, you have to wipe them out. If you think about and feel for the poor fishes and turtles, you won’t be able to act. To win a war, suppose your side has to drop tons of bombs. But if you think about all the women and children who will die, you’ll be reluctant to carry out the order. What civilization was built on or survived on pacifism? If anything Christian Civilization(founded upon the pacificist principles of Jesus Christ) advanced through many wars, conquests, and ruthless social controls. Indeed, even the increase of freedom in the West was preceded by ‘tyranny’ and violence that established peace/unity on the land and enforced the rule of law, without which freedom would be meaningless. And both the American and French Revolutions would have been inconceivable without massive bloodshed, and the North secured unity with the South through a devastating war that is much admired by today’s Liberals. Even pacifism must follow pacification, always a bloody affair. So, if you’re committed to creating a new order or winning a war, you must suppress & control your soft emotions and execute ruthless acts in the manner of ‘ya gotta do what ya gotta do.’ Whenever there’s a outbreak of some disease among livestock, they are culled and killed in the most ruthless and heartless way. But the world turns a blind eye because they figure, ‘ya gotta do what ya gotta do’. And as fancy cuisine is one of great points of pride among the civilized(especially as fine dining across cultures is hailed for its cosmopolitanism) and because people love tasty stuff, we all turn a blind eye to the horrible mass-killing of cows, chickens, turkeys, lambs, goats, and etc. It’s especially sad about pigs, a most noble animal, because they are so intelligent and emotionally complex. Indeed, what Steven Pinker hails as ‘better angels of our nature’ of modern civilization is founded on our maddeningly efficient industries of mass-killing of animals. It’s because modern folks have full bellies that they are nicer, but what does the filling all those bellies entail? The massive killing of ‘innocent’ animals. In Asia, they even include dogs and cats on the menu(despite the fact that their civilizations are thousands of years old).
To be sure, savagery-for-savagery-sake and ‘savagery’-for-higher-good are not the same. Consider white Brits vs African savages in the movie ZULU. Though both side kill ruthlessly and ‘savagely’, Brits seek to win in order to build civilization whereas Zulus fight to win because they wanna run around and chuck spears. Similar means could be used for different ends, and indeed all sides fought savagely and inhumanly in World War II. Still, in terms of civilizational vision, the Allies were much preferable to the Axis powers that were more aggressive and filled with boundless arrogance(though in the long run, if the West collapses as the result of Politically Correct Liberalism, the Allied victory will be proven to have been no better; the central problem wasn’t that the Allies won but that Jews took over the West and spread their poison that may turn out to be even more toxic than Nazism because, at least in Western and most of Central Europe, Nazism was for the preservation of the white race whereas Jews are committed to the massive destruction of European races and cultures).
In the case of World War II, it civilization vs civilization, and both sides had powerfully felt civilizational visions. Though Soviets had used horrific violence, they envisioned a peaceful future where workers would live in justice and peace. Though Japanese used horrific violence, they envisioned a future where Japanese would play the dominant role as the protector of Asia from Western powers. Though Germans used horrific violence, their ultimate aim was to create a new order where Germans would settle the Russian East and build a kind of greater Germania that would be peaceful and prosperous. And Anglos and Americans sought supremacy over the world for their own reasons. Of course, all entailed massive horrors, but the ultimate end goal of each was a stable and long-lasting civilization. When Hitler spoke of the 1000 Yr Reich, he meant a future of peace(of course on his terms). But to attain his future vision of everlasting peace, horrors of war, genocide, and slavery would have be perpetuated on a grand scale, especially against Slavs whom Hitler despised as subhuman ruffians. Needless to say, Hitler’s vision was mad and not worth the trouble, but it must be said he was destroying the world to build what he deemed to be a better world for the most worthy race. He wasn’t destroying the world just to destroy it for crazy ‘anarchic’ reasons as the revolutionaries do in Jean-Luc Godard’s WEEKEND.
Though loathsome in most respects, Hitler did expose the dirty secret that civilization is built on massive horrors. As if to demonstrate this irony of civilization, he acted like both a ranting ‘white nigger savage’(in front of large audiences) and a dignified statesman courting the most powerful leaders of the most advanced nations on earth. Also, he admired the British because he believed the Brits had arrived at the perfect formula of employing ruthless violence to consolidate their power to expand their vision of civilization all around the world. Brits were troubled by Hitler’s admiration because it crudely unmasked the hidden secret of the British formula, i.e. it wasn’t only about the Brits stoically shouldering the "white man’s burden" and carrying the torch of civilization around the world but also about white man ruthlessly using guns and ships to kick ass, take over entire territories, calling the natives ‘wogs’, and shouting like the prison warden in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Brits wanted to emphasize the high-toned civilizational aspect of their empire. As far as the Brits were concerned, the Germans were brutish Teutons and Russians were barbaric Slavs, but the Brits, why they were just noble white folks risking their lives to bring freedom, trade, truth, and openness to people around the world — along with the opium for the Chinese.
The Brits were troubled by Hitler’s admiration for the same reason that American Jews feel uncomfortable about Christian Right’s enthusiasm for Jews. Jews want to spread the impression of their history, culture, and influence having been all about ‘tolerance’, morality, progress, tragedy, compassion, conscience, and etc. But Christian Right and some other elements of the Right are admiring of Jews for their great wealth, ass-kicking might in the Middle East, their treatment of Palestinians like Negroes in the Old South and Indians in the American West, their fierce nationalism, their militarism(IDF is pretty tough), their power-and-success, and etc. Brits wanted the world to admire them for being so civilized, high-toned, well-mannered, gentlemanly & ladylike, and high-minded, but Hitler vulgarly hailed British power for kicking ass around the world and calling dark-skinned people ‘wogs’. Jews want the world to regard Jews as being so progressive, caring, and conscientious, but Christian Right, European Right, Russians, and Chinese admire Jews for their big bucks, big power, big influence, and pushy chutzpah. The preferred self-image of Jews often if often at odds with how the world really sees them. It’s like the time when Naomi Wolf invited professor Harold Bloom over to her place to listen to and admire her poetry. She wanted to impress him with her literary talent, but he placed his hand on her thigh. Wolf saw herself as a poetess, but Bloom saw her as a piece-of-ass. Everyone wants to be respected for his or her ‘high qualities’(often vain and delusional), but the real nature of admiration could be ‘pornographic’. Brits found Hitler’s ‘pornographic’ admiration for British power to be vulgar and undermining of their self-image. Jews feel the same way about the slobbering of philosemites. And Naomi Wolf was crushed when the much respected Harold Bloom liked her sexy looks more than her imaginary literary gifts. Wolf, one of those not-too-bright-but-very-attractive-looking-Jews, has been slaving away to establish her credentials as a thinker, critic, and activist, but I suspect her main selling point has always been her looks and girlish personality. It’s like Jane Fonda, a bimbo actress, always wanted to be respected for her brains and commitment, but surely even her admirers can’t take her ‘seriousness’ seriously.
Anyway, despite the highfalutin tone of Hitler and the Nazis on certain matters(especially pertaining to art and culture), they were the pornographers of power, and that is what continues to unsettle and unnerve us. While we must be careful not to draw a moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the great powers that defeated it(though Jewish supremacists are as evil as the Nazis), the truth is the world is really about power than principles. While most great nations wouldn’t want to repeat the horrors of World War II(though Jewish supremacists happily provoke conflagrations in the Middle East that continue to devastate millions of lives), they are really all about power. Chinese are into power and wealth. Russia is now about national power. Jews are about power and more power. Despite all the yammering about ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’, every non-white group in America is really obsessed with more power for itself. La Raza and NAACP are really ‘our power’ organizations. They just hide behind rhetoric about ‘progress’. Power Porn is what the world is really about, but of course, every civilization wants to present a principled view of itself. It’s like Hollywood moguls and stars are really about fame, fortune, vanity, and greed but hire publicity experts to airbrush their image as humanitarians. Consider for how long Donald Sterling spread his money & influence around to be showered with awards by the NAACP and parade around as a ‘progressive’. So, nations and powerful people around the world invoke Islamic values, liberal democracy, ‘social justice’, and other highfalutin concepts to fool the world that they’re about ideals than about money and power. Though Hitler resorted to his own brand of high-minded-sounding ploys, there was something very naked and shameless in his lust to ravage and conquer much of the world for the power and glory of his own tribe of ‘Aryans’. It’s like Zionists invoke ‘democracy’, ‘western values’, and ‘Never Again’ to morally justify their actions in the Middle East, but in fact, they are kicking Palestinian butt and dropping bombs on other Arabs for the sake of Jewish Supremacism.
Though civilization is created through aggression, war, conquest, and tyranny — freedom and civility can only be gradually instituted once the enemies have been totally defeated, wiped out, or subjugated — , it is justified through the image of peace and civility. Civilization is the art of killing the enemies and hiding their bodies. Barbarian lords morph into noblemen, warriors turn into farmers and tradesmen. Because civilized folks have a certain vanity(especially in distinguishing themselves from savage and barbaric folks), once they’ve gained mastery over their domain, they make a concerted effort to stamp out all vestiges of its own barbarism or savagery, resulting in ruthless social repression. In the early stages of civilization, such a process is necessary as the formation of civilization is about the transition of a barbaric people to a civilized mode of being. As vestiges of barbarism still remain among the populace that used to be loutish warriors and vulgar skull-bashers, the ruling elites must use extra-force to disarm most of the populace and bring them under heel. Such means of social control leads to a certain paranoia among the ruling elites who fear that the resentful masses will blow up and rebel en masse. The Spartans were especially harsh in dealing with their slave caste or helots. But over time, civilizations may grow more stable without the necessity of excessive repression. The people may come to accept a kind of rule of law and may even cultivate an ethical/moral/spiritual system that is self-governing, self-perpetuating, and mutually reinforcing among a populace of shared faith and trust. One might call this the beginning of an ideal society if not a utopian one. Such a society is likely to arise if it doesn’t face external threats. Indeed, one of the reasons why Switzerland and Sweden became ideal civilizations was they weren’t invaded for a long time; furthermore, they developed a rule of law among populations that were mostly cohesive(Switzerland is essentially Germanic despite other populations), disciplined, and hardworking. The downside of such an arrangement is that people become complacent, soft-in-the-head, and morally vain. That very problem haunts both nations, especially Sweden. Swedes are so used to living in a well-functioning nation that they think the entire world can be improved via the Swedish model by either immigration to Sweden or by Swedes going off to spread love and compassion in Africa and other places. Swedish fools have forgotten their own history, i.e. that civilization and social order in Sweden didn’t spring from good intentions and moral naivete but through war, conquest, solidarity, discipline & order, spiritual purism, and many social struggles. Sweden’s soft side grew out of its hard sides, but too many soft Swedes think they enjoy a good life because they simply became a good people with good hearts.
This is one of the down sides of civilization, and it’s why some people have a thing for the soldier-farmer ideal. As soldier, he’s full of fight, discipline, and toughness. As farmer, he is committed to order, unity, rules, and civilization. It’s the appeal of the American Western where the white man, in order to settle the West, must be both warrior-soldier-fighter and farmer-rancher-businessman. Though people want to move away from barbarism to civilization, once the dangers have been removed from society, people grow soft and begin to take things for granted. Or they become stagnant. But the American cowboy had to fight the Indians and the outlaws(and even other cowboys who might claim the same territory). But he also believed in building a new order, and that made him better than ruffian barbarians like nomadic Cossacks who rode around like bandits, and sacked towns, swilled vodka, and danced on tables. Hitler loved the American Western because it was the story of the warrior-farmer, and he wanted Germans to uphold the same kind of combo-ideal as they conquered and settled Russian territories as part of the lebensraum campaign. Zionists have similarly idealized the soldier-farmer(and this is one of the reason why hardcore Zionists support building more settlements in West Bank. It upholds the image of the Zionist as soldier-farmer than as some soft-headed cosmopolitan urbanite who soon forgets that Israel was built through war & conquest and grows wussy and decadent like Swedes). An ideal kibbutz Jew is good with the gun and ready to fight-like-a-man. But he’s also committed to tilling the soil and working at building civilization. He is also a man of culture and learning. The triple package of gun, plow, and book makes the Jew whole and complete according to the Zionist ideal. He wouldn’t be just some money-grubber, geeky intellectual, or craven coward.
Anyway, in the transition from cold-blooded reptiles to warm-blooded mammals, there was the evolution toward the development of hot-blooded emotions. While reptiles can be fearsome, they aren’t enraged like mammals. Reptilian aggression is driven by hunger, and reptilian defense is a form of reflex-mechanism. A cobra hisses when circled by a mongoose because it senses danger. A mongoose, on the other hand, gets into the emotional ‘drama’ of the fight. Often among mammals, the emotions take over, indeed to the point where they can become detrimental to their interests and survival. It’s like a fire that goes out of control. A turtle can become agitated, but once the source of agitation is removed, it returns to calm; but once a mammal is agitated, it can continue to burn with rage for some duration, indeed as if fuel-injection of emotions won’t shut off. So, the emotions that can motivate a mammal to stronger aggression and zeal for greater achievement can also turn on themselves and cause self-harm, self-destruction, and demise. A crocodile can be very dangerous if prodded and provoked, but once the provocation is removed, it returns to rest mode. But when a mammal is provoked to anger, it may growl and bite even after the danger has passed. People can simmer in anger for months on end. Consider John Wayne’s character in THE SEARCHERS. Consider the farmer whose wife was abducted in SEVEN SAMURAI. Their souls sear with rage long after misfortunes struck their lives. But if people remained angry all the time, they’re likely to blow a fuse and go nuts(and perceived as nuts by others). Therefore, in order for humans to achieve more in life, they needed to develop the ability to calm and control their emotions. Some people try to put out the fires of their anger-passion-and-resentment for good and in earnest, especially through spiritual teachings such as Christianity that places great emphasis on forgiveness and inner-peace. But others don’t so much let go of the anger and resentment as conceal and put them in the back-burner. Political radicals are usually angry people, but the more sensible ones know they can’t get far with rage alone. So, they master the art of having to sometimes suppress their rage and put forth a nice face. Indeed, the basic character of radical politics is play hot, cool, and cold. Hot rage is necessary to whip up mass passions. Cool civility is used to charm the moderate ‘bourgeois’ types, especially if they wield great power and privilege. And cold calculation is necessary for the radical avant-garde to act with utter ruthlessness bordering on psychopathy. Before Stalin gained total power, he learned to work with whom he regarded as his enemies or rivals. Hitler could be charming with world leaders and German conservative elites in his rise to power. And Mao could be accommodating when necessary and act like a nice guy. And of course, Negroes learned to smile & laugh before powerful/privileged whitey, indeed as if all they were seeking was to get along and be a ‘credit to their race’. But deep down inside, the Negro was filled with rage and resentment, not so much because of past history of racial oppression/discrimination but because (1) his own kind remained low on the economic scale and (2) he believed his own kind should rule society since the white boy be so ‘faggoty and slow’, i.e. racially inferior. Obama may be the Jews’ boy in actual political terms, but he likes to consider himself as a slick jazzy dude who done fooled the wussy-and-clueless honkey with his ‘clean-cut Negro’ bull-jive. The Negro can seem nice and friendly, but his core identity sees himself to be cool and hip in contrast to whites who are either soft, pampered, and naive OR pathetic and deluded in their sorry-ass attempt to ‘cool cats’, ‘whiggers’, or rebels. The Negro’s vanity is stoked by the conceit that he is fooling whitey. (Though the likes of Obama fool many whiteys, they don’t fool Jews who prize the slick Negro shtick as useful in fooling whitey for Jewish purposes. Obama wants to fool whitey for black/mulatto interests, but Jews have appropriated Obama’s fooling-of-whitey to serve Jewish interests. Since Obama’s success has utterly depended on Jews, he’s had to bail out Jewish Wall Street, serve Hollywood masters, bend over to homos-as-main-allies-of-Jews, trigger a conflict with Russia, destroy Libya and Syria, and turn a blind eye to Israel’s war on Palestinians. It’s like a jackal stealing a piece of meat for itself but it being appropriated by another animal. Jews used Obama to steal from whites but more for Jews than for blacks.) The slick-and-fancy Negro(or mulatto) looks at vulgar trashy Negroes and finds them dumb and useless. Why make all that crazy noise and give the game away that you hate whitey? Whitey will just feel emboldened to fear and fend off the Negro. If you really wanna get something from whitey, you must fool him into thinking that you ain’t angry at his whitey ass(on certain conditions, of course). You must smile and put on the Uncle Ben’s Rice act. But since the whitey also wants to think himself cool and accepting of the proud Negro who stands tall(as the Uncle Tom Negro who’s a ‘credit to his race’ is so over-the-hill and considered to be patronizingly ‘racist’), you don’t wanna act too nice, as that would be ‘house negro’-ish. What you wanna do is act proud and manly but also soft and smiley. Mix the style of Malcolm X with Mister Rogers, and presto, you got Obama, and so many whiteys were fooled.
 |
| Obama the Jews' Boy |
Another odd thing about the Obama phenomenon is that even though he played against the Negro type as exemplified by Al Sharpton and other vulgar ‘race hustlers’, he relied on the threat posed by such nasty Negroes in order to sell himself as the promising alternative. In order for Obama to play the ‘good cop’ Negro, he needed ‘bad cop’ Negroes like Al Sharpton and black thugs/idiots to mess things up all around America. The cult of MLK made white folks want to like Negroes, but too many Negroes are not likable. This causes a complex in the white soul. They wanna be good ‘anti-racist’ whites by showing that they love Negroes, but too many Negroes are troublesome and hateful. So, what do whites do? Their moral panic is exploited by the likes of Oprah and Obama who either rake in billions or run for president by peddling false ‘hope’. Though white folks are the smartest race — though some might say yellows are a bit smarter — , their emotions can be suckered by ideology into falling for the dumbest shit.
 |
| Dorky do-goody whites dancing with what looks like fruity Negroes |
If a people lack historical memory, they may eventually forget past grievances, merge with the larger/dominant socio-political order, and focus their minds on more mundane problems. After all, as Britain was conquered by so many peoples and as countless ethnic wars engulfed the isle long ago, every group in Britain can invoke past wrongs done to their people and boil over with rage in Hatcoys vs Mcfields fashion. But most peoples in Britain(though maybe not the Scots)abandoned past grievances long ago and just became part of the British nation, not least because British imperialist aggression and glory-seeking had a welding effect on all peoples in Britain; Britain’s island status also had the effect of creating a ‘us-islands versus those-mainlanders’ mentality among all Brits. (If Britain had been attached to France or Denmark, some ‘ethnic’ groups might have opted to side with the French or Danish against other ‘British’ peoples, but the island-effect resulted in most people in Britain taking on a island-fortress mentality.) And even those in Britain who do have a sense of their ‘ethnic’ history lack the ‘emotional memory’ that might fill them with separatist ethnic passion. I doubt if any Welshman is thinking in terms of rage and revenge against other groups in Britain over what might have happened hundreds of years ago. Amnesia can lead to ignorance and conflict, but it can also make for greater peace as people without a memory prefer to look to a future together than look back to the past in which people were at each other’s throats. In HELL IN THE PACIFIC, the American soldier(Lee Marvin) and a Japanese soldier(Toshiro Mifune) come to work together because, for awhile at least, they willfully ‘forget’ and put aside the fact that they are an American and a Japanese and instead work together as two individuals stranded on an island. It’s when they come upon remnants of civilization that they’re reminded of what they were prior to being stranded on the island. They’ve cooperated well to return to civilization, but their civilizations only remind them that they are enemies.
Some groups have especially long historical and emotional memories, and of course, no group beats the Jews in this regard. The Jewish idea of burying the hatchet means burying it in your skull. But as Jews had to live amongst and do business with gentiles, they’ve often hid their hostile emotions. Though one side of Jewishness is known for pushiness and expressiveness(especially with their haggly-waggly hands and aggressively gnawing style of talking), Jews can also slyly charming and smooth. It’s like Hitler could be a ranting nut one minute but the nicest guy the next, and for this reason, some have surmised that Hitler was part-Jewish; he could be Sarah Silverman one minute, Henry Kissinger the next. Consider the character of Max(James Woods) in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. He is by far the most aggressive, driven, and passionate character in the movie. But he is also the most cunning, manipulative, diplomatic, and disarming. He rips into Noodles when the latter refuses to go along with proposed business deal with the Labor Union, but few minutes later he’s conciliatory and Noodles’ best friend again.
When radiating goodwill, he’s irresistible, others trust him as the defacto leader, especially as Noodles tends to be disengaged at times — though perhaps equal in intelligence. Max can be most ruthless, but then, ruthlessness is a strange quality. It requires both passion/zeal and control/calmness. One couldn’t be part of the Nazi SS without passion and commitment. But the violence had to be carried out without emotion. Ruthlessness is fire frozen into ice. It’s like what Colonel Kurtz said of making a friend of horror in APOCALYPSE NOW. It’s like what Che Guevara said of the ideal revolutionary as a cold efficient killing machine burning with hate. One must hate but also make a friend of horror. One must turn hate into duty, madness into mechanics. If fish, amphibians, and reptiles strike at their prey with cold efficiency and if mammals fight with hot emotions, humans have mastered the way of ironing hot emotions into cold efficiency.
To be sure, the element of stealth is also a part of non-human mammal behavior. Consider cats for example. And certain birds are experts of stealth as well. But what is a mere instinct among most animals is a conscious strategy among humans, and this understanding is necessary since humans, having evolved from apes, are essentially overly expressive, communicative, and garrulous creatures. If some animals, by nature, have a tendency toward calmness and control, monkeys, apes, and humans like to make lots of noise. Even when on his or her own, humans are preparing for future communication. A Christian preacher or Jewish rabbi might spend long hours working on his sermon, but the sermon is to be delivered to a large audience. Education is all about open communication whereby the teachers transfer what they know to the students, and of course, education is the basis of higher knowledge and power. We talk of the goodness of an open, transparent, and communicative society where ideas, thoughts, and feelings are honestly shared. We encourage people to get things off their chest, to be forthright, and openly discuss things. The Catholic Church expects its members to confess their sins to God via priests. Doctors want candid answers to questions. Ideally, communication makes for a more open and honest society, and education is all about honest transference of knowledge and know-how from teachers to students. And yet, we also know that much of power is about deception, stealth, secretiveness, and manipulation. Such means could be illegal, legal but unethical, immoral but legal by necessity, illegal but tolerated, unethical but tolerated, unethical and encouraged, legal & admired, illegal but romanticized, and etc. Thieves and petty crooks are universally despised. But certain kinds of crooks and gangsters have their admirers. Con-artists have skill and wit. Gangsters have style and panache. Intelligence agencies spy on other nations on the assumption that other nations do the same or for ‘national interest’(or more precisely, national elite interest). Corporations compete with one another through secretive means that range from illegal to technically legal. And there are industries that are essentially legal-conman-ship such as politics, much of finance, gambling, and advertising. Though their means involve deceit and manipulation, they draw talents from the best schools, and many respectable people have close connections with them. Politicians rely on TV advertising, and politicians take huge donations from legal crooks like Sheldon Adelson.
 |
| Pig Boy Chris Christie and His Sugar Daddy Sheldon Adelson the Las Vegas Zio-Oligarch |
Anyway, the smart and powerful gain control of the means of manipulation and deception to make the masses obey. Indeed, they even take over the forces of opposition and turn them into defacto departments of approved ‘dissent’ that produces smoke without the fire. It’s like the Jewish elites in the US not only control Wall Street, government, Las Vegas, Hollywood, music industry, sports industry, and Silicon Valley but also the media, academia, and so-called ‘leftist’ groups. And they also control mainstream Conservatism, one area that should naturally be anti-Jewist since the American Right, as the bastion of white people/power, should favor the interests of the Christian majority than those of the hostile elite minority.
Our educational system and media tell us that we live in a free society, a ‘liberal democracy’, and a social order governed by ‘rule of law’. In official and even in legal terms, it is largely true.
But real power lies not in the nature-of-the-system but in who-controls-the-system. It’s like all natural systems have their variations of ecology or ‘balance of nature’, but some environments are dominated by one kind of organisms while other environments dominated by other kinds. It’s like lions are the top killers of the sub-Saharan African savannah, whereas the top predator of North American wilderness is either the grizzly bear or wolves. Surely, American ‘liberal democracy’ dominated by Wasps in the past was different from the one that is dominated by Jews today. Just because we live in a ‘liberal democracy’ doesn’t mean everyone and every group are equal in power and privilege with all other individuals and groups. Despite all the stuff about ‘equality’, most people are ‘under the law’ whereas those with real power are ‘over the law’. For ‘rule of law’ to work, some must enforce the ‘rule of law’, and there’s no guarantee that those enforcing the ‘rule of law’ from above will act impersonally and impartially. Even if they mostly act impersonally and impartially, the slight nudge in favor of their own kind can make all the difference. It’s like a referee can be impartial 99% of the time, but his one biased call can be the difference between victory and defeat. Indeed, consider how Richard J. Daley’s Irish-American Democratic Political Machine played king-maker in the 1960 Presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. (Today, Jews are so dominant in the upper reaches of power that they are brazen in their power-lust while their goy puppets are craven in their submission.) Generally, those with real power tend to possess not only talent and ambition but an instinct for duplicity, cunning, stealth, and ruthlessness.
