 |
| Murder of Jane McCrea |
 |
| Hannah Duston Killing the Indians |
For Part 2 of this blogpost, CLICK HERE.
Topics discussed: Victimology, National Feminism, Word and Honor, Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans, The Wild Bunch, Sam Peckinpah,Conservatism's vulnerability to PC, Liberalism's vulnerability to PC, Conservative servility to Jews, Jewish hypocrisy,bi-morality of Jewish religion and culture, the jackal-like way of Jews, Neocons and Iraq, 100 Million Black Dicks Project,Jews and EU, African migration into Europe, Christian morality, Jewish morality, Muslim morality, Semitic character of Arabs,Arab evolution under the sun vs Northern European evolution in the cold, blacks and 'nasty', gorilla style of the Negress,conflating black rage with black righteousness, Jewish exploitation of blacks, moralysis, herd morality vs individual conscience,Asian universalism and 'we mentality', The Shining, Stanley Kubrick, Asian social mentality, Jesus-Peter-shame-guilt,Japanese-American internment vs McCarthyism, nationalism from above, Poland and Korea, softalitarianism, 'leftist' hatred of controversy, Jewish stamp on 'leftism', white privilege vs Jewish privilege, shared ideas vs shared interests/power,homo-supremacism's effect on Jews and whites, paradox of loyalty and betrayal in Italian culture, the Godfather, Tom Hagen,Latin lack of character, betrayal and rule of law, Lawrence of Arabia, Jewish monotheism, forms of betrayal, powerful scapegoating the weak and the weak scapegoating the powerful, Northern European 'moral' cravenness toward Jews, Northern European homogeneity,British race-ism and imperialism,the positive side of race-ism in the British Empire,whiteness and moral perception,facial angularity and moral perception, Jews and goyim and looks, universalism of Greek philosophy, Greek art and time,the ideal vs real in Greek art, dogs-asians-Muslims, 'vice virtuosa', Jews as cancer of white history, Wall Street derivatives and 'gay marriage', English language, use of PC in Britain to morally defang the white working class, Germany and Jews,Lina Wertmuller, SEVEN BEAUTIES, military desertion and morality, paradox of universalism and elitism, Nazism and morality,Nazism and medicine, Jewish self-loathing and race-mixing, medicine and elitism, compulsive diagnostic syndrome,mental health issue, Jews and medicine, partisanship in the media and the Jews, Alfred Hitchcock and Vagina, Vertigo, Marnie,hypochondrophilia, A.I., 'romysterine', Face of Another, Marnie, Anglo-Americanism, Ayn Rand, genetics of goodness, problems of morality,goodness vs niceness, situational morality, respectability vs revelry, problems of bourgeoisie, House of Games by David Mamet,Something Wild by E Max Frye and Jonathan Demme, PSYCHO, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, sexuality and physiology, Lucian Freud,high and low in culture, the politics of 'sacralization' of certain groups, murk-to-mist conundrum, Greek mythology,Athena, Judaism, Holocaustianity, the rotten character of Jewish elites, duality of Jews, Dr. Strangelove, General Jack D. Ripper,Billiard as metaphor, facts and fairytales, evolution and water, evolution and isolation, complementary diversity vs invasive diversity,homo-latreia, homo-ipakoi, Jewish evolution and tribalism, Jewish morality and tribalism, paradox of Christian pacifism and bullying,paradox of individuality and obedience, futility of radicalism in relation to the elites, white Christian Church vs non-white Churches,avoidism and revanchism in animals,being wrong vs feeling wronged, Jewish supremacism and black supremacism, victorhood and victimhood, Bill Laimbeer Tactic, Russia and Putin and Jews, homos as proxies of Jewish power, Jordan Belfort-ism and Saul-Alinsky-ism,counter-victimology of the Right, progots or 'progressive bigots', ideology vs neo-fascist situational thinking, End of History,Francis Fukuyama, Russia-China-Iran and Jews, leftism and interracism, Negroes and 'spiritual' singing, Jews and mind-reading,God and gravity and special relationship with Europeans, positive universalization of particular positive characteristics,End of History and End of Debate, Anglo fear of Jewish wit, witzkrieg, Anglo/American sensitivity to Jews and other non-whites,Proposition Nation as Jewish Supremacist state that favors Jewish power and Israel,victimology and the Deep South, FDR or Roosevelt, Stalin, Jonathan Brent, white right and anti-Jewishness.
It has become fashionable on the Right to decry the rise of ‘victimology’ as the prevalent world-view and organizing concept in Western ideological discourse since the so-called ‘radical sixties’. Even some liberals feel that what began as moral necessity and justification has largely degenerated into various groups competing with one another for the top slot in the Holy Victim Jackpot. Victimology seems especially annoying since the ones who do the most complaining are NOT themselves victims and too conveniently(and crassly) bask in the misery of their ancestors. Worse, at the vanguard of the victimological discourse are white and/or Jewish ‘progressives’ who are among the most well-off, privileged, and powerful people on the planet. When privileged white and Jewish Liberals(whose wealth, status, and influence keep rising) keep yammering about ‘white privilege’ — apparently, they need ever increasing privilege for themselves to fight ‘white privilege’, but then, for many centuries the Christian clergy believed it needed and deserved ever greater wealth and power to promote the virtue of thrift and meekness — , the whole thing sounds more and more like a joke. It’s especially amusing to observe over-privileged white/Jewish ‘progressives’ sermonizing to ‘white trash’ underclass that the latter simply cannot understand the horrors experienced by the ‘people of color’ because of their ‘white skin privilege’. If this is true, just how do the privileged white ‘progressives’ understand the ‘pain’ and ‘agony’ of the ‘people of color’? If having ‘too much privilege’ prevents one from empathizing, let alone sympathizing, with the misfortunes of others, shouldn’t it logically follow that privileged white/Jewish ‘progressives’ would have the least clue as to the reality of oppression experienced by the ‘people of color’(who should be called ‘peopolor’ maybe). In truth, the ‘white trash’ underclass understand blacks very well as many of them have been victimized by black crime. As for many white/Jewish progressives, their supposed compassion is based on fantasy projections(from a safe distance) onto black realities they know little or nothing about. When something like Ferguson crisis erupts, white/Jewish ‘progressives’ ignore realities on the ground and instead project their paradigms onto what is pure and simple black thuggery.
I suppose the ‘progressive’ elites could argue that one requires sufficient privilege(and natural intelligence and empathy, with which they themselves were naturally gifted with at birth), education, and thinking in order to understand the true extent of the problems of injustice created by Western Civilization, and since white/Jewish ‘progressives’ have the knowledge and compassion, they should be the rightful leaders of Progress against ‘privilege’, especially since they are working hard to fill their own ranks with some token ‘peopolor’.