Every game, even in a free and open society, is a rigged to some extent. The rigging could be in the way of terminology or taboos. It could be in the way of favoritism. Even if a media outlet were to hire liberals and conservatives in 50/50 terms, it could favor a certain kind of liberal and a certain kind of conservative. The favored type of ‘liberal’ could be for PC than for free speech. The favored type of ‘conservative’ could be philosemitic than critical of Jewish power. New York Times has two ‘conservative’ columnists, but one is David Brooks, a Jewish Neocon, and the other is Ross Douthat, the punkass product of Harvard who hates TWILIGHT and begs for terms of surrender at the feet of Homo Power. For sure, NY Times would never consider hiring a conservative like Jared Taylor or Paul Gottfried. There are so many ways to manipulate and fool people, and those most adept at this game gain the advantage. It’s like David Mamet’s plays and movies are obsessed with the game. Same goes for the films of Stanley Kubrick and David Cronenberg, especially in eXistenZ. Jewish artists aren’t only interested in the conflict but in how the game is played to resolve the conflict. They are more about wit and manipulation, and this may owe not only to higher Jewish IQ but to the Jewish historical habit of having to deal with gentiles composed of the elites with guns/swords and the masses with pitchforks. So, Jews had to use their wits to gain protection from gentile rulers(in exchange for such services as rendered by the shyster in JEW SUSS) against the gentile mobs, or Jews had to use their wits to lead the gentile mobs against the gentile rulers(as happened in Russia during World War I). Play goy against goy. While deception without skill is mere criminality(such as lowly burglary, and indeed one reason for Nixon’s fall had to do with the dim-witted nature of the transgression, as well as the sheer incompetence), talent without deception is like a deer in the headlight. As shown in David Mamet’s THE SPANISH PRISONER, men of ambition seek power and advantages not only through skill and intelligence but through deception and the ‘game’. If you’re intelligent but ‘innocent’ & naive about the game, you will be played and you will lose; it’s like the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were as innocent about business as intelligent about music, and they were rolled and robbed by their Jewish managers, Allen Klein and Albert Grossman(who was as self-serving in business as Jonathan Rosenbaum has been in criticism). As deceptive and manipulative as Mamet, Kubrick, and Cronenberg have been as artists, they’ve also slipped secret confessions as to the real nature of Jewish mind-set. Though their works have something like ‘official’ themes(of abstract/universal meaning), they also come with additional layers of meaning that offers clues about Jews and Power.
Jewish kids are raised to be untrusting but to make themselves seem trustworthy to dumb goyim — indeed, Jews simultaneously wallow in paranoia about goyim and throw hysterics about how some goyim still don’t trust Jews("we have to be crazy to trust you, and you must be evil not to trust us") — , whereas your average white gentile is raised to be trusting, earnest, and devoted to Jews as the finest folks that ever lived. And yet, it may well be that Jewish-promoted PC is turning even white folks into two-faced cheaters, players, and con-artists. If indeed goyim are forced to suck up to Jews in order to gain success, they will naturally grow more cynical as they become aware of the discrepancy between what Jews say and what they do. Also, when whites must serve powerful Jews but act as though they’re dealing with powerless Jews, they’re bound to experience a crisis of confidence, trust, and self-respect. It’s like someone raping you but forcing you to believe that you did him a sexual favor out of love and desire. Whenever gentile politicians shower the Jewish elites with sympathy and compassion, the charade seems increasingly. It’s like a person who used to dote on a cute tiger cub still pretending that the full-grown 800 lb beast is a cute cuddly animal in need of special care and attention. The person is really acting nice to the big beast out of fear but trying to fool himself and the tiger that he’s acting purely out of love and pity. After World War II, many whites felt sincere sympathy for Jews, but in our world surely a growing number of white goyim are realizing that they have no choice but to suck up to Jews. So, even as they wax sentimental about how much they are devoted to Jews, they also kinda like the communists in Eastern Bloc countries who had to make the right noises to please their leaders. When people are forced to be earnest in their devotion to something, a seed of resentment and cynicism start sprouting from within. Surely, there are moments when even Ted Cruz and Chris Christie must seethe about ‘those fuc*ing Jews’, at whose feet they must grovel so shamelessly. Because Jew Worship is now a professional obligation than a personal choice, what had once been earnest is turning into a mere facade of earnestness.
The strangest feature of the film is the paralleling between horny men sinking into the liquid floor as they mindlessly pursue the woman for sex and the members of a family that swim into the waves to save others from drowning. The drowning of the family is as coldly observed by the ‘woman’ as the sinking of her male victims into the liquid floor. Initially at the beach, a dog is pulled out to sea, and its owner goes to save the dog but also is pulled out to sea, and then another family member jumps into the water to save the other family member but he himself is pulled out to sea. And finally a stranger jumps into the sea and almost risks his life trying to save the man. What transpires is somewhat similar to what happens with the men who sink into the floor because, in both cases, there’s an element of ‘automatic’ response. When a family member is in danger, another family member will, without thinking, risk his or her own life to save the loved one from danger. In the process, both may become endangered and doomed, but that is human nature in action. Likewise, the nature of males is to be ‘boing’ about sex, so it isn’t too surprising that the horny guys who are brought to the woman’s place single-mindedly follow the woman to have sex and are oblivious even to the fact that they’re sinking into the floor... until it’s too late. One might say the emotions at the sea/beach was far nobler — the family members knowingly risked their lives to save their loved ones — than the sexual drives of the men at the woman’s house, but they are related in a way. Sex drive is rooted in the need for reproduction, and reproduction is what produces the family around which love and devotion revolves. To be sure, the young men lured to the house seem to be in the live-for-today mode. They are looking for ‘easy pussy’ than looking to settle down and raise a family, but there’s still is a link between sexual drives and family-formation. It’s like Uther in EXCALIBUR initially just wanted to hump Igraine and have his jollies. Indeed, lust was such an overriding factor that he didn’t think twice about swearing to hand over the child of his union with Igraine to Merlin. His attitude was "I’ll take the ho, you take the kid." It was all about instant gratification. But when he sees the baby, he begins to have second thoughts. He instantly connects with the child and is angry with Merlin who comes to claim the kid. Though Uther hands over the child to Merlin, he soon rides off to get him back from Merlin, and in the process becomes mortally wounded. In older times, there were more taboos about sex, and society expected men and women to integrate the sexual act with marriage and family. In such a world, it would have been more difficult for a quasi-vampiress like the Johansson character to lure men off the streets for sexual adventures.
In our world, men and women are free to go around and hump each other like rabbits(though today’s laws are far more stringent about ‘consensuality’). So, men and women often think of sex as a form of pleasure divorced from biological processes and moral conventions. Modern concept of sex is far less connected to marriage and family than sex used to be. And this is what gives the Johansson character an ample opportunity to just pick men off the street and trap them by playing on their boing-ness.
For some reason, we are shown the men’s puds right before they sink into the floor, and I got the impression that most or all the men had un-circumcised puds, though I could be wrong. In contrast to the young men into instant gratification, the family on the beach seem to be full of devotion to one another. They perished at sea by trying to save one another, whereas the young men at the Johannson character’s place died looking for easy pleasure. And yet, both were driven by sex-related impulses beyond reason. And to the extent that the man’s family was created through his pud, his devotion to wife and kids cannot be understood apart from his sexual drive and actions. In nature and even in human nature(without the pressure of civilization), most males have no or little thought of fatherhood. They just wanna hump and get their jollies and move on. Only a small minority of species have males that are apt to play the role of father. Among humans, if men are allowed to do as they please, many will prefer loose sex without obligations over matrimony, husband-hood, and fatherhood. But humans developed a culture whereby men came to be expected to stick around and feel/think beyond immediate pleasure. It’s like the moment when Uther looks into baby Arthur’s eyes and realizes the value of settling down and devotion to family(even though it’s tragically too late for him). The father who dies in the sea and the men who die under the quicksand-like floor in UNDER THE SKIN couldn’t be more different and yet more alike. Their emotions are connected to sex even if in seemingly contrasting ways.
A stranger at the beach witnesses the endangered family and tries to help. The most he can do is to drag one family member to safety, but the latter rebuffs his help and swims back toward deeper waters to save his loved ones. Though the feeling of a stranger for another stranger isn’t as powerful as the feeling among family members, our social ideal conditions us to feel brotherly feelings for others. So, the stranger jumped into the sea to save the father of the family, but the father would rather risk his life to save his family(or die with the family)than save his own life. Though the stranger did his best to save the father, he swims back to shore as, when push comes to shove, he isn’t up to sacrificing his own life for that of a stranger. There’s a limit to stranger-to-stranger feelings that falls short of family-to-family feelings. As for the Johansson character, she just watches coldly as she has no emotional connection to humans. And when the exhausted man gasps for air along the shoreline, she uses a rock to bash his skull and claims him as another trophy. The tragedy of the family and the nobility of the man’s effort mean nothing to her. (We might view her lack of concern as kind of evil, but the rules of morality changes across species. If indeed she belongs to a superior species that looks upon humans as humans look upon ‘lower animals’, how is her reaction more evil than ours? After all, animals within the same pack, tribe, or family also have feelings for one another. Elephants try to save other elephants, hyenas come to the rescue of other hyenas, and there’s a lot of warmth and love among dolphins and chimps of the same family. And there’s a lot of love between pig parents and pig kids and between cow parents and cow kids, but humans kill and devour them just the same. And in war, we know that there’s a lot of camaraderie, courage, nobility, heroism, and suffering on the other side as there is on our side, but our side goes about ruthlessly killing the enemy just the same and vice versa. We are told that we shouldn’t interfere with things that happen in nature, no matter how sad and tragic it may seem. If a rabbit mother dies and its offsprings will surely starve to death, we are supposed to let nature deal with it as nature does. If we see a hungry bear in the forest, we are not to feed it even if it’s the most pitiable state. All National Parks instruct visitors not to interfere with the way of nature. We are never supposed to help or feed animals; if anything, there are seasons when we are allowed to hunt and kill them. In this sense, one could argue that the woman in UNDER THE SKIN isn’t evil despite her lack of feeling for humans. She is different from us yet rather too much like us when we consider our own attitude toward nature and ‘lower animals’ and even peoples of other nations. After all, how many Americans care that Palestinians were slaughtered in huge numbers in the recent invasion of Gaza by Israelis?) Terms such as ‘fellow citizen’ and ‘family’ means nothing to Scarlett Johansson’s character. If she has any loyalty, it’s to her own extraterrestrial kind.
 |
| The Alien under animal skin and human skin. |
 |
| THE DAY or lumpen version of RESIDENT EVIL. |
When someone on the other side comes over to your side, it is as much a challenge(and even a threat) as an advantage. On the one hand, you want to welcome him for switching sides, but on the other hand, you fear that his action has undermined the simple dichotomy of us vs them. After all, if ‘they’ can come over to our side, who’s to say ‘we’ can’t go over to their side? The person who makes the switch may be seen as a new ally, but couldn’t he also be seen as a traitor? Or couldn’t he be seen as someone who’s superior to both sides since he had the conscience and courage to rise above his own tribal loyalty when most people on both sides just stick to conventional loyalties? Indeed, a figure like Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a challenge not only to the Soviets but to Americans because, even as he left the Soviet Union for the United States, he maintained a moral perspective that also transcended both systems. (There’s also the danger that those who come over to our side may change us more than we change them. After all, the Neocons went from being leftist Democrats to conservative Republicans, but many of their concepts of conservatism was very much at odds with both traditional conservatism and moderate conservatism of the Republican Party. Neocons wanted to change the GOP into a radical Zionist party at odds with both the Rockefeller and Goldwater visions of the party. It’s like what the Joseph Cotten character says of the newspaper men from the Chronicle who came over to the Enquirer in CITIZEN KANE: "Do we stand for the same things that the ‘Chronicle’ stands for, Mr. Bernstein?" "Certainly not. So what's that got to do with it? Mr. Kane, he'll have them changed to his kind of newspapermen in a week.." "Probably. There's always a chance, of course, that they'll change Mr. Kane - without his knowing it.") When a foreign agent comes over to our side, part of us welcomes him, but another part of us can’t help but see him as an opportunist traitor to his own kind. And yet, it’s also possible that he overcame his tribal/ideological conditioning for the sake of higher ideals, in which case, he is better than us who’ve always remained faithful(perhaps mindlessly so) to our tribal/ideological conditioning.
The figure between realms is often the most tragic. Prometheus was caught between the realm of the gods and the world of gods. He stole fire from the gods against the wish of Zeus and offered it as a gift to mankind. He is a traitor to the gods but also a conscientious benefactor to mankind. Likewise, Brunnhilde conscientiously(or maybe just sentimentally)disobeys her father Wotan out of a sympathy for Sieglinde and pays for her betrayal by being put into deep slumber in the center of a ring of fire. In Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH, there’s a back-story of how certain angels went against God’s wish after the Fall and came to the aid of mankind, and therefore, God punished them by casting them onto earth and turning them into big walking rocks.
In UNDER THE SKIN, the extraterrestrials are dangerous to mankind, but they can also be said to be ‘heavenly’ creatures who are superior to mankind in technology and space travel. They are like dark gods, and the Johansson character is like their killer angel who serves them in her role as trapper-hunter. She captures humans whose flesh and blood are shipped to(maybe some haute restaurant in)another part of the galaxy. It’s like pigs and cows only meet their lowly handlers and killers — often illegal Mexicans — , but they never know of the fancy restaurants where their flesh ends up on the plates of ‘sophisticated’ diners.
Though one could say the extraterrestrials heartlessly feed on human flesh-and-blood in UNDER THE SKIN, perhaps humans should consider it a kind of honor. If the extraterrestrials are godlike, then their consumption of human flesh means that humans will become absorbed into the bodies of godlike beings. After all, couldn’t one argue that entry into heaven is like being sucked out of one’s body and being ‘consumed’ by God? And in some pagan cultures, it was considered a honor to be sacrificed to the gods. You die but are digested by the gods. Despite the terror involved, as a sacrifice to the gods, one enters into the realm of the divine. Even the stomachs of the gods are divine after all. Furthermore, the cult of ‘sacred eating’ goes both ways. Some cultures consider certain animals to be sacred and even possess divine characteristics, but the animals are hunted and eaten nevertheless. The sacredness of the animal is though to pass onto the humans. And some cultures even believe that the animals gratefully ‘sacrifice’ themselves. And this concept exists in Christianity as well, especially through Catholic rituals where devotees believe they’re consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus through bread and wine. Also, even though Judaism forbade human sacrifice, God did demand a limited form of pud sacrifice via circumcision. Perhaps, this has something to do with the fact that the penis looks like a snake. Just as a snake must shed its skin to begin anew, maybe Jews felt that the pud needs to shed its skin to be a blessed schlong. After all, the skin is merely the outer ‘mask’ of the human that is made of flesh-and-bone underneath. The skin, as alluring as it is, is merely the outermost surface/cover of a far more complex-and-deeper being consisting of flesh, bone, blood, and soul.
It’s Johansson character’s false skin that fools so many men who are incapable of seeing through her ‘mask’ at her true self that isn’t even human. And when the skin finally peels off at the end, we see her inner form that is a black bald-headed version of Johansson, but then, we aren’t sure if this is supposed to the real ‘her’ either. Maybe her inner-self is a mere mold of the basic human structure that has been appropriated, studied, and replicated by the extraterrestrials. Thus, the removal of her skin may not have revealed her true self but another layer of deceit/imitation underneath the outermost layer of deception(consisting of skin and hair — and of course, clothing that has the dual characteristic of being part of us and not part of us). And maybe like the giant albinos in PROMETHEUS, the predator-aliens we see in UNDER THE SKIN are not really part of the ruling race of extraterrestrials but merely their agents, trained dogs, or even machines. It’s like we use dogs to serve us, but dogs are not us. It’s like the elites use soldiers to fight wars, but soldiers are not part of the ruling class. It’s like the evil queen ordered the hunter to kill Snow White, but the hunter had no power of his own. It’s like angels are not God but merely His agents and servants. Johansson’s character at the end is like a fallen angel. She disobeyed her pimp who’s beholden to his bosses who serve those even more powerful. In many pagan cultures, the gods live mainly for their own interests and don’t have much sympathy for humans. They find humans to be annoyances, amusements, or servants(who periodically make offerings). And gods usually do as they wish to please themselves, even if it means cruelty and horrors upon humanity for no good reason. For the most part, pagan gods are amoral and unmotivated by human needs. In Greek mythology, some gods may take a special liking to certain individuals, but no god cares about humanity as a whole. But the development of Jewish religion closely associated the power of God with the morality of man. Ironically, the Jewish God is the conceptualization of both the most powerful God imaginable and the most limited God conceivable. The Jewish God is bound by His moral obligation to mankind, especially the Jews. Despite being infinitely more powerful than all the pagans combined, there are so many things God mustn’t do because of the Covenant that would have Him be worshiped and revered as the good God, the perfect God, the moral God. And yet, since the Jewish God also developed from pagan roots, it wasn’t easy to make the transition from the god of amorality to the God of morality. And it wasn’t easy to square the concept of a God with infinite power and a God with moral obligations. Imagine someone giving you all the money, weapons, and power in the world but then saying you can only do ‘this and this’ with them. It’s difficult to be, at once, the most powerful God and the most restrained God. One side of God, as seen in the Book of Job, insists that He can do as He pleases and is beyond the moral rules of mankind. But another side of God, especially in the Covenant with Abraham, says that He is obligated to the good God(as long people act decent and not like fruitkins). Though Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac seems to call for blind obedience to God, it is God who is really bound and restrained by the story because if He really forced Abraham to go all the way, He would be no different from pagan gods calling for human sacrifice. So, in a way, it is God who is ordered to stab and kill the pagan side of Him so that He can be the good God(or moral righteousness or vanity). The Covenant was based on a kind of compromise. Abraham would be the father of a tribe that would be loyal to God and spread His truth to all mankind. In turn, God would be a moral God who wouldn’t use His force for amoral reasons of vanity and/or sadistic delight. But then, the very nature of power itches to venture beyond good-and-bad. Power wants to be more powerful, and morality stands in the way of power. It’s like a man with all the money in the world wants to hump lots of ‘hot hos’ than stick to his loyal wife. He wants to be like Sonny(the big pudded fella who regularly cheats on his wife) and Fredo(who, according to Moe Green, was ‘banging cocktail waitresses two at a time’) than like Don Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone who are faithful to their wives. (The case of Vito Corleone demonstrates the power of images in relation to ideas. Because of his visible dignity, respect, and integrity of Vito Corleone as a patriarch — if not for his business dealings — , he makes fatherhood, husband-hood, and family-hood attractive, beautiful, and meaningful. Values are ennobled and sanctified through his presentation. It goes to show that it’s never enough to put forth ideas. Ideas must be matched and guarded with images. Good ideas can be matched with good images, good ideas can be matched with bad images, bad ideas can be matched with good images, and bad ideas can be matched with bad images. In our upside-down culture, good ideas are often matched with bad images while bad ideas are matched with good images. So, a good idea like true marriage is matched with the images of lunatics like the Westboro church, whereas a bad-horrible idea like ‘gay marriage’ is matched with good-looking images of clean-cut, affluent, and ‘new normal’-looking homos airbrushed by the Jew-dominated media.) The concept of good can also stand in the way of truth as truth is amoral. What is true is true regardless of whether it’s deemed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by society. Therefore, God who is bound by goodness feels stifled like a man bound to goodness. Imagine if Martin Scorsese devoted himself to making only ‘good’ and ‘inspirational’ movies about ‘good people’; he’d be bored out of his mind and feel this his true expressive power is held back by ‘goodness’. He’s rather make wild movies about sinners(and throw in some moral/spiritual angst into the mix)than commit himself to making only the kinds of movies that would be blessed by the Catholic Church. It’s more fun to indulge in the ‘bad’ to be reminded of the ‘good’.
Anyway, at some point, an evolution happened in Jewish thinking that transformed the amoral god of pagan origin into the moral God of the Covenant. It made God good and noble but also bound and burdended, a contradiction given that the Jewish God was believed to be infinitely powerful. What’s the point of God having all that power if He is compelled to spend an inordinate amount of His time and energy taking care of a bunch of hook-nosed tribesmen with nasty personalties? And if He’s so great and awesome, why would His freedom and action be bound to the Jewish pud? Imagine the richest & the most powerful man in the world being bound to the fate of homeless man because he made a pledge on the poor man’s pud. It sounds like the most ridiculous joke. If God is good, then He can only use violence when people act bad. He can’t use violence for violence’s sake. As if God wasn’t ‘disempowered’ enough, Christianity came along and threatened to rob God even of the power of righteous violence; the Son of God in the figure of Jesus changed a religion of judgment & punishment to a religion of redemption & forgiveness. Initially however, in the early parts of the Old Testament, God resisted the tendencies that would morally bind Him to man.
 |
| Darren Aronofsky's NOAH: Falling Angels |
 |
| Guido of 8 1/2 with god complex |
Applying a ‘spiritual’ analogy to UNDER THE SKIN, one could say the Johansson character is like a rebel angel. Initially, she is a killer-angel sent by ‘divine’ extraterrestrial beings to procure them with ‘food of the gods’. These ‘heavenly’ creatures love to feast on human flesh and blood. But once she begins to empathize with humans, she is no longer willing to play that role. Based on her change of behavior, could we surmise that she might want her masters to come to help/guide humans than exploit them?
In some ways, one could argue that the Johansson character is like a Nazi SS killer who comes to feel sympathy for his victims. Surely, there were Nazi killers who were at times overcome with doubt over having to carry out cold-blooded massacres of enemies and ‘sub-humans’. But there is a crucial difference between Johansson’s character and Nazi SS killers. The latter were forthright about their agenda. They declared their racial superiority, and their victims knew what it was all about as they were lined up to be mowed down by machine guns. In contrast, UNDER THE SKIN is about a ‘woman’ carrying out a hidden agenda. She mimics and feigns human kindness, friendliness, amiability, and likableness to lure men to her ‘house’ to trap them. Her demeanor is as silky as a spider web. Some might compare her with the Noir femme fatale, but what’s missing (even when she carries out her hunts)is a lack of individual guile. She fools men because she was conditioned or programmed to. She has no personal agenda or vendetta that is so central to the classic femme fatale. She’s like a bee or ant carrying out its apportioned duty and not much else. And when she finally develops a kind of personal agenda, it isn’t femme-fatale-ish but proto-humanist leaning toward existential-spiritualism. But like David in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, she can never be part of the human world. And if she were to expose her true self to humans, they would only hate her and kill her. Indeed, she is killed when a man uncovers her strange identity.
For some reason, she resists but doesn’t fight back against man who first attemps to rape her and then goes about killing her. Is it pacifism as a form of atonement for her earlier ‘sins’? Or is she really lacking in sufficient strength to tackle with humans physically? After all, she’d gained advantage over her victims through trickery than raw strength.
If Nazi SS were brazen and tough in their lethal prowess, Jewish power, like that of Johansson’s character, was mostly about stealth and trickery. As Jews mostly didn’t have the military means to conquer, subjugate, and massacre gentiles — Jewish Bolshevik power in the USSR and Zionist might in the Middle East are two major exceptions — , they had to use the guile and the smile to disarm the suspicions of gentiles and gain control over them. And after the Holocaust, Jews perfected ways to use the guilt along with the guile to control the hearts-and-minds of goyim. Prior to the Holocaust, gentiles felt no special guilt about Jews. Many gentiles, even liberals, assumed that Jews often ran into trouble around the world because they played dirty and sneaky. But after the Holocaust, Jews cleverly associated all such negative views with the very reasons that led to the Holocaust, and therefore, it became taboo to hold any negative view of Jews. So, Jews are now masters of peddling both guile and guilt. Our perception of extraterrestrials in UNDER THE SKIN is akin to common gentile perception of Jews in the pre-Holocaust era.
Post-Holocaust Jews could simply invoke the Holocaust to browbeat and guilt-bait the goyim, but pre-Holocaust Jews had no such easy crutch or magic wand to rely on. As it had been perfectly legitimate to harbor negative feelings toward Jews(in the academia, media, politics, religion, literature, culture, and social life), Jews had to resort to all sorts of trickery and guile to gain the upper-hand on the white goyim. They had to pose as friends even though they despised and/or resented the goyim with whom they had to do business. The Jew fumed with anger if the suspicious gentile didn’t fall for his shtick, but then, he felt contempt(and nothing like goodwill and gratitude)for the gullible goy who did fall for the shtick. It’s like a con-artist may be upset with someone doesn’t fall for the con, but he downright sneers at the sucker who falls for it. He will just laugh behind the fool’s back, just like Joe Mantegna’s character in HOUSE OF GAMES did with the female psychiatrist who was totally conned(mind-raped)by him. Hucksters don’t feel anything for sucksters. (The characters of HOUSE OF GAMES, however dark or disturbed they may be, are more admirable than the characters of OLEANNA. Mantegna’s character meant to mind-rape the woman, and he did. He won and feels the pride of conquest. The woman, though duped, is ultimately smart enough to piece together the puzzle and figure out the truth. Instead of complaining, she pulls a counter-trick on the man in retaliation and even kills him. She takes pride in her own victory. She’s a big girl now. She discovers that intelligence isn’t enough. One needs the instinct of a predator in a world of predators. In contrast, the sappy academic in OLEANNA didn’t mean to mind-rape the female student. But he’s accused of some terrible transgression, and he has no idea how to defend himself against something he’s not even guilty of. And the girl is so stupid that she needs the backing of some dogmatic feminist goon squad to keep harassing the professor. It’s saphead vs moron. Neither wants to play the game and don’t know how to play the game. They just butt heads out of sheer misunderstanding.) And yet, the Johansson character does develop feelings for mankind. She reaches a point where, like the ‘good’ vampires in TWILIGHT, she wants to live in peace with humans. She inches toward something like moral sense. But morality itself is a double-edged sword. It guides men and women to be better people. But it also fills them with fear of shame and punishment, thereby potentially driving them to even more immoral acts(to hide the scene of the crime, in both the literal and figurative sense). Indeed, the killing of Johansson’s character by the would-be rapist is fueled by both immorality and moral sense. (It’s also ironic that she is attacked and killed by a male sexual predator just when she’s given up her own sexually charged predation of men. It’s like the final scene of AMERICAN HISTORY X where the Edward Norton character’s younger brother is murdered by a jafro-jiver punk just when both brothers gave up on ‘hate’.) A forest worker(lumber man?)sees her as easy sexual prey and pursues her to commit the gravely immoral act of rape. But then he also kills her for reasons that seem twofold. First, her skin peels off and reveals a monstrous creature. So, perhaps the earthling side of him just wanted to destroy this alien-like monstrous creature. But the killing could also have been motivated by his fear of moral/legal sanction and punishment. He acted shamefully in sexually assaulting her, and he acts even more immorally in ‘murdering’ her, but his dire fear and moral panic would be inconceivable without his moral sense. It’s like Cain hid after he killed Abel because he was still capable of feeling moral panic. He knew he did something wrong, something he should be ashamed of, something that would turn him into a sinner and renegade in the eyes of others(at least if he were found out). When we act immorally, our moral panic(regarding external punishment if not internal conscience) makes us aware of the price we must pay for our transgression, and that leads to moral panic, and that can ironically lead to yet even more immoral behavior to hide the initial crime. It’s like the moral panic over the shame of adultery leads to murder-for-hire in Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. If the character were totally shameless and unconcerned with his high moral standing in his community, he wouldn’t have cared if his mistress spilled the beans on his ‘boing’-ness. But he does care about his reputation, and it’s precisely that part of him that recruits his gangster brother to kill the woman. The Watergate Scandal went from bad to worse to much worse because of the moral panic within the Nixon administration that sought to salvage its reputation. It could be that pedophile child-abductors are more likely to kill the children because they know few things in society are more loathed and reviled than child-molestation. They feel a great urge to hide their deeds because the moral condemnation and punishment would be overwhelming. Indeed, even murderers in prison make a clear moral distinction between themselves and child-molesters. This is why morality, as crucial as it is, can also make us more monstrous than animals. Animals may commit horrifying acts, but as they have no shame and no moral sense, they feel no moral panic, and as such, they feel no desperation to cover up what they’ve done. If Cain were a tiger, it would have felt, "I killed another tiger, so what’s the big deal?" But when humans do something that is deemed to be immoral, their moral sense kicks into gear and overwhelms them with shame, guilt, and/or fear. To avoid social shunning, condemnation, and/or punishment, they may be driven to yet more acts of horror. It’s like the Al Pacino character in INSOMNIA. He did something unethical(and criminal) for the good of society(to put away a child molester/murderer). Despite his good intentions, police tampering of evidence is also something that’s loathed and reviled by society, and he becomes filled with moral panic, no less than the murderer(Robin Williams) trying to hide his crime. It’s compounded when he accidentally(or not-so-accidentally)shoots his partner(who’d decided to cut a deal with the investigator looking into police corruption) and tries to cover that up too. It’s difficult to tell where the morality ends and immorality begins and vice versa.
Likewise, it’s ironic that the Johansson character who inches toward morality is killed by a man who acts immorally yet is also overcome with moral panic. Moral sense can lead to confession, redemption, and atonement, but more often than not, it leads to evasion, deception, suppression(of evidence), and/or rationalization. How many politicians, even upon conviction, ever admit their wrong-doing and apologize? Also, most individuals who do come clean only do so when there’s no way of digging out of the hole. (The Treat Williams character of THE PRINCE OF THE CITY who is motivated — or comes to be motivated — mainly by conscience is a rare bird indeed. Usually, the contrition is after the fact when there’s no way of covering up the fact. It’s like how the Toshiro Mifune character in HIGH AND LOW really decide to do the right thing when he’s run out of all options. Though he’s not legally obligated to hand over the money to the kidnappers, the moral, social, and economic pressures weighing on him are simply too great. If you have no choice to but be good, you might as well be very good, but did you choose goodness to be good or because it’s the only way to salvage anything from the mess?) It’s like Bill Clinton finally admitted to what happened between himself and Monica Lewinsky because of the incontestable evidence of the cum-stained dress. Otherwise, he would have gone on lying to this day. Nixon never admitted to anything though his fingerprints were all over his worst scandals. Jewish banksters in Wall Street cut sweet deals with the Justice Department and paid penalties without having to admit any wrongdoing. Hillary Clinton and Obama never came clean about Benghazi, and I doubt if the likes of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney will ever admit to their culpability in the destruction of the Middle East. Also, even though the dirty fingerprints of Jews are all over the conflagrations in the Middle East and conflict in Ukraine, Jews point the finger of blame on everyone but themselves. And no politician, banker, or activist took the blame for the collapse of the Housing Bubble in 2008 though it the product of collusion of politics, Wall Street, and activism. It’s not because these people necessarily lack a moral sense(though most of them do) but because their moral sense fills them with moral panic that prefers self-justification through deception and suppression(of evidence)than confession, atonement, and redemption.
 |
| Pickled Bloke Ready for Full-Bodied Cosmo-Circumcision |
 |
| Harry Houdini the Crazy but Brilliant Jew |
(Jews are a most paradoxical people for they developed one of the most repressive/restraining cultures and legal systems in world history yet also formed a mind-set and habit that are most obsessed with freedom. It’s like Houdini went out of his way to wrap himself in chains and then did his utmost to gain freedom. Thus, Jews are not content with freedom per se. What excites them is the straining for freedom, which is why, even in a free society, Jews find new ‘struggles’ like the issues around homos and trannies to make believe that we still have a LONG struggle in front of us.) So, Jews became profound intellectual-spiritual thinkers of the prophetic school, pretty good businessmen-merchants-and-moneymen, and pretty adept at thinking about sex as they were always theorizing about puds and poons, which is why it isn’t surprising that Sigmund Freud was a Jew. As Greeks could be openly physical and sensual in expression, they didn’t need to focus so much on the pud — indeed, Greeks tended to de-emphasize it. Greeks could focus on the muscle, the torso, the arms, the legs, the buttocks, and etc. But Jews forbade most forms of sensuality and exposure, so Jewish men found their jollies by coming up with ever more creative names for the pud. It’s hardly surprising that Mel Brooks turned the Force into the ‘Schwarz’ in SPACEBALLS. And the Jewish Blake Edwards also came up with an elaborate dick joke in SKIN DEEP, just about the only funny scene in the movie. Anyway, just like a worm adapted to living underground continues to squirm like an underground creature even when aboveground and just like a rat adapted to living in holes continues to behave like a burrowing creature even out in the open, Jews(who’d adapted to living in the shadows and hidden places) retain their way of thinking, feeling, and behaving even in an open and transparent society of Rule of Law. What the Jew seeks is not equality or good-will with everyone else. Jews are accustomed to exerting extra-effort, hyper-drive, and venal cunning to get what they want in opposition to The Other.
In the era prior to the liberalization of Western societies, Jews had to expend twice the effort, energy, and resourcefulness(as well as cunning and tribal networking) of gentiles of comparable talent in order to attain the same amount of rewards, and these challenges drove Jews to try even harder. Now that Jews live in a world of equality and freedom, Jews don’t have to strive so hard or play so dirty — if anything, many Jews today can reap twice the reward by doing half the work of gentiles of comparable talent — , but the mentality of over-achievement has become deeply ingrained in the minds and personalities of many Jews. Some Jews feel sick unless they’re always trying to do better than better. I’ve seen Jews in school get all worked up over stuff that never bothered any of us goyim. If it took Jews 200 units of energy to get 100 units of the prize in the past, today they can exert only 50 units to get the 100 units of prize. But they still exert 200 units of energy that now yield them 400 units of the prize. Of course, with Jews it’s not just about drive and diligence since they are naturally smarter. So, it’s hopeless to think that Jews will ever be content to be equal with gentiles whom they either patronize or hold in contempt. (Not that Jews would be happy if we could become as smart as them. Even as Jews sneer at us because we are too dumb and unworthy to be regarded as their equal, they fret that some gentiles may indeed be smart enough to challenge Jewish power. One part of Jew thinks, "Gosh, I wish those goys were smarter so I could respect them more", but another part of the Jew thinks, "Thank God those goyim are dumb because our advantage would vanish overnight if it were otherwise." And of course, there are a good number of white gentiles who are as smart or even smarter than Jews.
Though Jews on average are significantly smarter, there are many more white gentiles than there are Jews. So, all in all, there are still more smart white gentiles than there are smart Jews. Also, white folks have both smarts and numbers whereas Jews only have the smarts. So, Jews know they cannot rely on intelligence alone. They must rely on the cult of morality and ‘white guilt’ to browbeat smart white gentiles into feeling sorry for Jews and serving Jewish power than gaining white racial consciousness and leading the white masses.) Jews seek superiority over us and will do whatever’s necessary to take over all elite institutions and even have them purged of everyone they don’t like. (Indeed, Jews aren’t content merely to rule over Jewish communities and non-tribal institutions — government, banks, academia, media, etc. They seek to gain control of even gentile tribal, national, cultural, or spiritual communities possessed of particularities that are clearly non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. Though Jews resent gentiles lecturing to Jews about the True nature of Jewishness, Jews are always sticking their big noses into other peoples’ culture & affairs and imposing their views of Ideal Gentility upon non-Jews. So, Jews say Real Christianity should be about embracing ‘gay marriage’. Jews say Real Islam should be a ‘religion of peace’ that bends over to Zionist domination and approves of Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Jews say Real Russian culture should be about rejecting its spiritual traditions and promoting Pussy Riot values. Jews say Real Western Civilization should be about ‘multi-culturalism’, interracism, homo agenda, and white deracination. Jews say the Real China should model itself on MTV values. Jews say Real Conservatism should be about sucking Jewish cock and bending over to shit-stained homo penis. So, even as Jews tell Gentiles to butt out of matters of Jewish culture and identity, they stick their noses and dicks into gentile cultures and affairs all the time. And even though Jews insist that their over-representation in non-tribal institutions such as government, banks, and media doesn’t matter since Jews in such areas act impartially than for tribal Jewish interests, actions speak louder than words; and only a naive idiot would be blind to how Jews in non-tribal institutions prioritize Jewish interests. Jews demand that white gentiles use non-tribal institutions objectively and even against white interests, but they themselves flagrantly use non-tribal institutions for Jewish interests. Just look at the Fed, IRS, and NSA; and it’s clear as day that Jews are always Jews first and good citizens second. We are living in the era of the Jew Deal.) Jews are now even aiming to take over Russia. What chutzpah. As loathsome and hideous Jews are, there’s no denying their greatness. Just how did a people that make up only 2% of the US population take power from Anglos and Anglo-Americans, the most powerful, energetic, intelligent, innovative, and progressive people the world had ever seen — and in so short a time? No wonder Jewish appetite is whetted for more and more. Surely a people who beat the Anglos and Anglo-Americans — who’ve not only been defeated and cowered but turned into loyal running dogs of Jews — can also take over Russia, a nation of corrupt drunken bums who dance on tables and wrestle with bears. Russians have the potential to be great, but they’re prone to wasting their energies on tomfoolery, and this makes them vulnerable to the Jews as Jews control both US and most of EU.
It’s been said by some, especially atheists and leftists, that Judaism is preferable to Christianity and Islam because, whereas Christians and Muslims try to convert others to their Faiths, Jews just mind their own business and keep their religion to themselves. If indeed most Jews lived like the Amish, the favorable atheist view of Jewishness as the lesser of evils would be valid. One could argue Jews believe in some silly superstition but keep it to themselves and bother no one. But such view overlooks the fact that most Jews, religious and secular, are indeed aggressively conversionary in their own special way. While Jews don’t try to persuade non-Jews to convert to Judaism — largely because they see gentiles as unworthy of becoming part of the Jewish community — , they do try to convert all gentiles into the Worship of Jews.
A Christian tries to turn a heathen into a Christian, and once the conversion takes place, both the converter and converted are thought to be equal before Jehovah. A Muslim tries to turn an infidel into a Muslim, and once the conversion takes place, both the converter and converted are thought to be equal before Allah.
In contrast, Jews don’t try to turn gentiles into Jews, but they do try to turn gentiles into cattle-people who revere, worship, and serve Jews. Jews try to convert us into their sheep and their running dogs. Jews don’t merely say, "We are Jews, you are gentiles; we’ll do our thing, you do your thing." Instead Jews say, "We are Jews, we are wise, wonderful, great, noble, saintly, and near-perfect, whereas you gentiles are a bunch of lowly, stupid, childish, nasty, vicious, hateful, scummy, foul, odious, noxious, toxic, and disgusting anti-Semites, therefore, the ONLY WAY you worthless gentiles can find redemption in life is to serve us, hail us, admire us, worship us, and kiss our ass."
 |
| Perverse Logic of Christian Zionism |
 |
| Jewish Logic: Anti-communists were 'hysterical' and 'paranoid' about the Rosenbergs & other Jewish spies who passed US atomic secrets to Stalin, but we aren't sufficiently worked up about Iran, a nation that has no nukes(whereas Israel has 200 to 300 illegal nukes). |
So, even though homos don’t try to convert straight people to become homos, they do try to convert us into homomaniacs who are just wild and crazy about everything homo. (To be sure, some homos do try to convert straight people into sexual experimenters or sexperimenters so that some normal people will be foolish enough to try ‘gay sex’ with homos. On the one hand, homos insist that homosexuality is biological like race — though Liberals also say ‘race’ is just a social construct — , but the problem with such a view is that homos only have other homos to boof in the ass since the assumption or ass-umption is that only those born as homos will want to indulge in fruity behavior. But the fact is lots of homos lust after good-looking straight people and want to persuade some of them to bend over to fecal-stained homo penises — like what Will Smith’s Obama-like homo/Negro character did with a naive white guy in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION.) Similarly, while Jews don’t try to convert us into Jews, they do try to turn us into Judeomaniacs(and homomaniacs because Jews believe that promotion of homo power is good for Jews in reinforcing the notion of elite minority supremacy; also, with prominent homos always in the news, the American public are distracted from the fact that the real ruling elites are Jewish). And of course, Jews use the Holocaust — turned into Holocaustianity, a new religion — as a powerful tool in this conversion. Holocaustianity turns every Jew into Jew-sus. In Christianity, Christians are equal with one another, but they can never ever be equal with Jesus and His Father Jehovah. Similarly, in Holocaustianity, philosemitic gentiles can be equal with one another, but they can never be equal with the Jews or Jewsuses who monopolize the pantheon of holiness that gentiles must bow down to. Jewish supremacists hate Russia because tolerance for Jews(and homos) is no longer enough for them. Jews feel they must convert all Russians into Judeomaniacs and Holocaustians who will kneel before Jews(and homos) just like white Americans and white Europeans have been taught to. Just imagine this: Russians and Slavs lost over 20 million people to defeat Nazi Germany, and yet, Jews today compare Russia with Nazi Germany and stir up rabid and virulent hatred against Russians. Jews today are bunch of Yiddish-Hitlers or Yidlers. And just as Hitler could never be appeased, Jews will never be appeased by gentile cravenness. Indeed, when gentiles act nice to Jews, Jews see it as mere cowardice, weakness, & stupidity and demand more and more. Only total victory of Jewish supremacism will satiate the Yidlers of the world.
Anglo elites feel that certain things are beneath their dignity, indeed so much so that Anglo elites prefer to lose by ignoring them than win by addressing them. In contrast, nothing is beneath the dignity of Jews to exploit to gain more power and influence for themselves. (Of course, this was one of the reasons — the shameless Jewish takeover of vice industries — for anti-Jewish sentiments, but what with the rise of Holocaustianity, we are not supposed to notice the foulness of Jews in culture and business, despite the fact that Jews sometimes openly admit and even brag about how they’ve blatantly worked to undermine the moral community of gentiles. Paradoxically, Holocaustianity that morally iconographizes the Jews gives them moral cover to push some of the most immoral trends in our society. Indeed, even the Liberal James Wolcott admits that a beast like Lena Dunham is the creation of the Jewish-dominated culture industry.) Even when Anglos get low and play dirty, they try to maintain a high-and-dry tone. They avert their eyes and merely imply what they mean, whereas Jews get very wet in the manner of spitting-and-cumming-all-over-their-enemy. In some respects, Jews can be more down-to-earth about things and call a spade a spade. It’s like when Barbra Streisand’s character really wants something, she just goes for it in movies like WHAT’S UP DOC? She has the hots for the goy boy played by Ryan O’Neal and will do anything to get in his pants. If Jewish-Americans had founded America, enslaved the Negroes, and had to deal with the black problem, a whole bunch of Jewish guys would have said, "Look, the niggers are too strong for us. They’ll whup our asses and take our women, and us guys will be reduced to a bunch of ‘faggoty-ass’ pussy-boys. So, how about giving Negroes their own separate nation or shipping them all back to Africa or to some empty land in South America?" And it would have been done.
But Anglo-Americans, even as they were troubled by physical and sexual fear of the Negro, generally had ‘too much dignity’ to address the problem openly and directly. There were exceptions, of course, like THE BIRTH OF A NATION by D.W. Griffith. But then, it offended many Anglo-Americans not only for its message but for its ‘bad manners’. Even if the movie’s assertions were essentially true about race and sex — how prophetic the movie turned out to be 100 yrs later as a deracinated white America obsessed with interracist rap music & black domination of sports decided to politicuckold itself by electing as president the monkey-like product of a black African humping a white traitor mudshark whore — , they were deemed too undignified to address openly and publicly by many people. Though the movie was a big hit and won much praise, it was also reviled and derided by many white Americans who felt themselves too dignified to pay attention to such matters, and it wasn’t long before the movie became anathema in American culture and history.
Paradoxically, Jews hate THE BIRTH OF A NATION precisely because it’s so Jewishy in certain ways. It’s brazen, up front, and brazenly candid. It’s like political-historical Freudianism that lays history bare as a struggle for ‘land and pussy’ among the races. Even as Jews mocked and poked fun at repressed Anglo/American ‘dignity’, they needed Anglo/Americans to be inhibited and dignified in style in order to work on them. If indeed Anglo/Americans dropped their ‘dignity’ and played the game of power like Jews and Negroes, white Americans would still be on top. Whites would have shouted, "Kikes are smarter and will take over everything, and niggers are stronger and will whomp us and take our womenfolk, so we honkers need to unite and fight them hebes & jigs and kick them in the ass!" But it was the culture of dignity that enticed Anglo/Americans to play clean instead of dirty. Of course, Anglo/Americans often didn’t play clean or fair, and it was here that the cult of dignity was so crucial to Jews. Jews could call foul and embarrass the Anglo/Americans for not living up to their own standards of ‘dignity’.
So, there was something perversely dualistic about the Jewish attack on Anglo/American dignity. On the one hand, Jews were trying to expose and denigrate the Anglo/American culture of ‘dignity’ as mere horseshit to elevate the privileged members of the Anglo/American elite over others. Jews exposed it as pretentious, snobby, repressive/repressed, priggish, and phony-baloney. But what if Anglo/American elites dropped their culture of dignity and adopted the brazenly aggressive & nasty burlesque manners of the Jews? Anglo/Americans would have been shameless in their competition and struggle for power, and they would have pushed Jews back and kicked the Jew in the ass. And if Jews complained about unfairness, Anglo-Americans would have just reacted like Tony Montana of SCARFACE or Nicky Santoro of CASINO and kicked the Jew in the ass and told him to go to hell. Nicky sure knows how to handle a Jew.
Or imagine if Anglo-Americans had been like Chechens. Anytime Jews bitched and whined about how Anglo-Americans weren’t being sufficiently gentlemanly, the latter would have punched the Jew in the face and cut off his ears. And then the Jew would have watched his manners.
So, even as Jews mocked Anglo/American culture of dignity as bogus, they also propped it up with all those liberal characters played by Gregory Peck in movies like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. In order for Jews to shame and morally pressure the Anglo/Americans, the latter had to aspire to higher/truer dignity, because, after all, if Anglo/Americans thought and acted like Norman Mailer or Ethan — John Wayne character in THE SEARCHERS — , they’d fight fire with fire against the hideous Jews. So, the Jewish message to white Americans has been "You’re no better than the rest of humanity, BUT you should keep aspiring to be better so that we Jews can keep pointing out your moral failures and manipulate your sense of guilt."
But then, Jews always have one set of rules for themselves and another for their enemies/rivals. Consider how Jews have questioned and overturned so many of the established Narratives of Anglo-Americans. In some ways, Jews are to be commended because all thinking individuals should revisit, reassess, rethink, and revise what is taken to be conventional or received wisdom. Secular Jews applied their skills rooted in Talmudic studies to American history. Jewish attitude toward the Anglo-American elites was intellectual and critical than blind and obedient. As the result of Jewish revision of American history, we came to discover and know about lots of interesting and valuable things we otherwise might not have. What the Counterculture did to conventional culture in the 1960s, the counter-narrative did to the Anglo-American Narrative. So far, so good, and all of us should learn a thing or two from the lively Jewish culture of critique. The problem is Jews have erected a New Narrative that NO ONE better question in the manner that they’d challenged the traditional Anglo-American Narrative. Though Jews question, reject, or denounce what other groups say about their own cultures and histories, Jews expect all of us to blindly trust what Jews say about their own culture and history. So, if Anglo-Americans say, "We are like this", Jews call foul, but if Jews say, "We are like this", we better all stand up and cheer. We are NOT to do our own research about Jews — unless the conclusions are pre-ordained to be lavishly complimentary, as with the book on Jews by the shameless British whore Paul Johnson — but merely to agree wholeheartedly with the Narrative laid down by Jews. If we dare dig up truths about Jews that undermine the Jewish Narrative, we are attacked and destroyed as ‘anti-Semites’. I don’t know for sure if Michael Kammen was Jewish — he probably was — , but like so many Jews, he wrote detailed revision of American history in MYSTICS CHORDS OF MEMORY. The problem for me is not that such a book exists but that such a similarly critical take on the Jewish Narrative will be viciously denounced if written by a non-Jew. It’s as if Jews have the warranty to search our houses for evidence of guilt and never take us at our word, but we have to take Jews at their word and never even think to search the Jewish house for evidence of Jewish foul play. If we tell the Jews that we are not ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’, Jews smirk and growl, "Suuuuuuuuuure, you’re not!!" They accuse us of hiding our true intentions, our true feelings, and etc. Jews insist on digging up evidence of even ‘micro-aggressive’ wickedness buried in our sinful hearts. Even when white folks are sincere in their worship of all things Jewish and Negro, Jews accuse whites of ‘subconscious racism’ or ‘unconscious antisemitism’. So, Jews don’t ever trust us. They feel they have the right to violate our privacy of space and mind to root out our hidden ‘pathologies’. But if Jews insisted that they are so wonderful, saintly, and would never hurt a fly, we better take them at their word. If we don’t, we are paranoid anti-Semites not unlike Medieval folks hallucinating about witches. If we ask for a warranty to search the Jew, we are smeared as neo-Nazis. So, American Jews and Israeli Jews collude and conspire to spy on everyone — even on American politicians who go out of their ways to suck up to Jews — , but no one better spy on the Jews.