After all, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Marxist movement, and communist revolutions were all led by a class of privileged radicals or visionaries. The unwashed and uneducated masses simply don’t know what is what, and this goes for both most white people and ‘peopolor’. Whether relatively privileged or oppressed, most people don’t know and don’t care, especially on the matter of ‘what is to be done’. So, there always needs to be a vanguard led by the intelligent, imaginative, knowledgeable, and committed. Such form of ‘radical’ privilege could be deemed to be morally justified since it strives and struggles for greater justice and equality unlike traditional forms of privilege that were largely self-centered and self-serving. But then, the histories of Christianity, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution — all done in the name of The People — teach us that power and privilege, once institutionalized, tend to have their own logic. Also, for every genuinely idealistic privileged radical who works to undermine various unjust and unearned privileges, there are plenty of ultra-privileged cynics who buy off and appropriate the various ideologies-of-virtue to serve their own personal or egomaniacal interests. Does anyone really think the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros have made all that money to fund something like a communist revolution so that all their wealth will be taken from them and shared with the people? And besides, even if a communist movement were to prevail once again, how long before a new elite rises to guard their own power and privilege and rule over the masses with utter cynicism?
At any rate, what is most irritating about today’s victimology is the lack of depth, meaning, purpose, sincerity, good faith, intelligence, and integrity. Among the various ‘peopolor’ victim groups, only Jews have real brains — though Jews, ever chameleon-like, sometimes morph into whiteness and sometimes out of whiteness — while blacks and mestizos are mostly mush-for-brains or generally prefer style & volume over sense & substance. Jewish victimologists may be smart, but they are devious and untrustworthy since they opt for two agendas at once: bitch about their victim-hood and guard/maximize their super-privilege. Indeed, Jews are socially and historically schizophrenic because they want to convince us forever that "Nobody knows the trouble Jews seen, nobody knows but Moses and Anne Frank." We’ve been told a million times that Jews have been ‘oppressed’ for thousands of years. Of course, this is a bogus sleight-of-hand trick. Jews only seem to have suffered more since they remained as a cohesive group for longer than most peoples and because they went from place to place as minorities and drove gentiles crazy with their hideous weasel-like ways(that often brought about a backlash). Anyway, Jews keep telling us that their history was one of mini-holocaust-per-minute... until finally there was the real big one, The Holocaust. It’s like Fred G. Sanford(of SANFORD AND SON) acts like he’s had a 1000 heart-attacks and the BIG ONE is finally about to come! Of course, the Holocaust was truly a horrendous and tragic event, and we can all understand why Jews were and are still traumatized by it. It was so horrible that we are inclined to believe that Germans went totally insane and Jews were totally innocent. Any other view might strike some as ‘blaming the victim’. We certainly shouldn’t blame the victims for the Holocaust, especially as little children and old folks were killed too. Nevertheless, it’s a fallacy to assume that because Jews suffered greatly in certain periods and places, they were totally innocent in relation to the modern history of antisemitism or anti-Jewish-sentiments. It simply isn’t true that Jews were such perfect angels set upon by vicious gentiles out of irrational wickedness, envy, paranoia, hatred, and craziness.
Let’s suppose that Hitler had not carried out the Holocaust. Let’s suppose that Hitler hated Jews but never murderously. Suppose he taxed them heavily and prohibited them from certain professions. We can still sympathize with Jewish ‘victim-hood’ under such circumstances, but it would also be valid to ask what led Hitler and other Germans to push such anti-Jewish measures. Why shouldn’t we ask such questions? After all, we(Jews included) often raise issues about the problems caused by Muslim immigrants in Europe. And there are plenty of people who publicly declare themselves to be anti-Muslim for cultural, social, or moral reasons. All such criticisms and opposition to Muslims are considered valid in many sectors in society. And they indeed are. Now, suppose someone like Hitler were to come along who really hates Muslims, and a Holocaust takes place that kills 50% of Muslims in Europe. That would indeed be a terrible event, but would it mean that Muslims had been 100% innocent? Of course not. We could still recognize that Anti-Islamites had legitimate reasons for disliking and criticizing Muslims and Muslim culture. We can denounce the radical horror of Islamocaust, but it doesn’t negate the valid criticism of Islam that had been aired prior to the tragedy. Nor does it follow that every criticism of Muslims had contributed to the Islamocaust. If criticism of a group inevitably leads to genocide, then we shouldn’t criticize ANY group since whichever group is criticized will most certainly end up being killed by the bushel. Same goes for Jews. As horrible as the Holocaust was — and despite the fact that we should respect its victims — , it doesn’t nullify many of the valid reasons as to why so many Europeans came to dislike Jews. It’s like the atomic-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed so many children and old folks doesn’t invalidate much of the hatred that the Allies felt for the Japanese. One can argue that the use of atomic bombs was excessive, even evil, but that doesn’t make Japanese perfect angels who were killed by ‘totally evil racist whites’. Same goes for Jews. The truth is there were plenty of wicked Jews who pulled all manner of dirty tricks in finance in Europe. They also went out of their way to corrupt the culture, to spread communist subversion, to indulge in gangsterism, to reduce white women into chattel whore. "Really?", you ask? Well, look around today, and what has changed about the way of Jews? Jews still act pretty much the same. The great majority of Jews admire sick perverts like Masha Gessen. Some might argue that Gessen is just a fringe figure peddling sexual Ayn-Randian-ism, but could such a person have gained such fame and fortune without the support of World Jewry with their trillions in wealth?
They are still two-faced, contemptuous, arrogant, weasel-like, corrupting, and vile. Jews go out of their way to instill white women with feelings of victim-hood to create a rift between white males and white females. Jews understand that the most crucial bond among a people is sexual unity. If white men and white women stick together, the white race remains intact and white unity is preserved. Jews hate his, which is why they push feminism that makes white women hate white men as the worst oppressors of all time. This is silly, of course, since no civilization did as much for the progress of women’s freedoms and rights than Western Civilization(dominated by white men) has. If anything, true feminism should be a National Feminism, whereby all proper-and-sensible white women should remember and appreciate that white men treated their womenfolk better than any other male-kind around the world did with their women. But Jews want white women to see white men as oppressors and join with ‘peopolor’ against their own grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, sons, and etc.
Jews, of course, remained as a race, culture, and heritage because Jewish men and Jewish women sexually stuck together for so long; even today, most Orthodox Jews and many Reform Jews — and even secular Jews — choose to keep it together sexually; they may have flings outside the community, but many eventually settle down with Jewish spouses. And even in intermarriage with members of other groups, Jews are careful to choose the cream of the crop of the gentiles and raise the kids as Jewish or with Jewish-consciousness. So, Jews practice elite intermarriage that favors Jewishness. Besides, as Jews have the most powerful sense of tribal/communal pride & heritage rooted in long history(of great achievements) and roiled in the cult of noble & tragic suffering, even a partly Jewish child is bound to cling to the Jewish side of him or her.