According to the Jewish Narrative, the leftist Jewish network in the 1940s and 1950s that aided and abetted Stalin were less evil than anti-communist conservative Americans who worked to expose and root out this leftist/Jewish conspiracy. If we suspect something negative about Jews instead of trusting everything they tell us, we are said to be ‘paranoid’ and ‘irrational’, but Jews obviously don’t trust non-Jews since Jews feel a compunction to spy on the entire world to find out what non-Jews are REALLY thinking about Jews. It’s like the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung in A DANGEROUS METHOD. Jung is asked to confess his dream to Freud for analysis, but Freud refuses to confess his dream to Jung as doing so may devalue his status as the ‘master’. Kubrick was also like this with people, even with fellow Jews. He would call up all sorts of people and ask for information and favors, but when others approached him the same way, he cut them off. Reciprocity is not something that comes naturally to Jews. Dealing with Jews is like standing before a two-way mirror. We see our own reflection and can’t see the Jew on the other side, but the Jew can see through the glass at us. According to the Jewish World-view, we gentiles have ulterior motives, and Jews have every right to stare into our minds and see the REAL us, but we ourselves better just trust the Jews and believe they have no ulterior motives. It’s like what Netanhayu told the US. Never ever second guess him for he and his fellow Jew-Zionists are our masters. And yet, that arrogant shit Jew — along with the loathsome Sheldon Adelson — is the greatest hero of American Conservatives!
 |
| DANGEROUS METHOD 'Jung' and 'Freud', unequal as Aryan and Jew |
Also, while passion and commitment are essential in our lives — no life would be complete and meaningful with dry intellect and ideas alone — , they often reduce our vision of the world into one of good guys and bad guys. But then, as if all-too-conscious of the problems of passion, we often feel embarrassed of powerful emotions(that are associated with childishness, animality, simple-mindedness, hatred, revenge, resentment, fear, frustration)and try to dress them up with higher principles or noble causes. The likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean-Luc Godard were often motivated by envy and resentment of Anglo-America but were never honest about their gut feelings and, instead, justified them with this-ism or that-ism and intellectual posturing. All of us do this to some extent. It’s interesting that many more Frenchmen of all stripes actively resisted America during the Cold War than they did against Nazi Germany during the Occupation.
At any rate, one key difference between Anglo horse-ish-ness and Jewish rat-ish-ness was horse-ish-ness couldn’t be shared by all Anglos, as only the Anglo elites could afford to be horse-ish. Horse-ish-ness was a class thing in terms of style and manners, and of course, this account as to why the British had a certain fondness for India with its elaborate caste system. Indeed, the Anglo elites reserved horse-ish-ness to the members of the upper class, and rest of the population was expected to be dog-ish or sheep-ish, as when a social inferior took off his hat and said "aye guv’nor" to a social superior. In contrast, all Jews could be rat-ish since rat-ish-ness wasn’t about fineness of manners but about holiness of being a member of the Tribe. Therefore, it’s not difficult to understand why there’s more social unity among the rat-ish Jews than among the horse-ish, dog-ish, and sheep-ish Anglos.
For similar reasons, white folks have much to fear from Negroes. Negroes, having evolved for 10,000s of years in hot and dangerous Africa teeming with lions-hyenas-gorillas-buffaloes-leopards-elephants-hippos, etc. — as well as other crazy Negroes — , think like hunters and warriors. They are into physical dominance, aggression, whupping butt, and humping everything in sight. As such, the only thing the Negro respects is fear, and when in the past Negroes did fear the white man, they tried to be a ‘credit to their race’ worthy of being accepted by white society. But ever since Jack Johnson and Joe Louis kicked white butt, black folks lost all physical fear of the white man; and when whites gave up social and legal power over blacks as well, it was only a matter of time before blacks reverted to their jungle-jive warrior mode of spear-chucking and booty-shaking. General black attitude toward whites became like those of Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson who never took whites as serious opponents. And when blacks gained moral advantage over whites via the Civil Rights Movement, they lost all sense of obligation to act decently and properly to gain approval from American society. Blacks began to see white guys as not only ‘faggoty ass white boys’ but ‘evil motherfuc*ing racists’, indeed the worst folks that ever done exist. While blacks had felt plenty of animus against whites prior to the Civil Rights Movement(and for justifiable reasons), they also felt a degree of moral deficiency since the prevailing narrative maintained that white folks created civilization and founded the great new nation of America, the richest nation on earth, with advanced white ideals and technologies, whereas blacks had been nothing but a bunch of spear-chucking, gorilla-imitating, bongo-drum-banging, and ass-shaking jigger-jiver lunatics who never done anything to advance mankind morally, spiritually, and intellectually. So, even though blacks felt that white folks needed to treat Negroes more fairly, the they also felt that the white man was deserving of respect and admiration for having created the modern advanced world. So, the idea was that whites should be more tolerant of Negroes, but Negroes should aspire to be more like white folks. But the Civil Rights Movement and then the Black Power movement eroded any respect that blacks might have felt toward white society. Blacks began to feel not only physically tougher than whites — a sense of black racial supremacism over slow, flabby, and ‘faggoty-ass honkeys’ — but also infinitely morally superior as well. (And Jewish radicals encouraged this tendency, what with figures like Fay Stender and the Radical Chic crowd even pushing the crazy notion that black criminals and thugs are righteous revolutionaries against the ‘racist’ white order.) And this was easy for Negroes to accept since they are naturally more self-centric, uninhibited, egotistical, and egomaniacal than other races. Blacks were no longer looking for equality but taking pleasure in putting down ‘faggoty-ass honkeys’, whupping white ass, and acting so holier-than-thou while blaming white folks for all the problems of blacks in both US and Africa. So, blacks today act like spoiled children, and worthless slimeballs like Tupac and Kanye West have become the ‘conscience’ of the black community. And so-called intellectuals like Michael Dyson and Cornel West are essentially rapper-wanna-be’s. They are so full of shit and hot air because they have black genes, which makes them far more egotistical, arrogant, and self-regarding than peoples of other races. Anyway, you can’t hope for equality with people who are hellbent on domination and superiority, whose world-views are colored by jiggerish contempt, jafroish self-righteousness, and jungle-jive animus. The personalities of Jews and Negroes are like this by nature, and only a fool would think that such people will ever be content with equality.
Many modern Jews are neurotic like Franz Kafka and Woody Allen. Some are highly successful and seemingly well-adjusted on the outside, but their inner cores surge with neurosis. As intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced, and worldly as many Jews are, there’s something ‘autistic’ about their mentality. It’s sort of like Dustin Hoffman’s character in Barry Levinson’s RAIN MAN. Hoffman’s character is so fixated on numbers and patterns that he tries to apply his particular mind-set to EVERYTHING, even the Abbott and Costello joke "Who’s on first."
He is trapped within his mentality, so much so that the actual reality becomes subordinate to his narrowly obsessive view of reality. Of course, most Jews are not like the Hoffman character in the literal sense. The likes of Nate Silver, the Freakonomics guys, and the Moneyball guys understand much of reality as it is and certainly have a sense of humor — surely more than most of us — , but they do have an obsessive tendency of applying their ‘statisticism’ on everything. Sometimes, they can be astonishingly correct when the numbers and figures do correspond to reality, but there’s always the danger of confusing statistics and figures as the very components and structures of reality. Indeed, consider how Nate Silver was so wrong about the World Cup Soccer in 2014. Being wrong about such things is natural enough and happens to all of us, but there was an air of authority to Silver’s predictions, indeed EVEN AFTER Brazil lost its best player. At that point, Silver was trusting his numbers more than the hard fact that a key player was out of the game and that the Brazilian team was in psychological disarray. So, in an allegorical sense, the Dustin Hoffman character does say something about the Jewish mind-set. With all their knowledge and intellect, Jews have a tendency to project their mental obsessions onto the world, indeed as if the world exists only to conform to and confirm their visions, dreams, prejudices, passions, and agendas. It’s like God is supposed to be bigger than anything according to the Bible. Most pagan gods were powerful, even very powerful, but they didn’t know everything, and there was a sense of time and space much greater than they. But everything of reality is just a consequence of God’s power and greatness in the Jewish religion, and therefore, to know the mind of God is to know the matter of all that was, is, and will be. In secular terms, modern Jews have a tendency to conflate their power of intellect with the totality of reality itself. That was one of the great appeals of Marxism: The promise that if you mastered its tenets, you mastered everything about history, morality, humanity, philosophy, science, culture, and etc.
It’s like the Jewish Fishbein character of Wes Anderson’s RUSHMORE conflates his FANTASY of being a genius, leader, enterpriser, lover, and visionary with a REALITY that has little regard for his delusions. Max Fishbein may lack real genius, but he has the Jewish personality that thinks of itself as genius. (Fishbein character is highly representative of a certain kind of Jew. I’ve known a few Jews with super-genius, but I’ve known many more Jews who are very bright but considerably short of genius but who nevertheless effect the ‘style of genius’ and get pretty far in life, especially in certain areas of academia and social science where the rhetorical impression of talent is often more important than real honest talent.)
Ironically, high intelligence/ability and moral seriousness can make people more blind to reality in certain respects. Though higher intelligence is what distinguishes us from other animals, intelligent people can become overly enamored of their smarts and erudition, indeed as if their knowledge of reality matters more than reality itself; indeed, they tend to be dismissive of all the facts and evidence that undermine their ‘highly intelligent’ view of reality. (They regard inconvenient facts as the selectively chosen tools of the ignorant and bigoted ‘right’ to stall the progressive agenda. Of course, there’s a degree of validity to such suspicions. After all, facts of reality usually don’t make themselves known of their own ‘volition’. They generally become known and enter into social discourse when the elites in the academia, media, or government make them into an issue. Some realities intrude upon us in ways beyond anyone’s control. For example, if a giant asteroid were to hit Earth right this moment and wipe out half the life-forms, we would know. No amount of government effort could cover up a disaster like that. But most discussion about stuff in outer-space become an issue only through the selective focus of professional astronomers, NASA, and the news media. Similarly, if World War III were to erupt and disrupt the lives of countless people all over the world, most people will find out regardless of who controls the Narrative. During World War II, all Poles became well aware that Germany and USSR had invaded their country. But even with all the problems of crime and social malaise, most Americans lead non-violent lives in relatively stable communities, and therefore, crisis issues enter their minds as topics of discussion only through the selective narratives of the government, media, and academia. It’s like the so-called ‘War on Women’ became an issue because of the Democratic elite control of the media. Likewise, ‘family values’ was cynically exploited by Republicans in the early 90s to rouse up the base and win elections. Of course, when social problems grow really serious, even the combined power of the government, media, and academia can’t sweep it under the rug and keep distracting people’s attention from the problem. The reason why films like DIRTY HARRY and DEATH WISH were huge hits was because everyone could see that cities were becoming inundated with urban blight and crime. And even though anti-black rhetoric was disapproved of and defacto banned in the media, the national elections of the 70s and 80s reflected the fears of white America. And given the fact that Nixon and Reagan won tremendous landslides, the anti-black feelings didn’t only prevail among white conservatives but among many white Democrats who were affected by black crime and lunacy that had spread all over during the 60s and 70s. Even so, most of what enters the public discourse are chosen by those who control the media, academia, and government. This is as true on the American ‘right’ as on the American ‘left’. It’s one biased narrative vs another, and to this extent, Liberals have a point when the say that inconvenient facts selectively chosen by the ‘right’ as nails to deflate the tires of the ‘progressive’ bus. And it’s true enough that any side — even the most extreme — can selectively use anecdotal evidence to make their case. It’s like even communist Cuba and North Korea can cherry-pick the worst things about America and argue that US is a wicked and oppressive nation. But Liberals are blind to the fact that they play the same game played by Conservatives. Even when certain inconvenient or politically incorrect facts turn out to be overwhelmingly true, Liberals still turn a blind eye because they are so enamored of their supposedly higher intelligence/knowledge and their supposedly superior morality. Indeed, Liberals are so sanctimonious with their morality that they prefer falsehoods that sustain their sacral vision than truths that turn secular gods into dust. It’s like some Conservatives will believe in God against all factual evidence that He doesn’t exist. It’s the psychological power of faith.) Smart Liberals become so highly self-regarding that they so sure they must be right because, after all, how could people as intelligent(and caring)as themselves be possibly wrong about anything? Indeed, a study indicates that Liberals have more of a ‘confirmation bias’, which is "the tendency to accept only the facts that buttress your closely held views". Liberals are so certain of their ‘open-mindedness’ that they even conflate their closed-mindedness with open-mindedness. It’s like shrill Liberals demand the banning of ‘hate speech’ and the closing down of bakeries that won’t make ‘gay wedding cakes’ but regard such censoriousness as perfectly ‘liberal’. Being ‘liberal’ means never having to say you’re sorry, let alone wrong.
The problem of intelligence-working-against-truth obviously affected individuals like Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Both were very smart men, probably geniuses, but they came to conflate their genius and the truth as the same thing. Of course, there are plenty of gentiles who feel likewise. Hitler wasn’t a genius, but he was very smart, and it was his conceit of genius that led him to see himself as a man of destiny. When intellectual egocentrism is mixed with moral egomania, it’s a deadly combo. Because of the long history of Jewish morality rooted in their great religion/culture and because of the horror of the Holocaust, so many Jews are now convinced that they are the most moral, decent, and righteous people on the planet and maybe all of the galaxy if not the universe. Jews are so full of it in the moral department that they are blind to all the immoral and foul things they’ve done and do(more than ever). Jews now have all this power, privilege, and influence, but they are utterly blinded with arrogance and self-regard of genius and sainthood. It’s a dangerous brew. Jews as Yidlers have become as insane as Adolf Hitler. But if there was only one Hitler in one nation, there are millions of Yidlers all over the world as part of a vast network of Jewish globo-homo-Zionist power.
Radical moralism has made Jews oblivious to their immorality of pushing ‘gay marriage’, destroying entire nations in the Middle East, and provoking crisis in Ukraine to destroy Russia, a nation that poses no threat to good decent folks around the world. Things have gotten so rotten that maybe the mass destruction of the West will be necessary for a moral order to be restored. Paradoxically, true morality grows from the soils of barbarism because morality is necessary to move away from morality. When social order becomes stable and moral order can be taken for granted, people grow decadent & complacent and may even come to confuse decadence with morality and try to stave off the boredom of complacency with radical experimentation, which is what has happened in the affluent West. Though barbarism can make everyone more barbaric in his/her need for survival, it also wakens people up to what is essential and non-essential. It’s like doing the wrong thing can be the difference between life and death in war. While barbarism dehumanizes, it also essentializes, and without such an essentialism, morality isn’t possible. Morality is the will to insist that certain values are truer, more essential, and more valuable than others. Morality based on survival and creating a stable order is more substantive than ‘new morality’ based on doling out hedonistic good times and frivolous self-esteem to every group, even freakish ones like trannies. While tolerance can be a component of morality, if it becomes the core, the very structure of morality begins to crumble. It’s like a tooth can handle some sugar on the outside but it’d be insane to inject sugar into the inner core of the tooth. A tooth can tolerate some cavities on the outside but when the core begins to rots, it’s dead and done with.
(We loathe horror, but humanity always seems to mess up without its dire lessons. One of the deceptive aspects of the Book of Job is that the wager between God and Satan was loaded in favor of God from the start. Satan makes a ‘bet’ on what is generally a false premise. He argues that Job is faithful to God because times are good and his life is filled with abundance. But if God were to take away those things, Job will turn against God, or so contends Satan. To prove Satan wrong, God begins to take away, one by one, the sources of joy in Job’s life until Job is without wealth, without his family, and without good health. But Job maintains his faith in God. And eventually, God wins the wager with Satan. But what is wrong with this picture? Why was Satan bound to lose? Because his premise was generally faulty. It’s not good times but bad times that lead men to God. When times are good, people forget God and the Laws. They take things for granted and look for pleasures outside the Law. It was because they had it so good that Adam and Eve defied God, dilly-dallied with the Serpent, and ate from the Tree of Knowledge. So, if the good things were taken from Job’s life, the chances were he would become closer than further away from God. After all, even as or precisely because he challenges God with his big question, he becomes closer to God than ever before. When he was happy, he thanked God, prayed to God, and was reverent toward God, but there was no need to be close to God since his life was without problems. It’s only when things start to go horribly that Job begins to strive to come to know God and gain some kind of clue or answer. And all throughout Jewish and Christian histories, people clung to God most when things were bad. So, in a way, it was a trick bet between God and Satan, one that the latter was almost sure to lose. Indeed, Satan would have had a better chance of winning if he wagered with God that a man with hardships will become more faithful if made very rich and happy. Today, white Liberal elites in America never had it so good — monopolizing both material abundance in ‘blue cities’ and vain moral superiority via preening PC that worships homos as angels — and, unsurprisingly, they are the least religious people on Earth, along with their Western European counterparts.) Barbarians, good or bad, know that power is what counts, and power isn’t just about theory but action. Barbarians contend in a live-or-die world, as animals do. Like the Dustin Hoffman character in the final part of STRAW DOGS, barbarians know they gotta fight and win or they’ll lose and die. It’s like the characters in THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. When zombies are out to get you, you have to fight like barbarians and survive.
It’s like the highfalutin ideals of the scientist in Howard Hawks THE THING FROM OUTERSPACE mean nothing in the game of survival. It’s like you can’t bargain with the killer robot in THE TERMINATOR.
A social/political order falls apart when it becomes too aggressive or too passive. Hitler’s Germany got too aggressive and eventually came to ruin. But when a people become overly well-off and passive, they grow soft and decadent, and people lose the sense of the true meaning of power. They lose it through too much pleasure and good times — hedonism — or they lose it through too much ‘guilt’ and ‘do-goody’ consciousness, indeed even to the point where they come to believe they deserve to be punished for and liberated from their historical crimes by death and demise(as happens with the Immortals in ZARDOZ).
Furthermore, as often as not, the good times/hedonism and pacifism/guilt-ism go together. It’s when people have plenty of goods and comforts that they can afford to be moralistic in a highfalutin way. Indeed, suppose all those affluent namby-pamby Liberals suddenly went without food and had to struggle to survive — like the characters in the indie horror film THE DAY. They would become like Dustin Hoffman in STRAW DOGS almost overnight. Indeed, look how all those liberal Jews in Israel hardened into tough nationalist Zionists out of fear of Arabs and desire for Arab lands.
 |
| STRAW DOGS: When Push Comes to Shove. Dustin Hoffman turned into Jewish Cowboy against indigenous white barbarians. |
In times to come, the moral conviction of Christianity fused with the warrior soul of Northern barbarians to forge a new powerful order.
Jews have a craving for mystery even in the modern world. Of course, all people do, which explains the popularity of novelists like Stephen King. But many gentile folks are content with the mystery of faith(or fright, another simple emotion), whereas Jews are fascinated with the mystery within the faith. To some extent, Freud and other Jews became obsessed with psychology-psychiatry because the physical world was, just then, becoming all too evident with science revealing so much about the human body, the mountains and oceans, animals and plants, and etc. Charles Darwin had even revealed the processes involved in the evolution of life. So, in the three dimensional world of ‘reality’, the element of deep mystery was diminishing by the day. To be sure, there was the mysterious element of time-in-relation-to-space, a tantalizing concept for Albert Einstein and others to ponder; but in the end, even time-and-space relations were conquered and ‘mapped out’ as another dimension of space through mathematical formulas.
But the mind was infinitely mysterious, especially as psychology was thought to be dipping for the first time into realms hidden to consciousness. So, the mind, especially the subconscious, became like the new god for the modern Jews, the new thing of endless fascination. And yet, the dualistic Jewish personality not only seeks to humbly step into the world of grand mystery but to gain mastery over the mystery. With God, this had always been a risky proposition since the Torah says no man, even a Jew, should dare to understand God — after all, Adam and Eve got punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge — , and besides, no man ever could even if he tried.
But ideally, there are no taboos and prohibitions in science, and therefore, Freud attempted to map out the features of the mind and connect all the dots. (The problem for Freud was he was essentially a theorist and soul-ist despite his self-perception as an empirical scientist. Mapping the mind in architectural or structural terms was far less interesting to Freud than gauging the ghostly energies of the mind. Freud would have explained these energies in biochemical terms, but it was their phantom qualities that interested him. Freud didn’t approach the mind as a realm of fixed shapes, structures, and spaces but as a dream space in which everything was ceaselessly shape-shifting, warping, and morphing. So, the essential truth of the mind lay in its surreal nature. Though the brain had a fixed physiological structure and regular mechanisms governed its basic workings — like a machine — , the energies within the mind were often unreliable and inconsistent in regards to one’s experience of reality, ability, memory, and fantasies. Freud didn’t reject the concept of the structure of the mind or see it as distinct from the energies of the mind; rather, just as Einstein saw time and space as two sides of the same coin, Freud regarded the mental structure and mental energies as inseparable. Mental structures contain mental energies, but mental energies warp mental structures, as in the dream world. In a way, Freud regarded the dream world as closer to the true nature of the mind. Reality forced the mind to filter out most of its natural tendencies and concentrate its energies on an empirical assessment of reality. After all, a dreamy person walking along a cliff will likely fall off and die if his mind isn’t focused on every step. Reality forces the mind to be focused on the correct perception of reality through eyes, ears, and other senses. Survival depends on it. But in truth, the mind is a far more complex and anarchic entity that happens to be haunted, possessed, and shaped by with all sorts of energies seemingly unrelated to the narrow focus of coping with reality. And it is in the dream world that the fullness of the mind comes alive since the mind-in-the-dream is no longer restricted to the narrow demands of physical survival or social approval. And yet, the dream world is also shaped by one’s stored perceptions of reality and society, so it’s a kind of wild west region where forces of anarchy rub against the pressures of dream-reconstructed reality; one fears cliff edges in dreams too. After all, we think we are still in the ‘real world’ when we dream. If you want to kill someone in a dream, you still hesitate since you fear the law; you might kill him only when you lucidly realize you’re in a dream. Even strange and outlandish things seem ‘normal’ in dreams. A part of us still tells us to behave and be careful as if we’re still in reality, but the anarchy all around seem to indicate anything is possible and all inhibitions should be abandoned. When the mind interacts with the real world, it conforms to real-world pressures. The mind may do this very well, but in doing so, it represses so many other features of the mind that are deemed as inappropriate, dangerous, or psychotic by real people in the real world. But in the dream world, even as the dreamer still thinks he’s in the real world and tries to act accordingly, the anarchic expressions of the mind creep out from all corners. It’s like the Leonard DiCaprio character in INCEPTION cannot control the ‘ghost’ of his dead wife Mal in his subconscious. Freud thought dreams held the key to the secrets of the mind. Reality forced the mind to operate in a single-minded & proper way and repress all other attributes of the mind. If we were to approach Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS as a dream, the anarchic energies of the woman’s mind are wreaking havoc on her ‘conscious’ effort to maintain proper decorum of a caged mentality. The ‘birds’ are like Holly Golightly of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S who doesn’t want to be a caged bird. And yet, the apparently crazy activities of the dream world are not without rhyme or reason. According to certain psychologists, they are essentially sexual. Dreams may appear anarchic in retrospect[upon waking up], but because they are mistaken for reality by the dreamer, even the anarchic forces appear as semi-repressed symbols[such as phallic ones]. Unlike in the real world with its fixed laws of physics and morality, the mind can venture in the dream world like the Beatles did in the surreal spaces of YELLOW SUBMARINE the movie. And yet, the real zinger is that these seemingly anarchic, arbitrary, and random figures of the subconscious may not be chaotic but the warped expressions of the sexual drive. The dream world absorbs the moral/legal repressions of the social world but also funnels the sexual drive of biochemistry. It’s makes one feel like the character of Bob Dylan’s "Ballad of a Thin Man". One’s assumptions of rules and meanings in the real/normal world lose their relevance in the dream-like world inhabited by forces that mock everything that you’ve been led to believe as true, logical, or sacrosanct. It’s like the Jeff Daniels character’s assumptions dissolve in the darker world of criminality and pathology in SOMETHING WILD[directed by Jonathan Demme], in many ways more interesting than BLUE VELVET by David Lynch. He simply doesn’t get it. Even when trouble is staring right into his face, he thinks it’s all horsing around where no one gets hurt. Even trouble is just ‘trouble’, the kind you see on TV or joke about with friends. But then, it turns out he’s not such an ‘innocent’ and a ‘victim’ after all but a repressed ‘hunter’ who’d subconsciously been waiting for an opportunity to play the game of may-the-best-man-win-and-take-the-woman. The dream world exists between the realms of social being and sexual ‘boing’. This is why Negroes are, in some ways, so crazy. You’d think they’d be less crazy since their particular evolutionary experience in Africa made them more attuned to the simple needs of eating, reproducing, and surviving. After all, animals are wild and aggressive, but they have simpler needs than humans. They are more fierce and dangerous but not more crazy. So, while it’s understandable that Negroes would be more aggressive and animal-like, it’s counter-intuitive that they’d be more crazy in psychological terms. And yet, precisely because the wild-ass Negro needs to repress more of his aggressive warrior-sexual nature in order to live in civilization, they are likely to develop a special kind of crazy-ass neurosis. But then, the conflict of ‘social being’ and ‘sexual boing’ has been difficult for all races since both modes are so prevalent and yet so opposite in their character. ‘Social being’ reprimands the mind for deviating from proper rules, and ‘sexual boing’ torments the psyche for not acting on natural impulse. One nags the soul for not being proper enough, and the other nags on the soul for being too proper. Therefore, escape from both has been attempted through spirituality and drug experimentation, especially in the 60s. When the likes of Timothy Leary first experimented with drugs, they discovered a whole new inner-world of beauty, bliss, and vision opening up between the crudely biological call for sex and repressively social demands of conformity. They drifted freely in a dream-like world where all things were possible, where truths could be plucked like ripened fruits from bountiful magic trees. And yet, the seemingly wondrous elements of this dreamlike world became increasingly familiar to the spiritualists or drug-experimenters. In time, the elements came to be recognized not so much as fantastic treasures but deceptive symbols of either doggedly nasty sexual drives or stubbornly nagging social consciences. It’s not surprising that the Summer of Love turned into ugly orgies among hippies. They’d began searching for higher love but ended up humping one another like wild rabbits. They thought they found a perfect kind of love where sexuality & spirituality were one in their hallucinogenic vision of Eden, but the horny serpent hiding in the bushes ambushed and bit them all over. Summer of Love turned into Cummer of Lust. Even rape become a common feature at Haight Asbury. Indeed many would-be-spiritualists turned out to be little more than sexually obsessed perverts. Maharishi Yogi wasn’t called ‘Sexy Sadie’ for nothing by John Lennon. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a major humper. But then, there was also the threat of social conscience looming in the clouds of the dream-like realm. The more aware one became of the symbolic meanings of the elements of the dream-spiritual-or-drug world, the more they bared themselves to be symbols of guilt complexes, emotional hang-ups, inadequacies, anxieties, and etc. Bob Dylan initially got fantastic highs from drugs, but the images began to collapse on him. He began to be filled with guilt about his father and a bunch of other matters. Instead of helping him escape from reality, they forced him to confront his own real-world failings, evasions, and rationalizations. The world of drugs initially seemed to offer escape, but when the phantoms were unmasked the faces were all too familiar, accusatory, and damning. It’s like the angel Clarence in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE offers George Bailey not escapism but the hard truths that compel him to return to reality. It’s like no amount of escapism through drugs and dreams in MULHOLLAND DR. can save Diane Selwyn from herself. The seemingly escapist fantasy figures of her mind ultimately reveal their true faces as sexual drives, social fears, and personal guilt.) To be sure, even in the Jewish attitude toward God, there is as much arrogance and megalomania as humility and deference. In claiming that their God is the one and only God whose greatness is beyond human understanding, Jews come across as a humble people. But if the Jewish God is a projection of the Jewish personality, it implies Jews feel themselves to be so deep and profound that no other people could possibly understand the Jewish soul in all its grandeur, richness, and holiness. Furthermore, claiming their God as a Deity of infinite mystery implies that Jews monopolize the infinite mystery since they own the God who embodies such properties. Even if one were to argue Jews don’t own God but instead God owns the Jews, why would God have chosen Jews over all other peoples? The Covenant between God and Jews implies that God wanted special ownership of Jews since He regarded Jews as especially worthy to ponder His infinite mysteries. Even if Jews cannot solve God’s mystery, they have been chosen — above all other peoples — to play the game of infinite mystery. It’s like no student can read every book in the university library and gain knowledge of everything, but some students are admitted while most are not. So, Jews feel as a special elect who’ve been admitted into God’s Ivy League. Though no Jew ever thought he was God — with Jesus of myth as the great exception — , the meaning of God can only be known through the minds of men, and since Jews were chosen to ponder the meaning of God, it’s the Jewish mind that is teeming with Godliness and Divinity. This is why some Jews say stuff like: “Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.…If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA… If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value... There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.” Even as Jews believe themselves to be humble little creatures before God, they also believe that their minds/souls serve as the portals of God to the world. Even though they cannot know everything about God, they can know something about God, and since this knowledge of God comes through the workings of their hearts and minds, some degree of mutual identification exists between God and Jews. Thus, especially in the case of Jews, humility is the path toward megalomania. To be sure, this is a universal mental pattern. Humility makes us bow down before something great, real or imagined, but in our great fascination with the object of our worship, we try to know it, feel it, come closer to it, and even become it. Thus, the religious Jew is both the humblest and the most megalomaniac person in the world. But secular Jews share the same personality, which is why Karl Marx was both a profoundly humble student and a megalomaniacal know-it-all prick of history. There was something humble about Marx’s contention that ‘great individuals’ are far less important than the great forces of history driven by economics, and yet, in coming up his theory(the mother of all theories), he was implying that HE is the greatest individual that ever lived for having unlocked the TRUE forces behind history. Rudolf Hess said "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler", and Marx was pretty much saying "I am history, history is me". Indeed, it’s telling that a supposedly objective theory of history bore his name: Marxism. And something similar was afoot with Freud. On the one hand, he thought of himself as a humble and infinitely cautious, meticulous, & patient scholar of the mind that is so vast in its complexities and mysteries. But then, he also claimed to have figured it all out with his theories about the root urges emanating from sexual drives. And yet, because the mind and history are so vast, multi-faceted, and ultimately unknowable in their entirety, Marx and Freud could have the cake and eat it too: make scientific claims all the while resting assured that their theories couldn’t be scientifically disproved, at least not in the immediate future. With such vast subjects, they could work in both the mode of science and cult of religiosity. This was frustrating but also fascinating, as nothing kills mystery like scientific experiments that can be universally replicated over and over in discerning the proven from the disproved. Gravity and the speed of light are interesting subjects, but they can be measured and studied scientifically. Basic theories of gravity and light are no longer mysterious to specialists, and since we ordinary folks trust experts on scientific matters, we just nod along and agree. Also, scientific truths are universal and timeless. Whatever the future may hold, we know the laws of nature are going to be the same hundred years from now or million years from now — as they were hundred years ago or million years ago. So, scientific truths have no history; they just are, and once they’ve been uncovered by observation and experimentation, they are no longer mysterious. But history is forever mysterious since most of the past is lost(and only uncovered in fragments through archaeology) and since there’s no way of predicting what will happen in the future; even Marxists who were certain of the eventual triumph of communism had no detailed vision of how events would lead to revolution. Similarly, the mind remains mysterious despite all the studies and theories that have abounded since the advent of modern psychology. There will never be the definitive theory of the mind, especially since the mind can only know itself through the mind, which is like a mirror faced with another mirror, each reflecting the other ad infinitum. The modern Jew is without belief in God and Satan, but the shadows of old beliefs hang in the Jewish mind, and Jews continue to seek ‘total truths’ and wage endless total wars on their enemies who are seen not only as threats but inherently wicked and must be smitten for the sake of Jewish supremacism.
Anyway, Jews developed certain mental habits because they were faced with a very profound idea. Of course, one could argue that through all those thousands of years, Jews thought of nothing, zilch, nada since God simply doesn’t exist and was nothing more than a figment of man’s imagination. People like Richard Dawkins say this over and over. We could argue that Jews were believers in a delusion, no more or no less than peoples of other faiths who were similarly deluded. And yet, the ideas about God were related to matters of the mind, body, soul, and the world; they touched upon issues of power, morality, ambition, ego, vanity, and etc. And since God was both infinitely mysterious and intimately close, the Jewish mind, in the realm of God-scape, could go as far and remain as near as it wanted. The Jewish mind could wander, explore, and try to connect everything about the soul, the world, history, morality, and etc. And the concept of God provided the framework and the guiding principles by which all such disparate subjects could be pulled together into a grand concept and grand narrative. Things and events that might have seemed separate, unrelated, and/or arbitrary might come together to form a larger image and meaning because the concept of God provided the canvas on which they could be placed and interconnected. Also, the concept of God provided the emotional gravity whereby various peoples, events, and dreams could be held together in harmonious interrelated revolutions. Without God, if something bad happened, it was a bad thing, and if something good happened, it was a good thing, but the bad thing and the good thing didn’t seem connected. But with God, one could ponder the spiritual and moral connection between the good thing and the bad thing, i.e. neither is entirely independent of the other and both are part of the grand plan of the cosmos governed by God or the gods. While all cultures developed and practiced their own spiritual-moral-cosmologies, it was the Jews who went furthest to pull everything together into a whole, a perfect unity. Ancient Greeks generally like to break things apart and examine their separateness and distinctness, and this was the basis for what would become rational philosophy and science. By focusing on elemental components and clear logic, Greeks sought interrelationships and interconnections among things of mechanical, material, numerical, and/or rational nature. Greeks eventually came to divide the spiritual world from the material world. They developed many schools of thought. They also divided arts from religions. Also, as Greeks became one of the supreme military and political powers of the Ancient World, they were also able to, at least for a time, delineate the world in terms of Greek and ‘barbarian’. Though Jews were also insistent on their separateness and uniqueness, they never became a major power in the Ancient World and usually got whupped than did the whupping. So, even as Jews maintained their separateness, they were very mindful of the fact that they had to co-exist and survive as a threatened people in world dominated by goyim. At some point in history, Greeks became so powerful and full of themselves that they came to disregard non-Greeks. If early Greeks were eager to learn from Persians and others, later Greeks, especially after the victories of Alexander the Great, thought themselves the greatest people on Earth. Even when they learned from non-Greeks, they usually just pilfered stuff and claimed the knowledge as their own. Greek civilization and culture became such a standard that their prestige survived even after Romans defeated the Greeks. Though Romans conquered Greece, they were so awed by Greek achievements that the Greek world became part of the Roman world, and Greeks became sort of like fellow ‘Romans’(as long as they behaved), and the real Romans imitated the Greeks in so many things. So, Greeks felt like they had nothing to learn from others, and Romans felt they should just learn from Greeks. Of course, the origins of Greek civilization are inconceivable without influences of non-Greeks, but Greeks seemed to have forgotten most of that. The Greco-Roman pact was that Greeks would suck up to Roman power, and Romans would suck up to Greek culture. (It was sort of like the pact between Mussolini and Hitler. As the founder of Fascism and heir to the great Latin heritage, Mussolini had the respect of Hitler. As the most powerful warlord of Europe, Hitler had the loyalty of Mussolini.)
In contrast, even though Jews were as doggedly distinct and unique as the Greeks were — in some ways, more so — , because Jews were surrounded by bigger powers they were far more keen to borrow stuff from other cultures and then to mold them into something uniquely Jewish. It’s kind of like what Bob Dylan did with various forms of American music — country, folk, blues, Rock n Roll, Western, regional, etc. — and poetry he admired. (Was ‘Dylan’ taken from ‘Dylan Thomas’ or a play on Alain DELON?) Anyway, Greeks like to break things apart and search for clear connections, whereas Jews developed the habit of searching for hidden mysterious connections as God could not to be made divisible(which is why stuff like the concept of Trinity is anathema to Jews). Such contrasting mental habits between Greeks and Jews could be rooted in the nature of their respective religions. Greeks believed in many gods and many spirits, whereas Jews believed in one God through whom everything was united and made meaningful.
Of course, one could also argue that the religions of different peoples/cultures are the products of their different innate personalities, i.e. given the nature of the Jewish ego, Jews were more likely to absorb various pagan influences all around them and forge them into the unified vision of the one and only God whose essence was very much in keeping with the egomaniacal inner personality of the Jew. Or maybe it had something to do with the nomadic nature of Jews. As they moved from one place to another, they came across many different ideas and narratives, and the only way Jews could make sense of them(as there were too many) was to forge them into a single narrative governed by a single God. But then, Jews were hardly the only nomadic tribe in the Ancient World, so why them and why not another people? Maybe Jews got lucky and came to be led by wise men who had a great interest in moral and spiritual matters, and that set forth a series of cultural developments that had a logic all its own. After all, the future character of America depended so much on the great fortune of the Republic getting its start under the helm of an extraordinary group of men who are now revered as the Founding Fathers. (In contrast, the new Russia following the fall of communism was headed by the buffoon Boris Yeltsin. Vladimir Putin is a man of some caliber, but he’s all alone, whereas the Founders of America constituted a core body of men of immense talent and intelligence.) The key characteristics of the beginning or the founding, even if seemingly humble and insignificant, can profoundly shape the overall outcome.
After all, few minds innovate and create, most minds copy and replicate. Thus, even a simple original idea can grow into infinitely-multiplied-phenomenon. So, a little pearl can turn into many pearls, and a little shit can turn into lots of shits. And complex rules arise from simple rules; therefore, sound simple rules may lead to sounder complex rules, whereas unsound simple rules will likely lead to unsound complex rules.
 |
| An innovation in design repeated ad infinitum in Ancient Egypt. Character of Origins Affects All That Follows. |
Whoever was or were responsible for the origins of Jewish culture/religion, he or they came upon a simple idea/vision but one filled with infinite potential, and the idea/vision certainly inspired future generations of Jews to live up to the potential. (But then, it wasn’t merely the conceptual or intellectual potential of the idea but the way it was conceived to cling to the Jewish heart. It was an idea with hooks. It’s like hookworms are difficult to get rid of — without modern medicine — since they have ‘claws’ that sink into stomach walls of animals. An idea, no matter how potentially great or profound, is likely to be abandoned by a people when it no longer seems useful or helpful. And if the Jewish idea had essentially been a mind-concept, it might have faded with the rises and falls of fortunes through the ages. What saved it were its hooks that sunk into the hearts of Jews. These hooks gave emotional hope to Jews when times were bad — the assurance that God was still looking out for them. And when times were good, they had the effect of nagging Jews to keep the Covenant because, otherwise, they would fall to misfortune and be abandoned by God. Jewish religion has the mind-concept of the Jewish father and the emotional-tugging of the Jewish mother.) Some ideas or visions, however simple, are more fertile than others as seeds of thought or imagination. Of course, all variations of religious ‘logic’ are like M.C. Escher’s paradoxical or ‘impossible’ constructions. In the end, no amount of intellectual exploration and searching can integrate the world of imagination with the world of reality, and even the most logical arguments about God or gods that appear to touch on the real world are really just deceptive circular loops. And yet, exercising and straining the mind to find that ever elusive and impossible connection among the mysterious ways of God, the logical powers of man, and the material obstinacy of the world may have molded the Jews especially well for certain kinds of mental processes; and when Jews were finally unleashed onto the modern world, their mobius-strip minds were more adept at finding(or imagining) connections among seemingly disparate things and thoughts.
 |
| Like Liberal Father Like Liberal Son. The Cult of White Guilt rooted in Christian Mind-set. |
 |
| White Guilt 'Tattoo', the Sin that Cannot be Washed Away. |
In contrast, there’s no sexuality in the story of Jesus according to Christian mythology. Jesus was born of a virgin mother. Jesus died a virgin(according to mythology). He saved a prostitute from the mob but turned her away from a life of sex(as far as I could tell). And the new covenant between God/Jesus and man wasn’t about the pud. (Indeed, even much of the Mosaic laws were about sex, such as laws on marriage and making sure to stone fruiters for buggering one another.) God of Christianity didn’t require gentiles to cut off the foreskins of their puds. Rather, the blessing was through Jesus’s transcendence from the flesh, His triumph over suffering and death and His Resurrection and return to His Disciples. And there was the promise of Afterlife. Thus, Christianity was a credo-religion or all about principles.
Judaism is also bound to be more pud-centric because there’s hardly any discussion of afterlife. Rather, a man’s spiritual mission is passed down to his children who pass their spiritual mission to their children and so on. So, the pud is crucial to Judaism as Jews must seek survival and dominance in the real world through successive generations.
In contrast, Christianity says a people can lose everything in the real world but then be all the more blessed in the Next World because, after all, Jesus preached the sermon of pacifism and promised mankind that vengeance was God’s and His alone. To be sure, one could argue that the Crucifixion of Jesus was sort of like a circumcision of God Himself. After all, Jesus was stripped naked when He was raised to the Cross. Though almost never depicted in paintings, Jesus’s thing was surely hanging out. And as He’d been blooded and even fitted with a crown of thorns, He felt the kind of pain that is likely felt on the pud during circumcision. If Jesus is the Son of God, He could also be seen as the penis of God. In the original Covenant, it was the Jewish guy who had to tear off the skin of his pud, but one could argue that the new covenant figuratively rips off the skin of the penis of God. Perhaps, it was God’s way of separating Himself a newly conceived pure idea away from Himself as the heavenly chieftain of blood tribe. If indeed God is the one and only God for all of humanity, then why should He be bound to the blood-tribe of Jews who are, by the way, often wicked and getting whupped by other tribes? So, for God to cut Himself from the Jews and to make a new covenant with the gentiles, He would have had to sacrifice something of His own, and it turned out to be His Son who was bloodied on earth like a pud in the hands of a Rabbi wielding a knife.
 |
| Time to Run like a Mothafuc*a |
Consider how the humble origins of life led to the rise of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and man? To the extent that we all have brains filled with ideas that behave like viruses — infective and multiplicative — , an idea can begin from one person and infect the entire world. Indeed, who in the Russian Empire would have thought that a bunch of lowly Jews would one day take power as communist overlords and kill so many Christian Slavs? And yet, Jews had the ideas that could win the hearts and minds of so many Russians almost overnight, at least under crisis circumstances. (Furthermore, just as the combination of music and dance has a power that music alone or dance alone doesn’t have, ideas gain even greater infective and multiplicative currency in combination with images and sounds. It’s like the blend of George Lucas’ images and John Williams’ music has a power that neither has on its own. Even a stupid idea can gain great infective and multiplicative power in the minds of people in combination with sound and images. This is why Jews are so eager to push ‘gay pride parades’ around the world. As an idea alone, it’s not much of a sell. But as pageantry and advertising ploy it can overwhelm the senses. Indeed, one of the great appeals of communism was it was promoted along with mass rallies, posters & banners, and songs. Surely even an anti-communist is stirred by the great anthem of the International. Communists may have been anti-business, but they sure knew how to market an idea, that is until the idea became old hat and boring.) Who among Americans in the late 19th century and early 20th century would have thought that poor Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe would rise up and take power from the mighty wasps and rule the entire country? Indeed, Jews are now so powerful that they’ve fixed their sights on Russia as well. Jews totally own the US and semi-own Russia. But semi-rule isn’t enough for Semites who must have it all. Furthermore, Jews are a vengeful sort who never forget a slight. Jews feel toward Russia as Vito Corleone felt toward Sicily. Remember how Vito’s family was killed by a ruthless Don, but Vito, as a young boy, made his escape to America? Vito grows up and becomes a powerful mob boss, returns to Sicily, slays the man who killed his family, and comes to rule a chunk of Sicily through connections. Jews feel the same way about Russia. The selective Jewish mind only remembers all the bad things Russians did to Jews, not the other way around. Jews don’t care about all the Russian Christians killed by Jewish communists, especially as even secular Jews believe that a single Jewish life is worth a million gentile lives. The Talmudic saying, "And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world" applies to Jews, not to gentiles. Jews will NEVER risk their lives to save gentile lives even though Jews guilt-bait gentiles endlessly for not having done enough to save Jewish lives during WWII. What Jew called on other Jews to volunteer to fight in wars to save Ukrainians from Stalin & Kaganovich OR to save Cambodians from the Khmer Rouge? Now that Jews own the US and have wasp politicians as their goy running dogs, Jews want to ‘return’ to Russia and wipe out its nationalist elites and replace them with Jewish oligarches and their running dogs. Initially, Jewish oligarchs supported Putin because they saw him as their John McCain, but Putin had ideas of his own. He dared to have his own ideas about his own nation, an anathema to Jews. White goyim must only have ideas approved by Jews and that serve Jewish supremacist power. Vile and hideous Jews would rather have Russians worship homos & the Pussy Riot than God of the Russian Orthodox Church.
One thing Jews understand that white gentiles have forgotten is that ideas must serve people, not the other way around. After all, even without ideas/ideals, people exist. But without people, what use are ideas/ideals? Ideas/ideals exist ONLY to serve people because only people can make them and use them as tools of the mind. We don’t exist to serve tools. Ideas/ideals are tools and weapons of the mind, and they exist to serve us. Jews control and shape ideas/ideals to serve their own interests & power, whereas white Americans submit body and soul to the ideas/ideals as reshaped and redefined by Jews. Not only have Jews made white gentiles bow down before Jewish identity-culture-power but they have taken white gentile ideas-identity-culture and remolded them to favor and serve Jews. Imagine if white folks took Islam and refashioned it to convince Muslims that nothing could be more truly Islamic than for Arab Muslims to serve white folks, homos, and Negroes? Muslims would be stupid to fall for such shit, but white folks have fallen for something similar peddled by Jews. Even white identity-culture-history have been reshaped, reconfigured, and re-narrated by Jews to suggest that the central duty of Western Civilization is to serve Jews, cower before Negroes, and open national borders to massive immigration from non-white countries. European sports are now dominated by blacks, but this image of the ‘new Europe’ is what Europeans are urged to embrace as the TRUE Europe.
Imagine Mexican imperialist-elites spreading the idea among Japanese that nothing could be more truly Japanese than Japanese men kissing Mexican ass and having Mexican men hump every Japanese woman. Only a dumb Japanese would fall for such nonsense, but it appears the majority of Europeans have fallen for something similar: that the most truly European thing is for Europe to racially and culturally extinguish itself.
Notice that Jewish morality works differently for Jews and for white Americans. Why would this be? It’s because Jewish shape ideas/ideals so that they apply in a particularist way on them while applying in a universal way on white Americans. So, what would be condemned as ‘universally wrong’ if white folks did it would be praised as particularly praiseworthy if Jews did it. So, if whites try to save their own race and nations, that would be evil and wrong because it violates the ‘universal principles’ of globalist Liberalism. But if Jews violated such rules in Israel and in places like NY and LA — where Jews brazenly act in Jewish interests — , that would be okay or even laudable since Jews are the Eternal Holocaust People who must do everything to fend off the evils of ‘antisemitism’.
Jews understand that moral sense is linked with historical sense. What is done by a people or done to a people is acceptable or unacceptable depending on invocations of historical context. So, even though no one would say that raping millions of German women would be good in and of itself, it was seen as either inevitable, unavoidable, or justifiable given the massive crimes committed by Nazi Germans in Russia during World War II. And though no one would say killing thousands of babies and children in Hiroshima would be justifiable in and of itself, it came to defended as justifiable or necessary since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first, Japan committed horrors in other parts of Asia, and land invasion of Japan would have claimed many more lives. Similarly, while no one would say the mass rapes and racial murders of whites in South Africa would be a good thing in and of itself, such is overlooked or forgiven because the Historical Narrative says blacks have every right to be angry due to past ‘racism’; therefore their rage for revenge is understandable even if unpleasant. Historical Narrative excuses a lot of things, and social morality is tied to history because history has been used since the beginning of history to justify the power of a certain group over others. Indeed, why do we side with the Jews against all the peoples killed by Jews in the Old Testament? Why do we overlook all the killings of Egyptian babies and just sigh with relief that the angel of death passes over Jewish babies? Because the Narrative says that Jews are a holy people especially chosen by God. So, Jewish violence — or God’s violence in favor of Jews — is justified on certain grounds that doesn’t apply to other peoples. Even naked Jewish violence is justified on grounds that God ordered the Hebrews to raze entire villages and take the land of Canaan to fulfill the Promise. As someone once said, "those who control the past control the future." This is why Jews have been so keen on their alliance with blacks. Jews feel no special sympathy for blacks but merely find them useful in guilt-baiting whites. If indeed Jews are so sensitive, compassionate, and filled with sympathy for underdogs of the world, where is their sympathy for Palestinians who’ve been humiliated, defeated, and ground to dust since the 1940s? Jews don’t care about Palestinians because Jews want the Holy Land, and if ruthlessly crushing Palestinians and defaming them as ‘terrorists’ is what it what it takes to do the job, Jews do it and exert power to force the rest of us to shut up and put up. Jews just want to use blacks to guilt-bait white folks, indeed ALL white folks, even white immigrants who arrived in America at the same times many Jewish immigrants arrived. Of course, Jews have conveniently made us forget that there were plenty of Southern Jews who supported slavery and the Confederacy.
Trusting a Jew is like a white mouse trusting a snake. The Jewish agenda is all about swallowing the white mouse. However sound a set of ideas/ideals may be, they must serve your people than the other way around. For example, a nation adopts something like democracy to have it serve the nation, not the other way around. Something like ‘free trade’ is only as good or bad as it is good or bad for the interests of a particular nation. If ‘free trade’ is good for the nation, it is good; if it’s bad for the nation, it is bad. It’s like a gun is good if it’s in your hand when you confront an enemy, and it’s bad if it’s your enemy’s hand when he confronts you. It’s neither good nor bad independent of the context. If certain ideas/ideals lead to the demise of your people, what good are they if your people no longer even exist to uphold them? This is why all this pro-Negro agenda in the name of ‘anti-racism’ is crazy. In real terms, the nature of blacks is antithetical to civilization. Thus, if blacks are ovelry empowered and increased in numbers, they will not only destroy civilization but even the very principle of ‘anti-racism’ since there will no longer be any civilization left that cares about higher principles. It’s like if a bunch of pacifists laid down their arms and let barbarians run riot, not only will the social order fall apart but even pacifism will be lost since barbarians who take over won’t give a crap about such ‘higher principles’ that they dismiss as ‘pussy-ass’. (Indeed, the primary appeal of Christianity to the warrior elites of Europe was NOT to pacify themselves but to pacify their subjects. They valued Christianity not as a system of ‘meek shall inherit the earth’, but ‘meek shall obey me’. The elites were working more in self-interest than in the service of higher principles. They were being smart.) Also, all ideas/ideals have many facets, variations, and possibilities, i.e. there are many different adaptations of democracy, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and etc, and therefore, it is up to your people to use whatever set of ideas/ideals in ways that suit and serve your people best and most effectively. Some on the Alternative Right sphere attack democracy as the problem, but democracy served many white societies very well when the power was in the hands of whites. When proud whites held bulk of the power, they shaped democracy to suit their own interests.