But when it comes to the white masses, Jews want them to be miscegenated out of existence. Jews want more yellow immigration so that white guys will have kids with yellow women. Jews want white women to become mudsharks and have disgusting mulatto babies with black men. Jews want Anglos to mix in huge numbers with Mexicans and become mestizo-ized. Personally, I don’t mind some Anglos and Mexicans getting together but not in numbers that turn whole bunch of blancos into a bunch of taco-heads. I mean Guillermo of the Jimmy Kimmel Show(dreadful piece of crap) is a nice guy, but do we want a whole bunch of future white guys to look like him? Or George P. Bush or PeeWee Bush.
 |
| Guillermo - Nice Guy but hardly future model for white race. |
I’m not belittling or putting down such figures per se but only pointing out that they shouldn’t be used as crutches by insecure guys who need some Theory of Manhood to feel like a man. If you don’t have the feeling there to begin with, you just don’t have it. It’s like John Wayne naturally felt like a man, but Don Knots most likely did not, but that’s okay, as he never pretended to be some macho tough guy. Knots could have read all the Evola and Donovan he wanted. He still wouldn’t have been much of a man. Most Alternative Right guys are dorks who are more like Don Knots than John Wayne, and that’s precisely why they always need some Theory of Manhood. If you need some grand theory of manhood to be a man, then you’re climbing up the wrong tree. Besides, manhood primarily needs to be practical than rigid, as survival comes before pride. Animals understand this. A tough male leopard may try scare away or fight off other male leopards, but it’s gonna run like a mothafuc*a when it sees a lion. A tough male lion may roar and try to intimidate other male lions, but if it sees a stampeding herd of elephants, it’s gonna bolt into the bush. Manhood is always relative, and a real man has to know his place in the pecking order. A sensible white guy will act tougher among yellows and browns, but he better watch himself with Negroes because, in most cases, black guys can whup the daylights out of white guys. Though we have this impression of blacks always acting crazy and out-of-control, black reality isn’t as simple as many white folks make out. Most violence among black youths is among those who are more or less equal in toughness. So, one tries to establish his pecking order over the other, and this can lead to mayhem. But when it’s obvious that one Negro is much tougher than another, the latter will play the toady or run like a mothafuc*a. Negroes may be crazy and stupid, but they can be very survival-sensible because they lead an animallike existence. Since they grow up in a brutal world, blacks are very keen about when to fight or take flight. Negroes aren’t usually into the Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade mode.
Indeed, Southern Europeans are similar in some ways possibly because they have less cultural and ethnic unity, less in the way of Rule of Law. So, they learn to read the signals, gauge when to cheat, how to lie, etc. In the past several centuries, it’s been the Northern Europeans who’ve been into rigid concepts of pride, propriety, honor, and other such stuff — and even in Asia, such norms exist more in the north than in the south. Negroes and Southern Europeans know that muscle must hustle. The negative side of the Negro and Southern European mode of behavior is the lack of scruples, conscience, and honor(based on virtue than on stupid pride). An Italian may not honor an agreement, but he’ll make a lot of noise about the his honor-as-a-form-of-vain-pride, usually an ugly thing. The positive side of the Negro and Southern European mode of behavior is the flexibility, adaptability, and alertness to the situation. This is what makes blacks good at something like Jazz. They be slickity-slackity. Italians are oily and greasy not only physically but mentally and emotionally. They can go from wolf to puppy dog a split second.
 |
| The Morally Adaptable Southern Italian. Take Me to America, G.I. |
At any rate, the negative side of the Northern European behavioral mode is the rigidity that can sometimes make people choose the Word over reality. As important as the Word is, there are times when reality counts more. No sense sticking to honor in face of horror. (The problem of absolute constitutionalism and libertarianism is that they demand total faith to the letter of the law.) Another negative aspect of the Northern European mode is the naivete it fosters among the populace. Whereas a Negro, an Italian, or a Greek grew up cynical, cunning, and/or conniving from a young age, Northern European children traditionally grew up in more stable environments where Words actually meant something. Therefore, some Northern European types foolishly seem to believe in the ideals and terminology of political correctness with naive goodwill. Northern Europeans were more likely to keep their word, remain loyal, and charge into battle even if it meant sure death. Back in the old days, the nationalistic elites ruled the masses, and therefore, Northern European masses were naively willing to follow-the-leader, indeed more so than their Southern European and Slavic European counterparts. (To some extent, the modern neo-Slavicism and neo-Latinism were attempts to Northern-European-ize the masses. Stalin knew well that the Russians would not have fought to a stalemate with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 if Russians had been more like Germans. And Mussolini envied the superior organizational skills & iron unity among Germans and, via the Pact of Steel with Hitler, sought to Germanize the lazy and craven Latins into reliable tough men. Mussolini failed, but Stalin succeeded for the Russians fought as hard or even harder than the Germans in World War II. To be sure, Stalin also drew from ‘Oriental Despotic’ roots — embodied by Ivan the Terrible — and Jewish radicalism, but keep in mind that Marx was German and many Russian-Jewish Marxists wanted Russia to emulate Germany as a social and developmental model. But then, the Imperial Russian system under the Czars had also sought to Germanize the elites. Though Russian elites had looked to France for much of their inspiration in all things cultural and fashionable, the dramatic rise of Germany in the 19th century made it the favored model for both Russia and Japan, especially as a managerial model for the state, economic development, and military buildup and training.) When nationalistic Northern European elites had ruled their domains, the Northern European masses — even those of leftist persuasion — tended to be earnest in their sense of patriotic loyalty, unity, and honor. But with the rise of anti-nationalist ideology, political correctness, and anti-white self-loathing as the New Dogma or Word all across Europe, Northern Europeans have embraced the New Ideals with greater earnestness and commitment than by Italians and Greeks. Southern Europeans tend to say one thing but do another(often with utmost cynicism/opportunism), whereas Northern Europeans believe that Words mean something. Even the arch-criminal Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH tries to stick to the word: "We’re gonna stick together just like it used to be. When you side with a man, you stay with ‘em, and if you cant do that, you’re like some animal; you’re finished, we’re finished! All of us!" Even though Pike Bishop and Deke Thorton are on the opposite sides, Bishop tries to defend his old friend by saying that "he gave his word", even if it was to the ‘railroad’. In another Sam Peckinpah movie, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, an old ex-sheriff feels especially betrayed by his friend because a man’s word means everything to him. The Spaghetti Westerns or Gangster Westerns are different since the word never means anything in the Italianized Western universe.