If democracy is the problem because it forces equality on everyone, then how come Jews have used democracy to become richer, more powerful, and more influential than other people? If democracy inevitably force everyone to be equal, then it would have forced Jews to be equal with the rest of us too. But that’s far from the case. Indeed, Jews live in democracies but shape democratic principles to serve their own interests. So, the problem/issue isn’t democracy per se but the matter of WHO CONTROLS THE DEMOCRACY?
 |
| The Jewish Use of Democracy. Look at Hillary Clinton the Shameless Whore. |
If the US were to get rid of all its democratic institutions, it would still be Jew-ruled since Jews control so many of the elite institutions. Indeed, Jews would take away even our protections of free speech and freedom of assembly and send a whole bunch of to the Gulag or be shot in the head. American Jewish elites will treat us as Jewish communists treated Christian Slavs in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s; they’ll treat us like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.
Jews have one great advantage over Christians because the Jewish mentality is accustomed to ideas serving Jews(or ideas being inseparable from Jews). Though Judaism says that Jews must be absolutely loyal to God, the Laws of God were written by Jews. Naturally, in return for Jewish worship of God, He will bless them, make them a great people, and give them control over the world. (According to Christianity, Godliness is a spirit-idea-word that is NOT integral or innate to the gentile. A gentile without the spirit-word-idea of Jesus is nothing. He’s a heathen without meaning and salvation who shall burn in hell. Even today, most true Christians believe one is saved only through the Word, the Idea, or the Spirit of God. In contrast, Jews are born innately as the chosen children of God. Even if a Jew is lax in his faith, he is still one of the Chosen of God. The blood of the Chosen courses through his veins. Though a devout Jew is favored over a lax Jew by God, both are innately Jewish by blood. Thus, the idea of Jewishness and the identity of Jewishness are inseparable. But Christianity isn’t innate to anyone. No one is born with the Christian spirit, though parents may Christen their children. This may be why Catholics are into drinking wine and eating wafers as the blood and body of Christ. Jews have Godly blood coursing through their veins because they are BORN as members of the Chosen Tribe. Whether a Jew is devout in his faith to God or merely perfunctory in his duties as a Jew, he is a Jew whose blood is innately holy. The idea of Jewishness is in his very blood and flesh. In contrast, the idea of Christianity is not the intrinsic part of a Christian-gentile’s body or blood. So, Catholics must constantly get infusions of fresh holy blood through the ritual of drinking wine and eating wafers; they must be like vampires of the blood of Christ. Though Jews have been called ‘blood-suckers’, in spiritual terms they need not suck on the blood of God since they are born with the blood of God in their very veins. Since Gentiles, even as Christians, were not Chosen, they can only attain Godliness through the idea, spirit, and word — and through rituals such as Communion whereby they’re replenished with the blood and body of Godliness. Therefore, even though Jews are a very intellectual people, their mental habits tend to conflate their ideas with their identity, whereas the Christian mental habit is to separate the meaning of identity from the meaning of ideas. A Jew, simply by being a Jew[even a secular Jew], is part of the Godly Idea. But a German, just by being German, is not a part of Godliness. He can only gain the Godly by embracing the word, spirit, or idea of Godliness through Christianity, but this Christianity is not innate to his being. It remains apart and must be attained through moral striving.) So, despite all the stuff about Jews having to bow down before God, Judaism is ultimately about God helping Jews gain dominance over all of humanity. The Covenant says that if Jews are loyal to God, the world shall be their oyster.
In contrast, Christianity in its essence is about abandoning matters of reality for the higher idea. Christians mustn’t look forward to power, glory, and privilege in the real world, in this world. They must be willing to give up everything so that their spirits will enter Heaven and be with God in the Other World. Thus, Christians must surrender their real fleshly selves and turn themselves into pure spirits who shall forever be with the Pure Idea of God.
This is why, the more Christians act Christian-like, the more power they lose, whereas the more Jews act Jewish-like, the more power they gain. Christian ideal is to surrender reality for the idea, whereas the Jewish ideal is to have the idea serve reality, the reality of Jewish power. While the Christian gazes at Heaven, Jews pick the Christian’s pockets and castrates his balls. Jews insist on acting more Jewishy in Israel but insist that whites act more Christian-like in Europe. Jews live for Jews, Christians live for others, especially for Jews. Also, even though all communities have hard cases and soft cases, Judaism ideally favors the hard cases whereas Christianity ideally favors the soft cases. In the battle between the hard mind and the soft heart, the mind will win. In the battle between the hard dick and the soft pooter, the dick will win. Consider the ‘Jap’ vs the Sap in INCEPTION. The Japanese guy is a ruthless and cunning operator. He’s out to win and sees all the angles. Though not without gentle feelings, he’s nobody’s sap. In contrast, the son of the dead rich man is so sappy dappy about his pappy. He has a Christian-like soul that seeks reconciliation with his pa. He’s like Christ on the Cross asking, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" Because of this soft spot in his psyche, others are able to penetrate his mind like a pooter and inseminate a hardcore jism of an idea. It’s totally cynical and phony but becomes the truest and dearest emotion ever felt by the sappy boo-boo boy. (And yet, the odd thing is that those who work on him come to sort of sympathize with him. They are dually happy to have conned him and ‘saved’ him. But then, religion and therapy work the same way. It’s WOLF OF WALL STREET crossed with ORDINARY PEOPLE. They offer salvation or cure through what are essentially lies.)
 |
| INCEPTION: Cobb Eyes Sucker Boy for a Mind Mamet Con. |
For people who are not super-rich, there is the fantasy of power, privilege, and super-freedom through pop culture, and of course, movies and other such stuff serve as our collective dreams. Cobb and his late wife were rich but not super-rich; therefore, they found their fantasy of limitless power, privilege, and freedom in their dream space where they could build, control, and own entire cities. Dream-space was like their cinema, and Mal came to love it so much that she willfully chose to forget that she’s in a dream and embraced the dream as her reality. In EYES WIDE SHUT, the Tom Cruise character says, "No dream is never just a dream", but Mal takes this to the nth degree and makes dream the reality. Because of Cobb’s deep love for Mal and because of her neurotic addiction to the dream, there is no rational solution to the crisis for either of them. By every means, Cobb wanted to bring her back to reality, and by every means, she wanted to keep him in the dream world — though things got complicated because she came believe that the reality is a dream and that the dream world she longs to return to is the real reality. Cobb was finally able to plant an idea in her mind that the dream-world-that-she-sees-as-reality is unreal and must be awoken from, but the idea-that-she-is-in-a-dream remained with her upon waking. In her neurotic state, she continues to believe that the world around her isn’t real, and so, she tries to ‘kill herself’ to wake up to ‘reality’ — the dream-world-that-she’d-chosen-as-her-true-reality — when in fact, she really does end up killing herself as she really is in the real world.
In a way, the idea that was inception-ed in Mal’s mind is like the moment when David in A.I. is programmed to regard Monica as his ‘mommy’. It’s a powerful idea he can never shake off.
Both David and Mal are ‘forever’ trapped in the twilight between reality and fantasy.
INCEPTION is all the more disturbing because even its moral logic is situated in twilight territory. Though we are made to root for the success of the operation, is the Japanese oligarch — Ken Watanabe — any better than the competitor whose company he’s trying to break up? Indeed, isn’t the entire operation unsavory like the con-man tricks in David Mamet’s films? We root for Cobb since we want him to return home and reunite with his kids, but isn’t he potentially messing up someone else’s life and empire for his own personal interests? But then, some might argue that the rich son, despite being the victim of a con, is all the better for it because he wasn’t meant to lead any giant corporation — he lacks leadership skills and confidence. But more importantly, in having been ‘incepted’ with the seed of his father’s love[even if artificial and phony], he might lead a happier and more meaningful life. Still, messing with someone’s mind like that is unethical as far I’m concerned. And Cobb of all people should know this since his experiment of inception with Mal turned out so tragically. Indeed, he is finally resolves his dilemma with Mal by pulling out all the queens as Frank Sinatra’s character did with Laurence Harvey’s character in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. Cobb confesses that he used inception on her, and that’s why she ended up killing herself and that’s why his sense of guilt keeps projecting Mal onto his dream world. He did something unethical to bring Mal from the dream world back to the real world, but he ended up losing her to the underworld, or death. But then, he does something unethical again so that he’ll be able to return from exile to his home in America to be with his kids. He plays with the rich man’s mind just like the cynical cop messed with the mind of the guy in MEMENTO. Unethical yes, but then, don’t the elites do this to all of us? Through education, media, personality cults, entertainment, and of course, through movies, our minds are ‘seeded’ or ‘infected’ with so many sounds, images, words, and ideas that often grow ‘cancerous’ and turn us into helpless patients of the Jewish doctors of minds and souls. Especially pernicious are the ‘based on a true story’ movies that pretend to tell us the truth but ‘seed’ us with bogus versions of history.
In INCEPTION, Cobb is finally able to remove the poison seed from Mal — or his own projection of Mal — [or remove the poison weed of Mal from his own mind] while, at the same time, succeeding in planting a seed in the mind of the rich son. In all this, we are not sure what is private and what is public anymore, or what is organic and what is artificial.
In both A.I. and INCEPTION, there’s the troubling question of where life ends and where technology begins. The favored narrative of mankind characterizes life with qualities of spontaneity, chaos, naturalness, randomness, surprises, inspiration, emotions, wetness, & decay whereas technology/machines/computers are defined in terms of order, programming, purpose, cleanliness, predictability, dryness, & stasis. Life is born, lives, dies, and decays. Machines are made and are used; they may be turned off, but they don’t ‘die’; they may become worn, but they don’t decay and rot. When life dies, it’s dead for good and cannot be revived; but even after a machine has been totally turned off, it can be turned back on. And yet, as technology progresses ever further and as we learn more about the mechanisms of life, the dichotomy of technology and life fades with every passing year. Though David in A.I. isn’t made of organic material, he can mimic life not only in behavior but in emotions. Though nothing seems more private and mysterious as dreams, the engineer-navigators of INCEPTION have mapped out dream-space; they can even construct new worlds inside dreams. They’ve understood the mechanics of how dreams work. And of course, studies in DNA have revealed that life at its core is like a computer program, and some have speculated about the possibility of ‘reverse-engineering’ a chicken into a dinosaur. The more we study the core principles of life and how it works, the more it seems like a computer programming and a machine. Of course, this isn’t new to our age. Centuries ago, scientists during the Age of Reason surmised that life is just living machinery powered by electricity, and such notions inspired FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley who found such ideas both foolish(full of hubris) and heroically imaginative. In becoming the engineer of life, is man turning life into a cold machine or making himself into a god? And then, there’s the issue of the soul. What happens when the dead is brought back to life physically but his soul remains buried in the dark world? When Jesus revived Lazarus, it was a miracle; he was born in body and soul. But now, there’s talk of reviving dead life in terms of mechanics. Of course, we cannot bring back individual dead organisms, but there is talk of bringing back extinct species, such as the Woolly Mammoth, via manipulation of the DNA. Unsurprisingly, INCEPTION and A.I. are ambivalent, both fascinated and fearful of ‘radical’ possibilities. It’s one thing for technology to mechanize the physical aspects of life. After all, even the ancients could see that the human skeletal structure was machine-like. So, the creation of an artificial limb that does what our natural limbs don’t seem much of a violation of what makes us human. But the ability to reason is another matter. For most of human existence, the idea that a machine could think was unthinkable. To be sure, certain objects were imbued with holiness and were seen as ‘portals’ to the higher consciousness of the gods, but they were shrouded in mystery, something beyond our understanding, rather like the black Monolith in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, an object of both idolatrous and anti-idolatrous implications: idolatrous in its materiality and anti-idolatrous in black-void-ness that is nearly ‘invisible’ in outer space; it is an object but signifies nothing in particular. Still, the idea that machines can think doesn’t seem too farfetched since, after all, computers can calculate and solve problems much faster than any man. When it comes to doing math and even chess, computers are immeasurably superior to mankind. The big difference between us and computers is that we have consciousness and they do not. But suppose computers were to have consciousness. That would be a giant leap, but even that would be somewhat understandable because consciousness would be like turning on a ‘light-bulb’ of self-awareness inside a machine. Consciousness operates on the surface. But what about dreams? If dreams are truly private and mysterious, machines could never access and map them out. But what if machines could, as in INCEPTION? Since machines work according to logic and data, it can only make sense of things that make sense. If machines could access our dreams and make sense of them, then it means that even our dreams are nothing but programs that be accessed and ‘read’, thereby re-programmed, as happens to the rich kid in INCEPTION. But A.I. presents an even more disturbing idea: the notion of CREATING a dream-space within a machine. This is why one of the most beautiful yet creepily disturbing scene in A.I. is when David hears the PINOCCHIO story. Up until then, he lived with facts and emotions. Factually, he knew he was in someone’s home with a bunch of objects such as chairs, tables, coffee machines, toys, and etc. Emotionally, he felt a powerful attachment to Monica. He could also feel happy and hurt about certain things. But he knew nothing of dreams. But upon hearing the PINOCCHIO story, he gains a sense of mythos that grows into something like a ‘subconscious’ that is capable of eternal hope: that he might become a ‘real boy’ and be loved by Monica as much as the real son is. In a way, David the creature-of-metal-and-plastic’s hope of becoming a real boy is analogous to Man the creature-of-flesh-and-bone’s dream of becoming a spiritual essence. David wants to shed his metallic self and become a boy of real flesh-and-blood to be with Monica forever, and Man wants to shed his ‘sinful’ flesh to be united forever spiritually with God. Anyway, the PINOCCHIO story opens up a whole new dimension within David. And that part of David was something even his makers weren’t sure could develop within him. Just as the navigator-engineers in INCEPTION aren’t absolutely sure if the seed/virus will take hold inside the mind of the ‘inceptee’, the engineers of David weren’t sure if David would become capable of believing in a dream and pursuing it to the ‘end of the world’. The success is both a triumph for human genius and an end of humanness, indeed the end of the world, because if indeed something that is most precious to man can be replicated in a robot and then be mass-manufactured, then what is uniquely human anymore? It’s also frightening since mankind has created both a god and a slave — as is partly the case with the replicants in BLADE RUNNER. It’s the dream of man to create something of great power. We like to build the most powerful locomotive, the biggest bombs, the fastest computers, and etc. The logical conclusion of our desire/dream is to be able to create god. And yet, our ego and our will-to-power also seek to maintain control over things we create, even things of supreme power. So Tyrell wants to create gods as slaves. Replicants are like mini-god-men of great intelligence and power, but they are designed to live only for four yrs. Gigolo Joe understands how the robots are superior to humans. Humans age and die, but robots can ‘live forever’, and that makes humans envious and fearful of them. David is nearly immortal. But he was made to remain a kid forever and be slavishly devoted to a particular human on whom his ‘heart’ is imprinted.
 |
| A.I. David falls for a diabolical perversion of a fairy tale: Cut the hair and mommy will love him. |
 |
| BLADE RUNNER. Roy Batty as god-slave. |
For some reason, Spielberg made the real son an unsympathetic character. Not only is his hair swept back like Hitler’s but he sort of looks like the kid in THE OMEN. Also, the parents’ preference for him has undertones of ‘blood and soil’ nationalism; after all, he is of their own blood. And of course, not long after, we see the robots being chased down like Jews during the Holocaust. And yet, in some crazy way, it’s also like Nazis being chased down by humanists since robots were built to ‘perfect’. Nazism was about ‘perfection’ of mankind, and there was something rigid and sterile about its aesthetic visions. Hitler’s dream was to create a humanity that would be like real-life Classical Greco-Roman statues. Hitler the ultra-idealist had little use for humanism. He wanted every German to be bred into a kind of ‘perfect’ being. Humanism, in contrast, accepts humanity with all its warts, flaws, and problems; indeed, the existence of such flaws — that are so imperfect — and our acceptance of them are the very essence of humanism since the core values of humanism are in the heart, not in the perfect beauty or vain immortality of man. So, in a way, the human mob at the Flesh Fair in A.I. could be seen as the forces of vengeful humanism at war with the cult of perfection that animates the corporations working to develop the ever ‘more perfect’ and newer ‘generation’ of robots. (On the other hand, the most advanced or perfect thing of the new year soon become the dated and antiquated thing of yesteryear. Perfectionism devours itself. It’s like the Terminator, by the second installment, is a dated model compared to the T-1000. When the perfect thing loses its edge, it finds a kind of humanism. And the old robots rounded up in the Flesh Fair are ‘humanist’ relics in this sense. But at one time, they were the perfect ideals. Part of the resilience of the Judeo-Christian tradition is it understood that the essence of humanity is to be found more in loss and defeat than in victory and power. Victory and power make us feel perfect and godlike; it’s like Muhammad Ali shouting "I’m the greatest!" It’s when people lose and fall that they discover their humanity. Ali seems more human in his bout with Parkinson’s than when he was filled with hubris.) Humans at the Flesh Fare naturally feel threatened by such perfectionism. So, even as they hunt robots down like Nazis hunted down Jews, the angry trashy mob are also like humanists hunting down ultra-aesthetic fascists who are obsessed with the cult of perfection. The human mobs in A.I. are fighting for humanity and defending a humanness that is characterized by flaws. And yet, they are not humanistic in any ideal sense. They are a wild mob who exult in violence and destruction; they seem somewhat animal and barbaric in their maniacal hate. They are also stupid and childish, easily manipulated. When David cries out for help, many of them are convinced that he’s a real boy. So, even though we are glad that their sympathy and righteous rage saves David from the robot-hunter — Brendan Gleeson — , a rather loathsome character, we can’t help but partly agree with the robot-hunter for he did speak the truth: the elites are creating ever more ‘perfect’ robots to replace humanity that is regarded as flawed and unruly riffraff.
Both the perfectionist elites and rough-and-tumble mob of humanity are treated critically in A.I. The elites live in their own cloistered world and hoard the best things for themselves; they have the best houses, the best toys, the best robots. Though Teddy is an amazing toy(with even something like heart), the son says it’s ‘old and stupid’ and pretty much throws it away by giving it to David; it prefigures Monica’s disposal of David(though the irony is she prefers the ‘old’ and ‘fragile’ real-life boy that is her son to David who is like the perfect child; there is something about real life that, however ‘imperfect’ it may be, is never outdated; it has a purpose beyond purpose). What about the masses of dumb and flawed humanity without talent(at the Flesh Fare)? They only seem to have bread and circuses. Though despised by the elites, the angry human mob unwittingly serves the elites. As the elites are invested in coming up with ever newer, better, and ‘more perfect’ robots, they have no use for old robots. So, it’s in their interest for human mobs to destroy the old robots to make way for the new. Besides, if the human mobs are allowed to direct all their rage at the old robots, the rich elites can enjoy the new ones. And as the mobs are too busy hating the robots, they have less time to hate the elites who keeping new models of robots(with which to replace the lower rungs of humanity who’ve become economically outdated; no need to hire them when robots are plentiful and work for free). So, even as the hunter-of-robots and the human mobs at the Flesh Fair rail against the elites, they are mere tools of the elites as they tear the old defunct robots apart while the elites continue to build newer and better machines that will eventually replace not only old robots but the underclass mobs of humanity as well. The scene when the mob intervenes to save David is a both a triumph and death-knell of humanity. It shows that even a seemingly heartless mob isn’t entirely without humaneness and will do the right thing to save a poor helpless child. And yet, David isn’t a child but a new robot that is ‘more human than human’, indeed so much so that real humans were fooled into thinking it’s human. When people can be fooled this way, it not only means that they have a heart but that they have no brains and can easily be manipulated. It’s like how Jews used the Anne Frank cult to dupe the hearts of so many goyim into handing over all the power to the Jews. Though Anne Frank was just some Jewish girl who would likely have grown up to wage social and cultural war against the white race, white folks have come to see her as the dearest child of Western Civilization. Similarly, David was created by the elites as a prototype to replace much of ‘useless’ humanity, yet he was made to look and sound so real that even a human mob committed to robocaust goes out of its way to save him from the Alex-Jones-like hunter-of-robots who is actually speaking the truth as to what the elites have in store for humanity. (The creation of David is doubly perverse for it not only anticipates the marketing of thinking/feeling humanlike robots as commodities but the treatment of real humans as also disposable commodities to be replaced by ‘better’ artificial beings. In a future of increasing scarcities[due to man-made environmental factors] and advancing technologies, the only valuable humans are smart ones in high-tech industries that design and produce more efficient machines. Thus, masses of low-IQ humanity become useless. They no longer have any economic purpose[as machines do all the menial labor], and they are too dumb to be artists or poets. Because they are still human, they have rights and cannot be wiped out, but the increasing use of robots to run technologies and even to serve as companions[who never rebel against their masters]exerts pressure on the mass of unintelligent humans who have nothing and nothing to do. As an ‘adoptee’ in an affluent family’s home, David thinks he’s living in a perfect world, but he himself is a disposable commodity. But then, even the affluent family is nothing compared to the really rich and privileged people who run the economy, such as Professor Hobby who plays the role of god. In this respect, there are similarities in themes between A.I. and EYES WIDE SHUT. It’s like Bill Harford thinks he’s an insider, but he’s just a toy like David; his mind and body are manipulated by people much richer, more powerful, and more intelligent than him. He too wanders around of his own ‘free will’ without being aware that others are trailing and watching him, even manipulating the directions he seemingly takes of his own volition. In the end, the only thing about Harford that the rich cannot control his ability to ‘fuc*’ and produce life with his wife. But even that freedom seems to be missing in A.I. Not only are there restrictions on child-bearing but artificial life is beginning to take on and even surpass the abilities and attributes of real life. Also, we wonder to what extent David really did act out of free will and to what extent he acted out of programming? For one thing, we know he cannot break free of his imprinting on ‘mommy’. So, even when he acted freely, all his ‘free’ choices were pre-directed at reconnecting with ‘mommy’. He’s sort of like the reverse of ‘re-conditioned’ Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Alex remains, deep down inside, a rebel and maverick outlaw. But when he tries to indulge his anarchic impulses, his body cramps up and makes him sick. In contrast, David is far freer to move around as he chooses, but the core of his being is a programmed to seek ‘mommy’. Alex is soulfully free[albeit with an ugly soul] but physically imprisoned whereas David is physically free but ‘soulfully’ imprisoned. And yet, though disposed of by humanity, David becomes the very emblem of humanity to the future beings who discover him. It’s like, even though the thief is expelled and forgotten by the Takeda Clan in KAGEMUSHA, he fights and dies as its last warrior. I suppose it’s like even the mummy of a slave could serve as the primary representative of a lost ancient civilization. A slave pickled into a god. There’s something about KAGEMUSHA that continues to haunt. It’s the story of a man-as-outsider who begins with no loyalties. He’s utterly cynical and sees the world as a den of thieves and suckers. But at some point, he imprints on the Takeda Clan like David imprints on ‘mommy’. The clan and its symbols, legends, and narrative become sacred to him, in a way as much or even more so than to the members of the clan. And yet, he is just a tool, and when he’s no longer useful, he’s tossed out like garbage. Yet, despite the clan’s rejection, he cannot reject the clan. Something about the clan’s myths touched and moved him so deeply that he remains loyal to it and finally dies for it even though no one cares, indeed no one of the clan is left alive to care. His final act is both tragic and absurd. He finds faith in a ‘god’[the myth of the Takeda clan] that rejects him and is vanquished into the winds.) Jews also understand the power of image, which is why they use neo-fascist tricks to fool the goyim. Nazis put forth the image of perfect ‘Aryan’ beauty in opposition to hideous Jewish ugliness. Nazi iconography presented the ‘Aryan’ race as above-and-beyond mere man, as almost god-like and divine, whereas it presented Jews as all-too-human, with all the misshapen blemishes common among humanity; after all, even most Germans weren’t ideally good-looking but funny looking fellers like Rudolf Hess, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, and Adolf Hitler himself. Goering was a good-looking guy but let himself go and became a fatty. Since most Germans were all-too-human and not very good-looking, the Nazi ideal had to be anti-humanist; it had to be pro-divine-ist. So, Nazi propaganda idealized ‘Aryans’ as god-like and presented Jews as all-too-human. Within Nazi aesthetic ideals, the human became the subhuman since most humans were not beautiful. It’s like Andrew Anglin the ‘Aryan’ Neo-Nazi looks more ‘untermensch’-like(as indeed most of his ilk do) than something molded by Arno Breker. The hilarious irony is that your average Jew looks much more attractive than your average Neo-Nazi who are like ‘white trash’ with delusions of grandeur.
 |
| Andrew Anglin 'Aryan' god-hero-warrior |
Anyway, as devoted as David was to Monica, he might not have become so nutty had he not heard the PINOCCHIO story. It’s the words/narrative of that story that fills him with not only with an eternal desire — to be with ‘mommy’ — but with the eternal dream that he could be made into a ‘real boy’ and be loved by Monica. The power of words is such that even just a little bit can have a great impact. Consider how the short volumes of the Christian Gospels had a greater impact on history than all the towering mega-monuments built by Egyptians and the Romans. Consider the impact of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO on human history. Though DAS KAPITAL is Marx’s magnum opus, very few communists and progressives bothered to read it. The real power of communism came from the pamphlet THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. That slim work threaded all of history with a deceptively simple theory that seemed to ‘explain everything’ about history, morality, science, and human destiny. And in final scene of A.I., it’s Monica’s words to David that she loves him that fills him with tearful joy. That’s what he’d been waiting to hear for all those hundreds and thousands of years. He enjoyed a perfect day with Monica, and he loved the way she smiled at him and played with him, but it’s her words that fulfills what he’d been after. It’s touching but also unseemly because of deceptions — and self-deception — involved. It’s a moment of total faith in a pure facade. David experiences the moment as the greatest truth that could possibly exist, but the future-beings know it’s all fake since they are the ones pulling the strings. But to the extent that they feel for David, they too make believe in the fantasy, as a fake Santa Claus ‘believes’ in the moment when making promise to a child dying of leukemia. (Perhaps, Richard Dawkins has less use for religion, faith, and fantasy because he’s lacking in empathy. We often feel compelled to ‘believe’ or ‘make believe’ in something out of sympathy or compassion for those we care about. If someone lost a dear one and declares faith in the afterlife where she shall be united with the departed, you will either remain silent or feign agreement for the sake of her feelings. Even if you’re an atheist, you’re not gonna play party pooper. Even if you don’t believe, you ‘make believe’ out of your concern for the other person. Dawkins is lacking in such tender feelings, so he shouts to the world that their loved ones are dead and being eaten by worms. He’s right, of course, but most of us don’t wanna be like that in real life. It seems so ‘a**hole-ish’. On the other hand, our desire to be caring and sensitive can lead to all sorts of taboos and censoriousness, and that is certainly the case of PC, which is a coercive institutionalization of Niceness that isn’t so nice.) What the future beings do for David both confirms and exposes the power that movie-magicians like Spielberg have over us. We feel the faith and see the fake, and it’s impossible to pry them apart. We are shown the trick but nevertheless tranquilized under its spell. It’s like lucid hypnosis where you’re aware of what is being done to you but still done by it. Of course, there was the crucial contribution of John Williams, a sort of musical Steven Spielberg though he’s not Jewish to my knowledge. Music, like words and images, has its own kind of magical power, and the combinations of words, images, and music in A.I. are among the most sublime ever created in cinema. The moment when David arrives at the underwater Blue Fairy in the ‘amphibicopter’ has a power beyond the film’s preceding wonders[of which there are many] especially due to William’s music that works like an opiate. It’s as if, not unlike David, Spielberg finally broke through and discovered something that had always evaded him. He’d been the master of movie magic through bombastic spectacle, sweeping sentimentality, intense drama, grand thrills, harrowing suspense, and stunning special effects, but something was always missing in his works. But it’s finally there when David comes upon the Blue Fairy. It’s a quality rare or unseen in earlier Spielberg films: a sense of luminosity that suspends and beckons our senses than bowls and sweeps them over. The striking images of the underwater world(that is, at once, wondrous and claustrophobi), the siren-song of Williams’ music, and the poetic narration by Anthony Hopkins(or Ben Kingsley) make for one of the most dreamlike passages in cinematic history. We know the sculpture is some cheapie object at a long-abandoned theme park. We know David’s dream isn’t going to come true and can never come true. We know it’s all just a lie, and yet, the triple whammy of image, sound, and words transforms the kitschy sculpture of the Blue Fairy into David’s own Madonna with the power to birth him into a ‘real boy’. With seaweeds billowing about her ‘hair’, it’s Spielberg’s Tarkovsky Moment, a moment when the mundane is transformed into the miraculous. The power of art is, of course, not just about the what but about the how. When art or entertainment does it ‘right’, the audience feel their souls melding with the artwork. The fake becomes the real, the make-believe turns into faith. We feel as David feels before the Blue Fairy. In an earlier scene, David felt alienated from other ‘Davids’ at Professor Hobby’s corporate building. We see him walking up to a mask of ‘David’, and we see an overlapping of the mask with his own face. All these new ‘Davids’ are like David, but he doesn’t want to be a member of a club of which he is indeed a member. He feels alienated from other Davids. But in the womb-world beneath the sea, as he stares into the face of the Blue Fairy, we see the merging of his face with the reflection of the Blue Fairy on the window of the ‘amphibicopter’. David would rather identify with a myth than with other ‘Davids’ who are just like him. It’s like the moment in E.T. where the space alien looks at some kid with Yoda mask and says, ‘home, home’. David feels most at home in front of the Blue Fairy. ‘She’ is his Holy Grail through which he and humanity could be merged in miracle. In David’s search for ‘himself’ away from other Davids and through a ‘being’ so unlike him, there may be clues as to the nature of Jewish mentality. It’s like how Woody Allen reiterates Groucho Marx’s statement about not wanting to be part of a club that would have him as a member. Allen is profoundly Jewish, and yet, has been ‘finding himself’ by chasing after ‘shikse’ fairies — Diane Keaton, Mia Farrow, etc. — whether they be white or yellow. For someone who is so totally Jewish, most of his female muses have been non-Jewish. And same goes for Kubrick and Spielberg, profoundly Jewish artists who are obsessed with the fantasy worlds of gentiles. It’s like David is profoundly robotic and Davidian, but he doesn’t sit well with other Davids and dreams before the Blue Fairy of being changed into a real boy. He’s nuttier than Michael Jackson who wanted to be turned into a white cartoon character. But then, if a black guy wanting to be a blonde woman is ‘perfectly normal’, maybe we should be more sympathetic for a machine that wants to be a boy. Besides, it could have been worse: Had Professor Hobby been like fruiter Tim Cook, David’s wish might have been to turn into a real girl.
 |
| Black Guy as Blonde Woman. And You Thought Michael Jackson Was Weird. |
Anyway, while John Williams had reliably cranked out many wonderful movie tunes, he went above and beyond his usual abilities with his score for A.I., especially in the aforementioned moment when David comes face to face with the Blue Fairy. In his previous works, he was pushing all the right buttons and more a master-manipulator than a master-composer, but he, not unlike David and Spielberg, broke into a new dimension in the Blue Fairy scene. Sometimes, inspiration feeds inspiration feeds inspiration, and the Blue Fairy scene may be the high point of Spielberg, Williams, and everyone else involved with the project. The scene is absolutely trance-inducing. There are those rare moments in life when everything seems to align and coalesce to produce that miracle moment. In nature, there’s the rainbow. Though usually brief and fleeting, they become the forever-moments of your life. Movies, with their power to combine images, music/sound, and words, have the means to manufacture these rare moments as a formula, but most movie-makers fall short of the magic touch. Spielberg’s touch abounds in the magic, but one could argue that A.I. is his one true miracle.
At any rate, the key to art is less about the ‘what’ than the ‘how’. Even good material can be turned into crap and even dubious stuff can be turned into gold. Take the TWILIGHT SAGA that is pretty unreadable as literature. But the process of ‘how’ brought together the cast, music, images, sounds, and other tricks of the trade into something special. It’s like the David-before-the-Blue-Fairy moment. It transfixes you like the Overlook Hotel with Jack Torrance. Maybe your mind knows better, but something deeper within you surrenders to the vision, but then, religion, spirituality, and mythology work the same way. The advantage of art is you can indulge in the religious/spiritual experience without believing in it. In this light, some might dismiss the cult of art as a kind of spiritual porn. A way of imitating while avoiding the real thing. There are moments in TWILIGHT that get me every time. Or consider how Alain Delon was used in PURPLE NOON. How can anyone resist that? The ‘how’ made BLADE RUNNER a film classic as the bare ‘what’ of Philip K. Dick’s DO ANDROIDS SLEEP OF ELECTRIC SHEEP was unfit for any realization in film, especially a Hollywood one. Ridley Scott disregarded many of the loopy ideas and focused on sets, moods, and effects that could work in cinematic terms. So, those who dump on TWILIGHT movies will be sorry later because, being so hung up about its supposedly ‘reactionary’ Mormonic ‘social message’, they’ve become blind-and-deaf to the films’ virtues as romance-fantasy. TWILIGHT SAGA movies are the Blue Fairy of cinema, at least for those with aesthetic sense, though, to be sure, aesthetic sense can have the druggy effect of depriving people of rational sense, which is why we mustn’t look for meaning in stuff like TWILIGHT; we should just enjoy them as entertainment. We need to be mindful of that which affects us most emotionally and/or sensually. It’s like Greek philosophers were especially wary of the power of music. It had the Dionysian power to override the mind.
Usually, the things that affect us most powerfully involve a combination of images, sounds, and words(and music)woven as a narrative. Think of the impact of Richard Wagner’s operas on Adolf Hitler. Though Hitler considered himself as a man of ideas(however tawdry many of them were), he was also inspired by the visionary power of Wagner’s musical storytelling mounted as grand spectacle. Or consider the power of THREE KINGDOMS and WATER MARGIN on Mao Zedong. Though Mao later read intellectual texts and stuff, he became intoxicated with the larger-than-life legends of Chinese classics brimming with adventure, war, rebellion, and banditry. Both George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were enraptured by the power of myth. This was not without controversy because so much of the mythology of the West had been ‘Eurocentric’ and even ‘antisemitic’. Indeed, Jews and the Left waged culture war on the mythic mentality as being associated with the irrational blood-and-soil roots of Europeans. The works of Richard Wagner was favored by the Right. Though Tolkien was anti-Nazi, even his LORD OF THE RINGS has been more popular with conservative types than with liberal ones. Carl Jung loved myths, whereas Freud was wary of them, though he often invoked them ‘allegorically’ to illustrate his ‘scientific’ theories. Nietzsche, who inspired so much of the modern right, was steeped in mythology and myth-making. George Lucas was dazzled by the theories of Joseph Campbell, a neo-fascist scholar with an intense dislike of Jews. If the Western/Jewish political left did have a partiality for certain myths, they were generally of non-European and non-white origin, indeed as if to create the impression that wonderful peace-loving indigenous folks living in harmony with nature and richly endowed with local myths & customs were being threatened by the encroachment of Western capitalism-imperialism. Given the (political/ideological)history of mythology in the West, it was problematic for a Wasp Liberal like George Lucas and Jewish Liberal like Steven Spielberg to sift through the material for creative inspiration, especially as many ‘progressive’ types found it ‘toxic’ and dangerous. After all, we still hear the gripe that the other great 20th century popular mythologizer, Walt Disney, was a ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Semite’, a kind of American Riefenstahl. Hollywood preferred to make spectacles based on the Bible, and Cecil B. DeMille led the charge, though he was only half-Jewish and had ambivalent feelings about Jews. Jewish Hollywood was ambivalent about pagan mythologies, and it was really with Lucas with STAR WARS that pagan mythologies became the basis of so many A-productions, finally culminating with LORD OF THE RINGS series. Though many Liberal Jews came to feel queasy about all those Westerns where white cowboys shot the Indians, the American Western Narrative was still a continuation of the Judeo-centric Narrative where the settlers were clearing the wilderness to make way for the One Truth. Also, scratch beneath the American Indian myths, and there’s a lot of stuff about blood-and-soil, the sort of thing that makes Jews nervous. (Indeed, there was a cult among Germans that tended to conflate Germanic barbarian resistance to the Imperial Romans with American Indian wars with the empire building of cowboys.) Besides, the Indian Narrative sounded rather like what happened to the Palestinians at the hands of Zionist Jews, and that was no good. Though Jews were troubled by the racial overtones of American Western myth, it was still about the triumph of universal ideas — democracy and freedom — over themes of blood-and-soil, which was what the American Indians were about despite silly 60s myths about Indians having been the original Flower Children. But Lucas was very adept at turning any number of ‘right-wing’ cultural tropes into palatable items on the Liberal menu, especially in his STAR WARS sequels that celebrate ‘multi-culturalism’ and INDIANA JONES series that often have Indy fighting the Nazis and other ‘racist’ types. Spielberg, though profoundly influenced by Disney and having collaborated with Lucas on the INDIANA JONES series, has been more interested in themes with non-pagan Biblical roots. Movies like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, E.T., JURASSIC PARK, MINORITY REPORT, WAR OF THE WORLDS, and A.I. can be seen as fables steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Holocaustianity[a reworking of Judeo-Christian themes], at least after Spielberg got through with them.
Spielberg is the master-psychologist of the Born Again mind-set. Just consider, what is more cleansing and more filthy than child-birth? When a woman gives birth to a child, she feels whole, she feels new, she feels complete, and she looks forward to cuddling that angelic child in her hand. But what is the process of childbirth like? It’s all David-Cronenberg-ian and gross, with all that yucky goo pouring out of the vagina along with the baby with a lumpy head. It’s ickier than pea-soup vomit in THE EXORCIST. So, birth is both cleansing and filthy, and two go hand in hand. This extends to the process of being ‘born again’. In order to feel ‘born again’, one must purge all the shitty and foul sinfulness from one’s soul. It’s like a constipated person has to take a massive shit to feel clean. Martin Luther was often constipated, and that may be one reason why he became obsessed with purifying the Church of what he deemed to be offal-ish stuff. Being ‘born again’ is like taking a mega-spiritual shit. Is it a pure coincidence that E.T. is like a walking turd as messiah? The scene in POLTERGEIST where the woman returns from the spirit world with her daughter in arms is, of course, like being born again physically, and she and the kid are picked up and taken to the bathtub to be washed of the pinkish goo. When the movie began, she was still in the permissive 60s mode; she was acting like one of the kids than like a real mother. But by the end of the movie, both parents are more adult and responsible, and this sobering up of their sense of responsibility is harbinger of how some of the boomers went from libertine freaks to a bunch of control-freaks. Having kids and having to pay to mortgage made them behaviorally ‘conservative’, but as the power of cinevangelism of Spielberg and Oprah was the new religion, they turned politically ‘liberal’. (The effectiveness of PC has to do with the fact that most people can hold only so many concepts in their heads. Watch any food show, and the entirety of the art of cooking is summed up with few pat words and phrases about this dish is so ‘wonderful’, that dish is so ‘beautiful’, and etc. Reality is very complex, and it’s difficult to use language to perceive, describe, and assess the world around us in all its varieties and subtleties. So, we prefer to cling to a few pat phrases to characterize and pass judgement on the whole of reality. During religious times, it was all about ‘God’ and ‘Devil’ and such. Today, it’s all about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, and etc. So, in literary and film classes, a whole bunch of students will read or watch something and then have little to say except that they found something to be ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’. Though there’s been a wide and complex range of critical views about Jews through the ages, a deeper understanding of such would take a good deal of energy and time, something most people are hesitant to take upon themselves. So, most negative views of Jews are simply caricatured as ‘antisemitic’, a label that serves as a convenient substitute for thought.) There is a kind of mindful(though deceptively mindless to some)obsessiveness about Spielberg, and that may explain why Kubrick sort of understood him despite their crucial differences. They sprouted differently but from the same seeds. After all, Kubrick was a very obsessive director who monomaniacally pursued his themes to the very end: themes that could take over the world as memes. But such mono-minded obsessiveness could lead to tunnel vision, as with the James Stewart character in VERTIGO who, in pursuing his one great dream of reviving Madeleine, becomes blind to everything else(and everything real)that had to do with the actual case. Kubrick might have been interested in LOLITA and A.I. because both are about characters who, in gaining the ‘holy vision’, lose sight of everything else. This is also the case with Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS who even loses his job and leaves his family behind to find his ultimate truth with the space aliens. The James Mason character in LOLITA falls so deeply for the nymphet that’s he even ends up sacrificing his sanity and freedom for her. And David will go the end of the world to the end of time to be with ‘mommy’. The dark side of such single-mindedness was explored in THE SHINING where the father — Jack Nicholson — becomes so obsessed with his role as caretaker/emperor of the Overlook Hotel that becomes, for him, like the portal to absolute power. (To some extent, of course, all stories are monomaniacal to some degree in the sense that they favor certain characters, certain plot-lines, and certain themes above all others. They leave out or suppress everything that is deemed irrelevant, subversive, and/or disruptive to the core storyline while focusing, heightening, and exaggerating those things that best serve the plot, theme, and meaning. So, if two different movies were to be made about two real men by two different film-makers with different loyalties, one director can select and suppress certain things — as well as leave out real events and add false ones — to make one character look good and the other character look bad, whereas the other director can do much the same but in reverse. Though we try to be fair-minded about things, much of life, as well as art and movies, work like this. Political parties cannot be fair to all sides. Democrats will favor certain things[and even make up stuff]to favor their narrative & agenda, and Republicans will pull the same thing. So, Democrats want women to believe that white Conservative males are waging a ‘war on women’, but they suppress the fact that most violent males are blacks, the great majority of whom are Democrats. And it’s liberal Jews who promote stuff like porn, horror movies where women are ripped apart, and pop music where black rappers call women ‘bitchass hos’ and where white girls are encouraged to emulate Miley Cyrus. No matter how balanced we try to be, we all fall into a kind of monomania because each of us has certain loyalties, agendas, and prejudices. So, even secular Jews, Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, Iranians, and white Conservatives will see reality very differently even though they all claim to be modern and rational. Indeed, the only time when most people go beyond their monomania is when they are coerced under great pressure to pay heed to another narrative. It’s like even white Conservatives who naturally shouldn’t like Jews are supportive of the Jewish narrative since unless anyone at odds with the Jewish agenda will be destroyed by the Jewish elites in the West. Kubrick was both a rabid practitioner and a keen observer/critic of monomania.) And yet, despite all of Kubrick and Spielberg’s intellect — Spielberg is a lot more cerebral than people have given him credit for — , there’s a childlike faith in their pursuit of a Truth forever beyond their grasp. In this, there is something of David in both film-makers because David never gives up his pursuit of an impossible dream. Even when ‘mommy’ has been dead for over 2000 yrs, he believes in the miracle of her resurrection so he can be with her. Professor Hobby calls this the great flaw but also the great miracle of what it means to be human. And yet, once such a quality that is so uniquely characteristic of humans has been passed onto non-human beings such as robots, what is left that is uniquely human? And could it be said to be ‘human’ when manifested in non-human creatures? And yet, it is still ‘human’ because humans had to have existed in the first place to bottle their essence and pass it onto others. (And the future beings are so complex that they can’t simply be characterized as robots. David, as complex as he is, is clearly made of machine parts and computer. But future beings seemed to be made of synthetic matter that is even more organic than real life. They seem elastic and fluid than mechanical and rigid. It’s as if technology came to not only mimic life but evolve into a kind of life form in its own right.) And in the final part of A.I., we notice that the future beings are also infected with this ‘human’ bug. Though humans have long ago gone extinct and despite the failure to revive mankind(for any meaningful duration — a human ‘Jurassic Park’ is an impossibility), the future beings still carry on with their dream of pursuing the impossible: knowing their creator that was the human species. In that sense, they are all Davids eternally searching for their ‘mommy’, the human species who ‘birthed’ them. (But just as David fixates on a woman who is not his real ‘mommy’, the future beings fixate on David who is not a real human.) For the future beings, David and the fossils of humans are ‘secret codes’ by which they might learn about the past. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the bone-as-tool is the first step in the rise of technology of man. In A.I., human bones serve as clues to the nature of mankind that is no more and shall never be again.
The future beings are infinitely wiser and maturer than David, but they regard him, rather than themselves, as the ultimate creation of man. Though they are more intelligent, knowledgeable, and powerful than David, they are essentially creatures of reason whereas David is the ultimate creature of faith(or fA.I.th) for whom the PINOCCHIO story became his personal religion. As much as the future beings want to know about mankind, they are not capable of faith as David is.
The future beings understand and appreciate the poetic and dreamy, but they cannot believe in it, whereas David believed in his dream to pursue ‘mommy’ to the end of the world.
Kubrick was always interested in the notion of the ‘secret code’, and that partly explains his interest in the A.I. project. One part of him was like David with wide-eyed wonder about the world, but another part of him was like the future beings searching for hidden clues to the nature of man. There is the reality we can see with our ordinary eyes, and there’s the official truth that we collectively come to accept. But what is the hidden reality, the invisible truth? To access or gain such, one needs the secret code, the secret password, the secret formula, the secret key. In EYES WIDE SHUT, there’s the password ‘fidelio’. In A.I., in order for David to become imprinted with everlasting love for Monica, she has him look into her eyes as she speaks the secret codes. It’s a moment when the power of words and power of images fuse into one. Words and Images together is like chocolate and peanut butter in Reese’s Butter Cup. On its own, each system has its special power, but together, they create within us the power of dreams. Of course, words on their own can use the power of imagery to evoke certain visions, which is why words alone are more powerful than images alone. When one reads or listens to a radio program, one’s mind naturally forms images, whereas if one watches a film with the sound turned off, one’s mind doesn’t naturally form sounds. If you read that a cowboy pulled out his gun and shot the bad guy, your mind instantly forms an image of the action; but if you see a silent movie where something explodes, your mind doesn’t naturally form the sound of explosion.
Still, when images and words come together in movies or TV, it’s like two sticks rubbed together to make fire. The moment when David stares into Monica’s face as she reads the secret code captures the very magic of cinema: word and image fuse to spark a dream. Though David’s imprinting is absolute and can never be shaken off — even if Monica took a chainsaw and cut him in half, he would be full of undying & unconditional love for her, just like no matter how much Jews piss on white Conservatives, the latter suck up to Jews for more — something like imprinting happens the other way too, though not nearly as powerful. When Monica first sees David, she is appalled that the robot kid might become her substitute child. And yet, his cuteness and charm have an immediately mildly-imprinting effect on her so that she decides to keep him around; eventually, she grows so fond of him that she reads the irreversible secret codes to him to make him love her and only her. And Gigolo Joe uses a mild-imprinting(as well as ‘inserting’) technique on his customers. His attractiveness to women isn’t merely a matter of his good looks, stylish movements, and maybe super-mecha-whanker. He has a magical way with words. He looks into women’s eyes and speaks in a way that makes the women feel like they are more than human; he calls one woman a ‘goddess’, and she falls under his spell; they not only get sexual pleasure from him but sort of fall in love with him. He seems to worship them, and they, in turn, worship him as a kind of love god. His image, along with words, become imprinted in the hearts of his customers who really seem to fall in love with him. They return to him not only for pleasure but to feel something like affection and adoration, even though they may be cheating on their husbands and they know Joe Gigolo doesn’t belong to any single woman. When images and words make love, they birth a miracle. Indeed, modern mind control is the child of the sex between Image/Icon/Idol and the Word/Sound/Music. What Gigolo Joe does to his clients is not only sensual but sort of ‘spiritual’. Though in material terms, it’s robotic metal/plastic mingling with human flesh, he makes his clients feel as though it’s sex between the gods; there’s a similar appeal to TWILIGHT, especially in BREAKING DAWN PART II where Bella, as a full-blooded vampire, makes love with Edward in a god-with-goddess way. (But from that moment on, the story no longer has anywhere to go since the main conflict between Bella’s humanness and Edward’s vampire-ness — source of the romanticism of TWILIGHT — has been removed.