Anyway, if one scrutinizes the Northern European mind-set, it’s possible to understand why Northern European types can be the most nationalistic people or the most anti-nationalistic people. Whatever the prevailing Truth happens to be, they are more likely to take it to heart & mind, as if the words actually mean something. This was somewhat less so in Great Britain because of the highly developed sense of irony. Also, the overt class-consciousness in Britain made it less likely for any kind of unified national consciousness from top to bottom. German society was hierarchical, but even the German elites partook of the sentimentality of being one with the ‘volk’ and even with nature. British elites were more likely to keep their clothes on(instead of running around naked in the woods) and more likely to remind the masses of their service to the Queen. Also, because the British system simultaneously maintained a monarchy and steadily weakened its power, the power dynamics of Britain wasn’t as cut-and-dry as in Germany or Russia where the Imperialism system did wield immense power. Though Great Britain is today among the most politically correct nations on Earth, it is also home of some of the most cynical attitudes about political correctness. Thus, British are a tricky bunch. Like other Northern Europeans, they do have a straight-upright-and-earnest streak, and in those terms, they are far more trustworthy than, say, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, or drunken Russians who can’t even bother to sober up for a few hours a day. But their sense of irony has had a way of serving as a brake against excessive unity and authoritarianism — consider the Simon Pegg film THE WORLD’S END — , though there are PC groups in the UK that are as crazy as any around the world. But then, irony itself can play into the hands of political correctness since to be ironic is to be uncommitted. Therefore, irony can be demeaned by ‘progressives’ as aristocratic, haughty, privileged, detached, and uncaring of the moral issues of the day. Also, when backed against the wall by tremendous pressure, irony usually tends to turn into cowardice. Irony pokes fun, but it takes real iron to fight back. British neo-aristocratic types who are experts at irony would rather go along with PC, albeit in an aloof manner, than put up a real fight. Why, fighting back would be so vulgar, dear boy.
(In current Britain, the native masses can rely on neither Conservatives nor ‘leftists’, both of whom suck up to Jewish globo-elites. Though Conservatives are wont to associate themselves with freedom and Liberals love to associate themselves with liberty, both are prone to falling under the power of PC because of flaws in their system. There is an element in conservatism that is resistant to PC. It is suspicious of outsiders, alien influence, and external threats. It is essentially distrustful and keeps up its guard against would-be threats to its survival and power. But within the conservative community itself, there is a culture of conformism and subservience, and this can paradoxically work against conservatism. Firstly, because conservative community doesn’t properly foster individuality, it tends to lack strong individual voices that can lead, define, and command a crisis. It’s about everything getting along, going along, and following orders. So, even though the conservative community may stand in opposition to outside threats, it generally lacks inspired figures who can hold back the threat with better arguments and counter-attacks. Furthermore, because conservatives tend to be conformist within the community, if the core value system of the community are altered, everyone will likely just follow suit. This is why Jews have been so effective in destroying the Right. The Neocons decided to enter into the core power institutions of American Conservatism and rewrite its main tenets. Once the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spread the new gospel[via media outlets controlled by Jews], countless American Conservatives mindlessly followed suit and are now worshiping MLK and Zionism. And it’s also becoming fait accompli among Conservatives that ‘gay marriage’ is an ‘conservative value’. Neocons may bash Saul Alinsky, but they employed the same trickery. They understood that a direct external attack on American Conservatism would force conservatives to circle the wagons, resist, and fight back — even if not very effectively. But if Neocons smiled and shook hands and slyly snuck into the core institutions of American Conservatism to rewrite its rules and values, then most American Conservatives would just mindlessly conform to the New Conservatism. Consider how Heritage Foundation caved to the demands of Neocon Jew hag Jennifer Rubin. Since conservatives are conformist WITHIN the community, all one needs to do is enter into the power core of American Conservatism and alter the rules. Once the new rules emanate from the core, most American Conservatives will almost instantly conform to the New Conservatism. As for liberals, they love to take pride in how they’re open to new ideas. This is good if they maintain a genuinely curious and critical mind-set. After all, much that is new is dangerous or harmful, and only a fool would embrace everything new, different, alien, or exotic. But there is a childlike tendency among Liberals to shelve their critical faculties and embrace whatever that is New[or hailed as worthy by the Liberal Elites] because it offers them pleasure, status, instant gratification, short-term jolly-wollies, and etc. It’s like a child easily falls under the sway of an adult who offers him/her candy. The Hansel & Gretel Scenario. Many Liberals are thus childlike whores of power, privilege, wealth, status, and influence. They turned to ‘gay marriage’ because it’s now associated with riches and privilege on Wall Street, the cool & hip in Hollywood, the powerful and influential in DC, etc. It’s like a child revering Santa Claus who has all the toys and gives them only to ‘good little boys and girls’. Also, Liberals all too readily surrender to pleasure and becomes its willing junkie-slaves. Partaking of pleasure can be liberating, especially in an overly repressed society. But it also means surrendering one’s self-control to the pied pipers of music, movies, TV, drugs, gambling, etc. Are all those idiot girls who look to the likes of Miley Cyrus really free and liberated? Or are they slave-whores of the music industry run by dirty Jews? Has porn made people free/liberated or addicted/enslaved to the cult of hierarchical sexual prowess? How liberated are white men who indulge in cuckold culture or white fruitboys who can only get off by having their bungies stuffed with Negro dongs? In seeking sexual ‘liberation’ through unfettered pleasure, they’ve turned into slaves of sexual power that is beyond their self-control and self-worth. When a white man invites and allows a Negro to do his wife on his own bed, the logic of liberation-through-sexual-licentiousness has come full circle. What began as a search for freedom has ended in utter surrender to superior power to which is one’s become addicted in slavish servitude. Like a junkie dependent on his pusher, many white porny boys have become addicted to pleasure-via-sexual-self-enslavement. White boys now whimper, "Conquer and humiliate my manhood, Negro. Do my wife and make me feel like shit." That’s how they get off. Jews are, of course, laughing with hideous glee at the total demise and collapse of the castrated white boy. The likes of Frank Rich are surely muttering under their breath, "Not only can you not take your country back but you can’t take your women back either... cuz when white women go black, there is no going back." Jews were looking forward to such an outcome all along.) Also, because PC has become tutti-fruitized with the rise of the homo agenda and because fruitkins tends to be neo-aristocratic, PC itself has taken on ironic tones, which is why PC is appealing to British elites with good education than to the masses. There is dogmatic PC for the masses and there is haughty PC peppered with irony for the more ‘sophisticated’ types who get off on stuff like Stephen Colbert and BBC comedies. Besides, irony wasn’t only used for satire against power and privilege but as satire by the power and privilege to look down on the dumb unwashed masses. So, to the extent that PC makes the British elites feel oh-so-snobbily superior to the bigoted and uncouth masses, it too has become a form of neo-aristocraticism. Ironically, the privileged and powerful elites use PC to browbeat the unprivileged and powerless masses into accepting the dogma of ‘equality’. This sounds counterintuitive the privileged are using the PC dogma of ‘equality’ to lecture the unprivileged, but then, the Christian social order had been the same stunt for over a thousand years. And communist elites did it too. But the dogma of equality itself isn’t foolproof enough for the Jewish globo-elites since fight for equality can join forces with majority homogeneity to usurp the power of the ultra-privileged minority, which usually happens to consist of Jews in the West. So, Jews have put ‘diversity’ above ‘equality’ as the highest good. Thus, if UK is filled with non-whites, the white majority cannot move against the Jewish elites in the name of anti-PC or even PC ideal of ‘equality’. After all, homogeneous communist nations committed to the ideology of equality easily overthrew the power of the Jewish elites. So, Jews see the cult of Diversity as their main weapon against goyim.
 |
| Diversity in London - Jews hate Muslims but they love how Muslims cause problems for White Goyim of Britain. |
 |
| Jew-Fruit Balloon ain't no iron ball. |
Indeed, this is true even among most white Conservatives. If you tell them that Jews are behind Obama, the homo agenda, anti-white ideology, and etc, they accuse you of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘hating Jews’. White Liberals are ass-kissers of Jews, and white Conservatives are ass-lickers of Jews. If anything, white Conservatives lick Jewish ass to impress Jews with their utmost loyalty to the Jewish cause. The crazy logic goes, maybe if white Conservatives act servile before Jews, maybe Jews will forget that anti-Jewishness had traditionally been far more vocal on the Right. Of course, there’s some wink-wink signaling going on here. When white Conservatives act as lapdogs to Jews, they are hinting, wink-wink, that Jews should support white Conservative nationalism since white Conservative now go out of their way to support Jewish nationalism. "We’ll help you bash and oppress the Palestinians, so, in turn, you Jews side with us against blacks, browns, and yellows." Of course, no white Conservative dares to put his agenda in those terms, but, wink-wink, that’s what it’s all about. White Conservatives will even side with Jews against white gentiles in other nations, especially Russia.
In the case of Hitler, he was so dangerous that it was understandable why Winston Churchill chose to take a stand even though Hitler was a fellow white gentile. But in the case of Vladimir Putin, all this white rabid Conservative barking is downright looney tunes. It’s really only to win the support of Jews. White Conservatives evidently think that if they go out of their way to help Jews take over Ukraine and then Russia, Jews will finally come around to siding with white Conservatives in the Wet. Such notion is no less fantastic than Karl Rove and Jeb Bush’s great idear that if the GOP supports amnesty-for-all-illegals and expands ‘affirmative action’ for browns — at the expense of whites, of course — , great numbers of browns will finally come around to voting for the GOP. Jews must be laughing at all these white Conservative dummies who seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome.
 |
| Craven WASP whores of Zion. |
When Jews were still making the climb, they needed to rouse up the masses against the Wasp elites. So, Jews were on the side of mass power, mass rebellion, mass ruckus, mass rage, and etc., at least selectively, as even Jews in the past feared white racial rage and white populist anti-communism. But now that Jews are on the top, they don’t trust People Power anymore. They are totally into elite power and seek to maximize their elite power ever more. The dumb and hapless GOP is a perfect foil for the Jews. Since the GOP always falls for the bait and is willing to play the role of the Party of the Rich, the Successful, and the Powerful, the Liberal elite Jews can scapegoat the ‘party of privileged white males’ for the problems of inequality and privilege in this country. As long as the GOP rhetorically and politically privileges the elites — most of whom are Liberals(and even Republic elites tend to be Social Liberals into garbage like ‘gay marriage’, as is the case with the loathsome Koch Brothers) — , the elites will use the GOP as willing scapegoat for all the ills and wrongs of privilege and inequality. So, GOP will go on championing the super-rich and calling for lower taxes. Meanwhile, the Liberal super-rich(who keep getting richer and richer)will say it’s the GOP’s fault that there’s so much inequality in America and make a big stink about it’s a moral imperative to support the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton who are for ‘equality’. Of course, Obama and Hillary are shills for the super-rich Jews too, but as long as the GOP is willing to play the foil of villain as the ‘party of the rich’, the problems of inequality can conveniently be dumped on the ‘greedy’ GOP.
Democratic Party has become the party of minorities, especially Jews, homos, blacks, browns, and yellows. That being the case, you’d expect the GOP to be party of the white majority, but it has come under the power of Neo-cons(or Zio-cons) who also direct Republican policy to serve minority interests, especially those of ultra-Zionist Jews. So, even when the party of the white majority bends over for elite minority interests, who speaks for the white middle? And since the white middle also has been PC-lobotomized, where’s the guarantee that white folks will stand up for their own rights? After all, even hard-conservative Ann Coulter always couches racial issues in terms of ‘GOP is actually better for blacks’ and ‘we Republicans love Jews more than Democrats do’, which is funny since the Democratic Party is totally run by Jews.
 |
| When will Ann Coulter stop sucking up to Jews? Of course if she did, her career would be ruined. |
Jews are similar. Jews came to rely on feeding on the big goyim. Jews watched as gentile elites oppressed gentile masses or as gentile nations fought and conquered other gentile nations. Jews had a sly eye for big predators going after big prey or fighting other big predators. And Jews figured they’d get in on the action and steal as much as possible from the competition and conflict among the big powers. (Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic skills have been very jackal-like.) Of course, all nations and peoples employ such a strategy at times, but Jews or Jewkals became world-experts at it because they, for so long, didn’t have a nation of their own and had to depend on ‘jackaling’ among the bigger predators and bigger prey. Like jackals, Jews stood back while the big goyim struggled against one another and then pounced when they could run off with their own loot. Over time, Jewkals got so smart at it that they mastered how to tame and control the big predators and prey among the goyim. Imagine if real jackals in nature became so smart that they could control the behaviors of lions, hyenas, African hunting dogs, buffalo, wildebeest, zebras, and etc. It’d be an awesome kind of power, and such is the kind of power that Jews have over the goy populations. At one time, Jews had little control over the goyim and could only hope to feed on the left-overs or a choice morsel here and there, as jackals do in nature. But over time, Jews came to control the gentile world and grabbed the prime cuts for themselves and handed the leftovers to the goyim. It’d be like a pride of lions bringing down a huge buffalo at the behest of the jackal and then stepping aside while the jackal and its tribe sat down to devour the meat first, leaving the scraps for the lions and hyenas. Such is unimaginable in nature, but it’s all too real in the political landscape of the West. Jews make white goyim fight wars in the Middle East. Jews make Slavs fight Slavs in the Ukraine. Jews make American Christians hate Iranians. Jews make Americans send billions every year to Israel so that Jews can use American money and weaponry to crush the Palestinians. Most of the killing and dying is done by gentile populations of big nations, but Jews grab most of the prizes. What did American gentiles get from the Iraq War? Nothing. What did Iraqis get? Nothing. As for Iraqi Christians, their fate has been totally tragic. And what of the over 100,000 Iraqis who were killed since the invasion? And what of the tens of thousands of American casualties killed, maimed, or driven to suicide, almost none of whom were Jewish? They got nothing out of it. But Israel is so happy that Saddam Hussein is gone, and that Iraq will never rise again as a regional power as it’s caught up in an endless spiral of ‘civil war’. I wonder if Neocons or Ziocons(and their Liberal Jewish enablers in the media) really wanted to see a successful democracy take hold in Iraq. Maybe they wanted the American ‘nation-building’ efforts to fail so that Iraq will be divided and at war forever. After all, if a prosperous democratic Iraq were to rise, there’s no guarantee that it will hate Iran, side with the US, and be friendly with Israel. So, just why not have Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, and others fight one another forever? This is how Jews play the game. Of course, Jews didn’t create the various root tensions around the world. Just like Protestants and Catholics bashed one another for a long time, there are real sectarian/ethnic divisions in the Middle East. And there is bad blood between certain westward-looking Ukrainians and Russian Ukrainians. Even so, things would not have gotten so out-of-hand if not for Jewish meddling. It’s like the Five Families in THE GODFATHER were getting along in relative peace until Barzini caused a rift by secretly backing Sollozzo ‘the Turk’ to move against the Corleones. Jews love intrigue as long as it stirs up trouble and causes divisions among their gentile enemies/rivals/competitors while boosting their own power. How would Jews like it if some foreign power manipulated politics in Israel so that nasty divisions will arise among Jews of different nationalities or between Sephardim Jews and Ashkenazi Jews? Jews like to maintain control over their own affairs. They see it as family business and demand that they handle and clean their own dirty laundry. But Jews are always interfering in the affairs of gentile communities and nations to cause rifts among gentile populations. So, Jews try to turn white gentile women against white gentile men. Jews try to provoke problems among various Asian nations as they have among various Arab peoples.