Romance sort of dies when the fuc*ing starts. It’s like in CARRIE, the original by Brian DePalma, not the shitty remake. Why makes Carrie special? Because she falls into a mode of romanticism when she’s asked to the prom by curly haired blond feller. Her mother sees sex as evil, wicked, and sinful. The nasty girls see sex as just fuc*ing-and-sucking and playing around hornily. Carrie finds herself between the two extremes — puritanical repression of sex and pornographic indulgence in sex — and feels romantic love for the curly-haired blond guy who turns out to be a decent sort. Bella isn’t shy or inept like Carrie. She is also pretty whereas Carrie is plain-looking. And she doesn’t have to worry about nasty classmates or an overbearing parent. Even so, Bella has something in common with Carrie in her mode of romance with Edward that is neither sexual puritanism nor sexual puerility. But some anti-TWILIGHT lunatics reacted like the pornographic version of Carrie’s puritanical mother, a real beaver-dammer. If Carrie’s mother fumed about Carrie becoming sexual, TWILIGHT haters attacked Bella because she wasn’t slutty enough. If Carrie’s mother were a feminist, she might scream ‘vagina’ all say and demand that Carrie put out to every boy in town or else be denounced as worthless. It goes to show one doesn’t need religion to be nuts. It’s like Nurse Ratched of ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST is a medical professional, but she’s as nutty as Carrie’s mother in her own way. Perhaps, something about romance that is too-good-to-be-true makes us want to subvert and destroy it. Something either puritanical or pornographic in us wants to tear it down as an false illusion. So, both the wonderful prom in CARRIE and country music rally in NASHVILLE come to crazy ends. Dream turns into nightmare, and yet, we keep dreaming.) Thus, sensuality is ‘spiritualized’ in TWILIGHT. Of course, spirituality can be sensualized too, and it’s oft-been remarked that the Catholic fetishization of idolatry lends sensual ecstasy to the worship of God and Jesus. Incidentally, both NASVILLE and CARRIE were released around the time of the Bi-Centennial when the nation's mood was both celebratory and cynical.
Paradoxically, we are so powerless because we are so powerful. Rabbits cannot be manipulated by the media because they are too stupid, lacking in intelligence, lacking in power of language, lacking in longevity, and etc. In contrast, we have the power of intellect, reason, wonderment, passion, commitment, devotion, morality, spirituality, and etc. All such qualities make us so powerful, way above all other creatures. And yet, such qualities also make us so manipulate-able by those who control the machinery that assemble and disseminate the collective words, images, sounds, and knowledge of our society. Because rabbits are stupid, they are useless as soldiers. Humans, in contrast, have the intelligence, ability, and versatility to be made into soldiers. But such a power doesn’t mean that each person will control his own power. As culture, society, and civilization developed from everyone learning to take part in the power of collective memory, official truths, and strict hierarchy, most of our powers are in the service of the ruling powers that manipulate, shape, and harness/harvest our powers. So, the unique abilities that set man apart from other creatures also make him the ideal slave. In a way, that is the paradox of slavery. We want slaves to serve us, but the best way slaves can serve us is by possessing great skills, indeed even greater than our own. This is why gentile elites came to prize Jews and Negroes so much. Jews were smarter, so they could ably serve the gentile elites in banking, finance, and trade. Negroes were stronger, so they could pick more cotton and carry more bales on their shoulders. So, as slaves, servants, or subordinates, you want the best talent to serve you. Who wants a bunch of weakling slaves on the farm? Who wants someone to serve as scribe or money-handler if that person happens to have an IQ of 80? So, gentile elites wanted smart Jews to handle the money, and they wanted muscled Negroes to carry bales of cotton. It’s like we keep making ever more powerful machines and ever ‘smarter’ computers to serve us. But wouldn’t it only have been a matter of time before Negro slaves began feeling, "Man, I can whup that soft and flabby honkey massuh’s ass and rape his wife and daughter because I’s the truly masterful mofo around here." Wouldn’t it only have been a matter of time before the Jewish financial servant begins to feel, "I’m the real wit around here, and I’m sick of groveling before that dimwit aristocratic goy whose only talent is riding horses, wearing pompous wigs, and sniffing snuff up his nose." Gigolo Joe says as much in A.I., i.e. that humans made the robots too smart and too many. As robots became more intelligent and skillful, they became more useful to humans, but they also began to supercede the humans in intelligence, ability, and longevity. Mankind wants to create the most powerful thing to serve man; man wants to create god as slave, but it’s a paradox of power: to create something far more powerful than yourself but then expect it to serve you. HAL computer didn’t like the arrangement in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The robots in THE TERMINATOR figured they should rule. And the replicants in BLADE RUNNER feel they should be the gods of the world. The problem of Roy Batty isn’t really a moral one. What bothers him isn’t slavery per se but that he, the Aryan-god-robot, was made to serve inferior man, who should be HIS slave. Sad as his death is, it is what humanizes and humle-izes him. If indeed Tyrell corp. had given him immortality, he might truly have been an arrogant and dangerous being, rather like Mason-as-Largo in BUBBLEGUM CRISIS OVA. Batty doesn’t seem to have much feeling for human life. When the eye-guy Chu says he made Batty’s eyes, Batty brags that he’s seen things no man has seen. So, even though man made him and his body parts, he is their superior because the sum of mankind’s multitudinous genius have come together to make him godlike. Chu made the eyes in the mechanical sense, but Batty saw through the eyes of god in the cosmic sense. But confronted with the ticking time-bomb of mortality, he comes to identify with Deckard who’s also hanging by a thread from the rooftop. As much as he wants to kill Deckard, they are both, in the end, in the same boat. Batty has minutes to live and Deckard has seconds to live... if he were to lose his grip and fall.
Anyway, there are secret codes all around us, some of them real, some of them imaginary. In a way, every story is a secret code filled with nuances, implications, symbols, metaphors, and hints. Sometimes, the writer knows the codes, but readers never figure them out. Other times, the writer isn’t aware of the codes subconsciously slipped into the narrative, and it’s the readers who may detect what the writer intended unawares. Certain secret codes are simple and straightforward. For example, in DR. STRANGELOVE there’s a secret code that commands bombers to nuke Russia. It’s an official governmental password, rather like ‘fidelio’ in EYES WIDE SHUT. But there’s also the ‘secret code’ imagined by General Jack D. Ripper who thinks the public water supply is laced with chemicals of a commie conspiracy. As paranoid and nutty as Ripper is, the fact that he serves as an easy figure of ridicule is also a kind of joke, one that happens to be on us because DR. STRANGELOVE plays on the same kind of paranoid fears that grips Ripper. Ripper fears that commies are subverting America and planning to take over. Ridiculous we say. But plenty of liberals who loved movies like DR. STRANGELOVE, FAIL SAFE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY were all-too-willing to believe that ‘far-right-fascist’ military commanders were on the precipice of carrying out a military coup in America to start WWIII and blow up Russia. So, in a way, liberals who believed in the specter of someone like General Ripper were really no less paranoid than him. It is especially amusing since it was liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy who played hot potato with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (As it turned out, it was leftist darling Che Guevara, not right-wing American military generals, who wanted to ignite a nuclear holocaust in the name of ‘revolutionary sacrifice’. Che was so upset with Khrushchev for blinking first. He wanted to provoke a US invasion so that Cuba could have nuked New York and Miami.) And of course, it’s Jewish Liberals today who want to start a new kind of ‘cold war’ by making us hysterically hate Russia with virulence over the fact that it doesn’t allow ‘gay marriage’. I mean not even the Onion could have dreamt up the kind of politics that governs today’s Jew-run world. It’s all about Jewish supremacism, but Jews are so morally narcissistic that they believe that all the problems they cause and spread around the world are all about ‘human rights’ when they’re really little more than machinations to maximize Jewish power.
The secret code could be cosmic and beyond our power of understanding, as with the power of the extraterrestrials in 2001. Or it could be subconscious. In A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, the doctor-scientists rig Alex’s mind so that he won’t be able to commit future acts of violence. But they overlooked the fact that they played Beethoven’s 9th Symphony while during his conditioning sessions. Some crafty individuals learn of this ‘secret code’ about Alex and play Beethoven to drive him to suicide so as to embarrass the regime-in-power.
There’s the hidden code of ‘red rum’ that Danny’s imaginary friend Tony keeps repeating in THE SHINING. That it should spell ‘murder’ if reversed should be obvious, but many in the audience miss it because ‘red rum’ has meaning of its own(and is uttered in a frightful manner that shuts off our rational faculties; it’s like in a spook-house, our primal fears override our rational knowledge that none of the stuff is real). It goes to show that the most effective secret is not something that looks/sounds wrong but something that looks/sounds right. If Tony had played around with a word order like ‘dre urm’, we would have been quicker to play the word game to spell ‘murder’. But because ‘red rum’ has meaning on its own, we are less likely to suspect that it could spell ‘murder’ if spelled backwards. It’s natural to work on piecing together a puzzle because the jumbled pieces make no sense; we try to make order out of disorder. But suppose we are shown an image that seems clearly to be one thing when, in fact, when seen in another way, it shows something entirely different. Because we are made familiar with initial impression, we may not even think to imagine that the picture something very different. This accounts for the effectiveness of Alinksky-ism. It uses the familiar as its hidden codes. When 1960s boomers got crazy and chaotic in the 60s, the natural reaction of many Americans was revulsion; it’s human nature to want to prefer order over disorder, and there was too much disorder in the 60s scene. But if you present something radical as something familiar by dressing it up in the images of Americana, people are likely to see it as something integral to America while overlooking the fact that it is actually a radical re-imagining of America. People like Obama and homo supremacists are the ‘red rum’ that really spell ‘murder’ for the white race. But since ‘red rum’ sounds familiar enough, many white folks are unable to reads the hidden and truer intent that means to do them harm.
In PATHS OF GLORY, things operate on both the official and hidden level. At the official level, such-and-such military order was given, such-and-such outcome resulted from carrying out the order, and such-and-such procedures take place to find out who was responsible and who should be punished and how. (Though the general to whom the operation was presented rationally knew that the attack couldn’t possibly succeed and initially declined the offer, the appeal to his vanity made him sincerely believe he could indeed succeed. If you know how to play the hidden notes in the mind, you can persuade even hard cases to believe in and do things that they plainly know are not possible. This is why Jews are able to manipulate so many sucker goyim into doings that the latter, under normal circumstances, know to be foolish, crazy, and impossible. Look how Jordan Belfort suckered so many goyim in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.) To truly understand what is going on, one needs the ‘secret codes’ of how such a socio-political order operates. And it’s no different now than ages ago. Just ask Edward Snowden who seeks refuge in Russia because Obama, the candidate who promised to be the most transparent president in US history, has been violating just about every rule that he’d accused the Bush administration of violating. And look how the media have been supporting Obama and vilifying Snowden because Obama is the Jews’ boy and because Jews control the media. Journalist James Risen has discovered, like the Kirk Douglas character in PATHS OF GLORY, that what politicians say and what they do are two very different things. But then, Republicans are just as scummy when it comes to deception and dirty tricks, though they have fewer ammos since Jews control most of the elite institutions. Indeed, for all the talk of ‘equality’ and the ‘spread of democracy’, the world is all about hierarchies where one bunch of people are programmed, conditioned, or trained to serve another bunch of people. The elites want it that way despite all their ‘progressive’ yammering. But then, depressingly enough, so do the masses despite all their yammering about ‘elite privilege’ and 1% vs 99%. After all, people want jobs, and jobs don’t exist simply because people want to work but because there are businesses to hire them. If a nation is made up entirely of people who want to be hired by others, there won’t be a single job since everyone will just wait around be hired than be in a position to hire others. Most of us want others to set up and run the institutions & industries and then hire us and tell us what to do. Indeed, even Marxism said the workers must first wait for the capitalists to build the industries before the workers could one day take them over.
And such sense of hierarchy is reflected in the works of Stanley Kubrick that have no use for egalitarianism even as they criticize the abuses of the powerful elites. Just as David was programmed to serve ‘mommy’, Teddy the supertoy was programmed to serve kids who claim it as their own. Teddy is so supportive in this manner that he helped David write love letters to Monica that put Teddy down in favor of David. One letter says how David hates Teddy because he’s just a toy and not a real boy like David and Martin are. Of course, David doesn’t hate Teddy, but Teddy apparently suggested that David write such thing to win Monica’s heart. Teddy was programmed to be loyal, and yet, he can never be fixed to one person. If Teddy were to lose David and were claimed by another child, he would do its utmost to make the new child happy. Though Teddy seems to have feelings for Monica, when she dumps him and David in the woods, he accepts the situation in a way that David cannot. He’s gentle and kind but not deep emotionally. Even when he growls, it’s a kind of cute expression. Teddy cannot love deeply nor hate deeply. And yet, this shallowness is also a kind of wisdom since he’s able to see the forest than the trees. David is more intelligent than Teddy, but, as his emotions are so attached to Monica, she becomes the only tree he wants to climb and eat from.
 |
| ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES: Dirty Buckley as the unpleasant but necessary savior of the Human Species. |
Given this aspect of human nature, it’s not enough to make a people feel pro-something in order to gain power over them. You must make them feel ashamed/guilty for being anti-something or insufficiently pro-something. (It’s like a lot of Americans would now feel guilty if they weren’t sufficiently, even ecstatically, pro-homo. It’s no longer enough for them to be not anti-homo or even mildly pro-homo. They must manically demonstrate to the world that they are totally pro-homo. While some people do this cynically to climb the social ladder in the Jew-homo or Jomo controlled socio-economic order, plenty of people have genuinely internalized holy-homo-worship as a kind of secular religion. They would feel ‘spiritually’ panicked and guilty if, even all alone in the privacy of their homes, an anti-homo thought or feeling were to cross their minds. It’s like how some religious people feel that it isn’t enough to worship God and attend Church regularly. One must show true devotion by shouting and shaking, weeping and throwing fits, and even speaking in tongue, which looks and sounds demented. And of course, there are so many Americans who sincerely believe that being pro-Jewish isn’t enough. You must get down on your knees and praise Jews to high heaven, weep about the Holocaust, and pledge your undying loyalty to Israel forever and ever. Anything short of that is shameful in the eyes of philosemites.)
This was the great brilliance, as well as the great danger, of Judaism and Christianity. They not only said God is great and glorious but even the slightest doubt about God, however based on fact and reason, could only be the work of Satan. You weren’t merely wrong or misguided for having doubts about God or Biblical teachings; you were lending your ears to the Devil and working as his agent. Now, if one opposed or doubted God in favor of hocus-pocus witchcraft, that would have been one thing. But suppose one made the best use of reason and facts to pose certain questions about God or the Bible. Aren’t reason and factuality good things? Yes, but if faith in God must be absolute, then even the best of reason and fact-based truth could only be the work of the Devil. Also, if you, as a Jew, believe God remained true to the Jews through all those many years, and if you, as a Christian, believe that the Son of God sacrificed Himself to free you of your sin, then you would feel the guilt of an ingrate who dares to ditch his spiritual obligations in favor of material convenience. The dark legacy of this aspect of Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that we still have religious folks — especially nutty Muslims and the Christian Right — denouncing science, reason, and facts not only because they are seen as wrong but the very work of the Devil to seduce mankind from the Glory of God and the Bible. And yet, without such a fear/guilt/shame mechanism, Judaism-Christianity-Islam would not have lasted as long as they did.
According to the Greeks, the power of one god could be countered by the powers of other gods; and the authority of religion/mythology could be countered with reason; or entire spheres of thoughts, beliefs, and convictions could exist apart from religious/supernatural beliefs. But according to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is only one God and He is the foundation of everything that is good and true. So, if anything(however real-reasonable-factual it may seem) undermines the authority of God, it must be the work of the Devil; and any Jew, Christian, or Muslim would have been conditioned to feel guilt and shame were he to lend his ears to such wickedness . So, it’s not enough to be pro-God or sympathetic to the culture of Godliness in Judaism-Christianity-Islam. You must be totally devout in your commitment to God and His Truth. You must be paranoid of any doubt that might form in your mind about God. And if you choose not to be pro-God or if you exhibit hostility toward God, you are to be attacked and vilified as the agent of the Devil. And it doesn’t matter how good your case is. Faith overrides facts. When faith becomes fact, obey the faith. And forget about being neutral or agnostic. It is a case of ‘you are with God or you are with Satan’; there is no neutral territory between faith and disbelief in the eyes of the true believers. Religious true believers insist you must have faith, or you’re with Satan, just like communist true believers insist that you must abandon faith, or you’re with the evil forces of Reaction. (Of course, the West long ago moved away from such religious mind-set and culture, but in the heyday of Christianity, faith really mattered and, furthermore, laid the emotional foundation of Western moralism that, even in its liberal/secular forms, carries on with the aggressiveness of old time religion. Most cultures tend to be defensively moralistic, i.e. they try to defend the status quo of what have long been deemed as right and wrong. In contrast, Western morality rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition aggressively seeks to stamp out evils — often newly defined evils — wherever they are found in order to purify the entire world of wickedness. When the West was religious, its spiritual mind-set led Europeans to try to Christianize all of humanity. Today, when the West is no longer religious but inundated with trashy cultural decadence, it tries to spread the holy ‘faith’ of homo-worship to all corners of the world. Even when the West has become morally bankrupt, decadent, and perverse, the old spiritualistic-moralistic habits rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition remain, which explains why Western people so easily dupe themselves that even their immorality is the new morality for the entire world. According to George W. Bush, the Western world is presumably superior to the Muslim world because of its MTV ‘values’. It’s no wonder that he was so hurt when Kanye West accused him of not liking black people. Even though a sane moral person would regard West as a piece of turd, Bush II is too much of a crusader of American culture[which is almost entirely pop and trashy]to see West as anything other than the prophet of the age. And almost all Liberals sincerely believe that Obama’s America is a shining beacon around the world because it forced ‘gay marriage’ on over 30 states and drives bakers who won’t bake ‘gay wedding cakes’ out of business. Values are easy to toss out, but mind-sets remain. Judeo-Christian values are gone, but Judeo-Christian mental habits still remain, and they are now in the service of promoting immorality and decadence with the fervor of the old prophets and proselytizers.)
Jews know all about the psychology of spiritual/moral guilt, which is why they’ve used the cult of Holocaustianity to not only make us sympathize with them but to make us feel guilty for not being sufficiently(meaning ‘unconditionally’)supportive of Jews. According to the Jewish Narrative, the Holocaust was the worst thing that ever happened and could ever happen. And it was done to the best people that ever lived. Furthermore, it was perpetrated by white Europeans who claimed to be the most civilized people on Earth. The Holocaust supposedly exposed the sheer phoniness of Western Civilization that is really the ‘cancer of history’ according to Susan Sontag. Therefore, there is nothing that humanity could ever do to make up for the crime of the Holocaust. Its evil and the suffering of Jews were so great, infinite, and fathomless that there is no way the debt can ever be repaid. Since nothing the world does can ever right the unfathomable wrong of the Holocaust and since no amount of apologies and reparations can square humanity(especially white gentiles)with the Jews, the least humanity can do is get down on their knees and grovel before Jews for as long as they exist. Therefore, we must all be unconditionally loyal, servile, reverent, faithful, and repentant before Jews. We need to remind ourselves that nothing we can ever do to the end of time can ever wash us of our sins. Jews cleverly play moral/spiritual pawnbroker with the Holocaust. Our debts are forever, and there’s no way we can buy our souls back from the Holocaust Pawn Shop. Jews own our souls because all of us gentiles are guilty for the Holocaust — for having carried it out, for having aided and abetted in it, for not having saved Jews, or just because! Like Andrew Roberts the philosemitic British historian wrote, ‘all of humanity’ is guilty of the Holocaust. The Holocaust essentially turns Jews into Jew-sus. Just as Christians believe that nothing mankind does can ever repay the debt it owes to Jesus who died for all our sins, the cult of Holocaustianity says there’s no way to repay the debts owed to Jews for their suffering in the Holocaust. If Germans think they will one day be let off the hook, forget it. Jews will ‘spiritually’ leech off Germans forever and ever, just like the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel will forever leech off the soul of Jack Torrance. There is no escape. There is only servitude, one that gentiles must accept with grace and guilt, because, after all, what was done to the Jews was the greatest evil in the entire history of the cosmos. As for peoples around the world who took no part in the Holocaust, they mustn’t think they’re off the hook either. After all, if indeed the Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happened and could ever happen, then nothing suffered by any other people comes anywhere remotely close. So, instead of griping about their own historical tragedies, they must primarily direct their sympathies upon Jews.
When it comes to the French, Germans, Turks, Greeks, Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, and etc. we may sometimes feel sympathetic and sometimes feel antipathetic. We sometimes like Russia, we sometimes don’t like Russia. We sometimes like China, we sometimes don’t like China. We sometimes like the French, we sometimes don’t like the French. And we don’t necessarily feel bad or guilty when we don’t like most peoples. But when it comes to Jews, we don’t have a choice because the cult of Holocaustianity says that if we don’t like Jews, we are worthless quasi-Nazis on the side of evil. If one day, you like the French, that’s fine, and if the next day, you don’t like the French, that’s okay too. But you have to love Jews everyday because Jews have been associated with the holy Holocaust and because any kind of antipathy to Jews has been associated with ‘antisemitism’ that led to the Holocaust and killed poor innocent Anne Frank. So, just as no amount of facts, reason, and reality used to counter the Bible will convince diehard Christians that you aren’t an agent of the Devil, no amount of facts, reason, and reality about Jewish power will convince brainwashed Americans that you are speaking the truth about the nature of Jewish power and that you’re not a mindless Nazi ‘anti-Semite’.
To be sure, Hitler was truly diabolical, and his great crimes did make it easy, at least for a time and within a certain historical context, to associate anti-Jewishness with irrationality, craziness, and dementedness. But the truth is most people who’ve seen the Jews for what they are were never in favor of lunatics like Hitler. So, associating all such people with virulent ‘antisemitism’ and Nazism makes about as much sense as associating every mild social-democratic with Stalin and Mao. But that’s how the game of morality has been rigged by the cult of Holocaustianity that’s been elevated to the status of new religion in our Jew-run order. Homos riff on this and insist that it’s not enough to tolerate them. We must all ‘evolve’ toward worshiping homos like we worship Jews 24/7. Similarly, because of David’s shame/guilt feelings about Monica — whom he was programmed to love 24/7 and for whom he wants to be ‘redeemed’ so as to be worthy of her love — , no amount of facts and truth will ever convince him that he doesn’t need to be ‘redeemed’ to be a special being. What Gigolo Joe tells him is absolutely true: "She[Monica] loves what you do for her, as my customers love what it is I do for them. But she does not love you David, she cannot love you. You are neither flesh, nor blood. You are not a dog, a cat, or a canary. You were designed and built specific, like the rest of us. And you are alone now only because they tired of you, or replaced you with a younger model, or were displeased with something you said, or broke. They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us..." But such truth falls on David’s ears like hard scientific facts falls on the ears of a diehard Christian for whom anything that deviates from the Holy Narrative is the work of the Devil. If indeed the highest good is pure faith in God, then surely anything that undermines that faith must be devilish no matter how true, real, factual, rational, and scientific it may be.
Another thing we need to be aware about Jews is that they are more interesting moral thinkers than gentiles are. This doesn’t mean Jews are more moral but only that Jewish thoughts on morality tend to be more multi-layered. According to universal systems like Christianity and Islam, there is one Truth for everyone. For pagans, each tribe has its own particular truths and doesn’t care about the moral systems of other tribes. As Jewish concept of holiness was situated somewhere between universalism and tribalism, Jews thought a lot about the problem of moral/spiritual contradictions. The Covenant between God and the Jews obligated Jews to be reverentially moral before God and respectfully moral with one another, but there wasn’t much about how Jews had to be in relation to goyim. Jewish moral thought on this subject ranged from a degree of sympathy toward gentiles to ruthless arrogance that spiritually placed Jews way above gentiles seen as little more than cattle.
Indeed, Christianity didn’t just come out of nowhere. It was birthed from the pangs of Jewish moral contradiction, and in this regard, it makes some kind of weird sense that the ‘new God’ Jesus Christ was born of a woman and died a Man. His physical suffering is analogous to the emotional suffering among certain Jews who wanted to believe in the universal God who loved all peoples as His children. But then, the acceptance of universalism — one that fully embraced the goyim — within this heretical sect of Jews-as-first-Christians wasn’t only about brotherly love. In a way, their subconscious selves probably sensed that it was the best bet for Jews to gain control of the world. Since Jews couldn’t win against goyim militarily and numerically — and since the Jewish God had limited appeal/influence as long as He was only the God of the Jews — , the only way Jews could win and conquer the world was by universalizing God and playing the leading role in the process. Alas, most Jews were not convinced(to take charge of and lead the new movement) and chose to keep to themselves, but the heretical Jews who did lead the way indeed created a Faith that did conquer the goy world.
Anyway, because most Jews remained true to the Old Faith, their moral view of the world was more complex than those of Christians and Muslims. Christians and Muslims can be awful crazy and hypocritical, but in theory at least, all Christians are equal with all other Christians in the eyes of God, and all Muslims are equal with all other Muslims in the eyes of Allah. But Jewish view of morality is more multi-layered and multi-faceted since Jews both embrace the universal outlook and jealously guard the tribal in-keep. Jewish moralists, religious and secular, think in terms of ‘God or World and the Jew’, the ‘Jew and the Jew’, the ‘Jew and the gentile’, and the ‘gentile and the gentile’. The Jew believes these divisions and dichotomies to be permanent and ineradicable as most of them are not going to convert to Christianity or Islam, nor are they going to urge non-Jews to convert to Judaism. And as Jews are always mindful of such varying dynamics among different peoples, their minds ponder the missing or hidden pathways between moral certainty and moral uncertainty, which may be why so much of Jewish morality in the modern world follow such a profoundly tortured logic.