That’s what all this ‘pivot strategy’ is all about. Jews try to sow seeds of discord within Russia and between Russia and its neighboring nations. Jews can’t tolerate any other people meddling in their own Jewish affairs, but they are committed to turning goyim against goyim whenever and wherever possible. Indeed, even the EU system that the Jews support isn’t so much unity as disunity. Some might see the EU project as the coming together of various European peoples into one people, i.e. a hope for the peaceful co-existence of all Europeans. On the surface, such is the stated agenda, but look underneath and the EU project has created many divisions and tensions among Europeans who feel slighted, left out, and bullied. With so many nations in the EU, true unity is impossible, which is why there’s so much bickering. Jews love to see such discord among gentiles. Furthermore, as EU cannot come together, Jews manipulate it from all sides and try to foist certain rules and policies upon the EU that will only increase discord and tensions while maximizing Jewish control over all of Europe. Consider how Jews pushed laws in the EU that have effectively banned speech that is harshly critical of Jewish power. Indeed, if there’s one thing that is supposed to unte all of Europe, it’s worship of the Holocaust, collective guilt in regard to Jews, self-loathing of Europeans as ‘racist’, and mania for ‘diversity’. (Paradoxically, Europe is supposed to be united in supporting the policy of ‘diversity’ that only causes more divisions among goy populations.) Through control of the EU, Jews seek to force Open Borders policies on all European nations, and not only Open Borders among Europeans but between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Thus, EU isn’t about really about EUROPEAN Union but the union of Europe with Africa and the Middle East. Even if the EU doesn’t allow African and Middle East nations into EU membership, the EU cult of ‘diversity’ and ‘open borders’ will effectively force every European nation to accept huge numbers of immigrants, invaders, and ‘refugees’ from outside Europe, and that means Europe will be destroyed demographically. With all the hip hop music, Afro-pop music, black domination of European sports, and the rise of interracial Afro-Euro porn, millions of white women will be encourage to have Obama-babies. After all, if a million black African men come to Europe, it will mean the arrival of a million black penises searching out for white poons. It might as well be called a 100 Million Black Dicks Project. As immigrants and migrants often happen to be men, they seek out native white women for sex. As for immigrant women, they have many more children than native white women. It’s a horror show that is unfolding in Europe due to Jewish influence, and yet, the #1 priority of Europeans is to suck up to Jews and destroy Russia. White race, a total disgrace. Anyway, as European men have been castrated & pussified and as European women have been ‘liberated’ from their roles as wives/mothers, many will prefer to adopt some black African baby than produce and raise their own kids. Thus, the Rape of Europe will be complete. At least when Russians raped German women during WWII, it was whites raping whites. The future of Europe will be the mass rape — willing or unwilling — of the white race at the hands of black Africans, and Jews are, of course, rubbing their hands and cackling with glee. Just like the indigenous populations of the New World were raped and miscegenated into mestizo-ness or mulatto-ness, whites in Europe will become mulatto-ized and Arab-ized in the coming decades. Jews have devised the system to work in that manner. If the EU project among Europeans has caused so many tensions within Europe itself, imagine the bigger headache as Europe is essentially merged demographically with Africa and the Middle East. But Jews love it since they wank off to goy-vs-goy porn. And since every European nation cares more about Jews than about themselves — indeed they feel great guilt in having persecuted Jews and take great pride in doing favors for Jews(as if one’s virtues and evils can be properly gauged only in relation to Jews) — , it will do its best to embrace its own racial/cultural demise with the consolation that, at the very least, the Jews are pleased. In the EU today, the toppermost morality goes as follows: If you do something that displeases Jews, you are a terrible person. But if you do something that pleases Jews, you’re alright. Jews might as well be the god of Europe.
It’s also difficult for European nations to say NO to the EU agenda because, despite their anxieties about the future, their national economies now depend on the EU. Greeks may not like the EU, but who’s going to bail them out? Many people in Poland harbor doubts about the EU, but they’ve come to depend on EU markets and monetary policies. So, each European nation must sell its soul and prostitute its daughter to Jews and Africans in order to have fancy cake than just bread. Jews say, "Let them eat cake and hand over their daughters to be defiled by us Jews and Negroes." So, EU should never be seen as the coming together of Europe. Jews push ‘unity’ to instigate more disunity(among goyim so that Jews could exploit the divisions). EU has essentially become a Jewish Imperium. Of course, the union of European nations might have developed differently — Hitler had his own vision of European unity, one as unpleasant as the Jewish one — , but the combination of Jewish control of the US, the cult of the holy Holocaust, and Jewish control of global finance made the control of EU slip out of European hands into the hands of dirty devious Jews. Jews use EU because they can push Judeo-centric political correctness through EU networks. So, even Poland has come under massive homo propaganda. As part of the EU, it has to bend over to the homo cabal. And it won’t be long before Poland too is flooded with Africans and Muslims. Jews control the EU like the Turks controlled the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial structure gives Jews immense power over the various Europeans. And just like imperialist overlords used divide-and-rule strategy to keep their diverse subjects at each other’s throats, Jews do the same throughout EU. Jews love to see Greeks, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Poles, and etc. all bitterly going at one another. And Jews love to see whites, blacks, Muslims, Asians, and etc. all accuse one another in every corner of Europe that is becoming ever more diverse. Amusingly enough, Jews side with non-white minorities against white majorities but also encourage whites to raise alarms about how poor helpless Jews must be protected from those Muslims and Africans. Jewish logic: "You whites are racist and Nazi-like if you don’t allow millions of Muslims and Africans into your nations, and you whites are antisemitic and Nazi-like if you don’t take measures to protect us wonderful Jews from those hateful Muslims and violent Africans." The fact that so many whites fall for this nonsense doesn’t do much to reassure our faith in mankind.
 |
| One positive outcome of immigration to Europe: Arabs and Africans kicking Jewish ass. |
We could argue Islam is more honest in what it preaches because, after all, much of Christian conversions also came about under the threat of the sword. But, it also means that Muslims are less likely to be reflective and remorseful about the horrors they’ve committed.
When Christians think back on the terror of the Teutonic Knights or the atrocities committed in the Crusades, they feel shame than pride.
But, white folks always dreamed of the Noble Negro. In many cases, those who dreamt most of such nonsense had very little contact with black reality. Harriet Beecher Stowe was a Northern woman and didn’t know a lot of Negroes face-to-face. She cooked up a mythic Negro in her pea-sized brain. And when we watch the Morgan Freeman Noble Negro BS in movies like SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, we know the people who wrote and directed it had very little contact with Real blacks(or maybe they did and that’s way they served up racial pablum that would put moviegoers at ease since movies are a form of escapism).. The most honest look at real blackness prevailed in the 1970s and late 80s and 90s. In the late 60s and 70s, blacks rebelled against the notion of the Uncle Tom Negro, and therefore, Hollywood produced some movies with more grit and realism about black social reality. And the rise of rap music and black film-making beginning with Spike Lee opened the door for more realistic depiction of black American life. In contrast, during much of the 80s, the Negro was simply the funny guy or the sidekick. Now, with the rise of Oprah and Obama cults, we are back to pushing the Noble Negro myth.
Anyway, true morality and conscience requires empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, emotional maturity, and critical thinking. The problem isn’t only that black generally have lower IQs but their emotional makeup tends to be extremely self-centered. If Chinese collectively thought of themselves as the Middle Kingdom and if Jews collectively saw themselves as the Chosen of God, each Negro and every Negress done think he or she be the center of the entire damn universe. Every Negro done think he be some ultra-badass mofo. Every Negress done think she be some hot mama who done deserve all the respect in the world and who done think she be the one to be telling others what to think. Take that stupid and trashy Michelle Obama. An ‘affirmative action’ queen with barely two neurons in her brains, had she any emotional sense, she would know her real place in the order of things. But since she be some nasty-ass black ho who done think she knows everything and done demand, she act like a nasty bitch with everyone. Deep down inside, she must know she a dumb ho. She must know everyone at Princeton and Harvard was smarter than her. But her nasty-ass black bitch ego simply cannot face the music. Instead, she acts like she really is something special, and that it be other people’s fault that all she wanna do not be getting done. Damn honkey biatches be standing in her way! Shoo! Michelle is like many Negresses who be undergoing the Negro-claustrophobia syndrome. The real Negress side of her wants to howl like gorilla, shake her booty like some skankass ho, scream like a baboon, and move her neck around like a crazy chicken. But she went to elite schools and was told that she’s a real achiever. And she was surrounded by whites, Asians, Jews, and homos who were a lot smarter than her. So, she tried to prove that she is indeed one of them too, ie she too is intellectual, she too is academic, she too is brainy, she too is ‘serious’. But in truth, she’s a faker because her mind is, at best, is B-material. If not for ‘affirmative action’, she would have been lucky to enter a public university. So, she tries so hard to be taken seriously, but the fact is she really wants to holler and shake her big-ass booty like a skankass ho. But since her hubby is a ‘historic president’, she has to play it respectable. But, we can see it in her facial expressions and tell by her body gestures and the strained voice that she feels straitjacketed in whiteness. She has to ‘act white’ but doesn’t feel natural doing it. She wants to holler like an ape, swing from trees, and shake her big-ass booty.
It’s because black forcefulness has been re-jiggered by the media and academia as not being forcefulness-for-forcefulness sake but a source of spiritual wisdom and a product of unparalleled historical pain. But if great historical pain leads to such forcefulness, how come we don’t find such loud gorillian-types among South American Indians or Cambodian refugees?
In truth, black brashness and forcefulness are really the product of black genetics and should be regarded as such. One can admire or despise such qualities, but they aren’t the moral/spiritual product of history. Of course, black expressions convey a certain historical baggage, but it would be fallacious to conflate black emotional aggressiveness and moral righteousness as the same thing. In truth, blacks would be emotionally just as aggressive and wild EVEN IF slavery and imperialism under whites had never happened. It’s simply in their genes. But because of the cult of ‘white guilt’, white Liberals and Jews who control the media and academia have tried to explain the nature of black forcefulness in relation to white ‘historical guilt’. (In truth, the black nature was forged through 100,000s of yrs of evolution steeped in tribal mayhem and violence in Sub-Saharan Africa.) Since black rage has become associated so closely with black righteousness, there developed the silly notion that black forcefulness is a form of moralism in and of itself. So, even when worthless rappers, black demagogues, or black thugs howl with rage, plenty of white Liberals regard it as an outpouring of powerful morality. At its most ridiculous, black forcefulness and aggressiveness aren’t merely conflated with moral passion but with reason/logic itself, which may explain why idiot black students have been winning some collegiate debating contests. These Negro contestants are expected to employ logic or rational argument. All they need do is make a lot of noise, say a lot of gibberish, and act like gorillas. The white Liberal fallacy that conflates black powerfulness(in personality and antics), black rage, and black morality as the one and the same thing easily falls for such tomfoolery.
Such mind-set makes a similar argument for outright black thuggery as well, which is why white Liberals have been so desperate to rationalize black crime and thuggery in terms of righteous black rage. When blacks were going nuts in the 60s and 70s, plenty of white Liberals said it was righteous and understandable rage at the System that had kept blacks down for too long. Now, there was some degree of truth to this. When a people have long been oppressed and suppressed, there are gonna be outbreaks of violence when the pressure is finally released. All ‘liberation’ struggles saw outbreaks of violence that accompanied dramatic social/political shifts. And it would be disingenuous for whites to deny this since there had been plenty of white riots during key moments of crises. And in India and China today, there are plenty of populist protests, even riots. So, there was some validity to the idea in the 60s and 70s that black violence should be understood within the social, economic, and cultural context of the black experience instead of simply being condemned as blacks-acting-crazy. Of course, some lowdown leftists added gas to the flames and encouraged blacks to act even crazier in order to bring down the System. But there were lots of white Liberals who were sincere in their desire to understand blacks better and come to terms with historical of racial discrimination that had been real enough. (Of course, Jews taking a leading position in this ‘struggle’ was an easy way to absolve themselves of the blame that they’d been just as discriminatory against and exploitative of blacks as any other white group had been. If anything, more than most other ethnic groups, Jewish agents and managers fleeced Jews in sports and entertainment and hoarded the loot for themselves. By funding and leading the Civil Rights Movement, Jews could maintain their sweet deals with black entertainers & athletes, and sweep under the rug the historical fact that Jews had greatly profited from black talents without giving blacks their financial due. In fact, Jews in sports and entertainment have long had the attitudes and mentality of someone like Donald Sterling. Jews might call it ‘plantation economics’ or ‘plantation politics’, but Jews have treated gentiles like this all over the world. Just ask Russians and Palestinians. Just look at ourselves as Jews on Wall Street and Las Vegas fleece us left and right.) If indeed, blacks were merely whites with black skin, white Liberal socio-political diagnosis might have been proven correct. After all, who can deny that blacks were given the shorter end of the stick through most of American history? And surely, one can understand how it was hurtful for blacks to be denigrated on so many levels of a white-dominated society. So, with improved conditions and more effort on the part of whites, things might have improved a great deal in race relations between blacks and whites. But as it turned out, blacks aren’t simply white folks with black skin. By nature, they are a different race. They are biologically stronger, more aggressive, wilder, funkier, ape-like, punkass, and jigger-jiver-ish, and this was really the product of 100,000 yrs of evolution in Africa than 250 yrs of servitude in America. And black genetics were more the product of competition with lions, hyenas, leopards, hippos, elephants, crocodiles, baboons, tse-tse-flies, and etc. than of oppression under white massuhs. Africa was filled with so many dangerous animals that weak and nice Negroes got weeded out. Stronger blacks survived to chuck spears at hippos for dinner. If the spear missed and if a hippo ran after a Negro, he had to run like a ‘mothafuc*a’. And black women had to compete with baboons for gopher-meat, and that meant black women had to be wild-assed and jumpy-assed. And since it was hot and wild in Africa, blacks had nothing to do but shake their booties and swing their dongs all night long, which is why blacks are so booty-crazy.
 |
| Dang! |
 |
| Uncle Tom, the Noble and Tame Negro. But who tamed him? And what would he have been like without the taiming? |
At any rate, black victimology is morally worthless since blacks are only capable of seeing themselves as victims. With many blacks, such lack of moral empathy and imagination is due to their low IQ, but it’s not just a matter of intelligence but temperament, as indeed smart blacks are just as lacking in reflectiveness as the dumb ones are. Also, it’s not true that intelligence = bigger heart. Adolf Hitler was a smart guy but empty of heart and soul. Plenty of Jews are very smart but utterly lacking in any moral consideration beyond ‘what is good for the Jews?’ In contrast, plenty of dumb people are full of good will and remorse. Like dogs, some dumb folks even feel guilty for things they didn’t even do. The real problem with blacks is their temperament. Having evolved as warriors and warrioresses against lions, hyenas, baboons, and other nasty Negro tribes, blacks FEEL in terms of ‘my ass than your punkass!’ So, even though it is true enough that blacks had been done wrong in the American past, it’s impossible to come to any mutual understanding with them since they can only think and feel in terms of "FUC* YOU HONKEY, GIMME MO AND MO AND MO AND MO!" All this reparations thing isn’t about historical justice. It’s about blacks wanting something for free since it’s in their nature to demand and demand and demand. They be like childish apes who want free bananas forever. Black morality can never be universalist. It’s only about blacks. But don’t expect blacks to care about other blacks. Whenever blacks talk about ‘racial justice’, they really men they-selves or ‘me, me, me’. Black leaders will cheat and rob other blacks just for their own self-aggrandizement. Blacks scream ‘black, black, black’, but it all comes down to ‘I, me, mine’, and in this sense, blacks are as self-centered as chimpanzees. It’s only natural that rap music has become THE cultural expression of the black community. Though called ‘black music’, it’s really ‘black-and-me music’, what with every rapper yammering about HE is the ultimate badass rap thug. (Attitude goes a long way, and the prevailing attitude among black youths steeped in rap culture is that they know everything simply because they be so badass. They can’t even be bothered to pull their pants up and cover their underwear, they can’t even be bothered to attend school regularly and do their homework, and they can’t even be bothered to learn to appreciate culture outside the black community — unless it’s stupid video games and dumb blockbuster Hollywood movies — , but they think they know everything. The world is rich with art, history, literature, and diversity, and one requires the proper attitude of curiosity, humility, reverence, and appreciation to learn something about peoples and cultures, but the attitude behind rap is "I be the center of the universe cuz I can spout off foul-mouthed nursery rhymes and dis everybody and everything as ‘punkass’." How can a culture grow and expand with such a rotten attitude? Unfortunately, this poisonous rap attitude is spreading around the world, encouraging young people to see the world in terms of pimps and whores and disregard and dismiss everything that isn’t ‘badass’.) Indeed, a lot of blacks are so busy insulting and whupping one another that they got no time for anything else.
Blacks are especially immoral these days since their worst natural instincts are openly encouraged. Black pathology has been made synonymous with black morality. As a result, blacks think acting crazy, nasty, unpleasant, vicious, vile, and hateful is moral. If Germans act like Hitler, that would be evil, but if blacks act like Hitler, that would be seen as wonderful. This is especially dangerous since blacks are, by nature, unreflective, childish, self-centered, and vicious. If you encourage blacks to act in such manner and then excuse and even elevate such behavior as ‘radical’ or ‘authentic’, blacks will become even more difficult to deal with. And of course, this is why Liberals, for all their PC yammering about ‘racial justice’, opted to support policies that imprisoned lots of Negroes and/or gentrically cleansed blacks out of huge swaths of big cities. Though things were certainly more unfair for blacks in the past, one positive thing about past discrimination was it discouraged the worst instincts of blacks. Forced to restrain their lusts and viciousness and pressured to prove themselves as ‘credit to their race’, blacks felt compelled to go against their natural propensity for self-righteous and self-aggrandizing jivery. They were forced to be somewhat reflective, and this gave rise to such men as Booker T. Washington. Even when black leaders, intellectuals, and artists rejected white pressures, they still felt they needed to make their cases in a serious, intelligent, mature, and dignified manner, which is why black culture produced men like W.E.B Du Bois, Langston Hughes, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, and etc. It’s like the last thing a natural alcoholic needs is to be encouraged to drink more and praised for his drunkenness. Today, Afroholics are drunk on their jungle charisma and charlatan rapper hyperbole.
Higher morality is neither conservative nor liberal. It is individualist, though one mustn’t fall into the fallacy of thinking something is more moral simply because it’s individualistically contrarian. One can be independent-minded and still be wrong about everything. One can go with herd-mentality & herd-morality and still be closer to the truth. If an independent-minded person argues that murder is good whereas a herd-minded person just goes along with the conventional morality that murder is bad, who has more sense? Even so, an independent-minded person still processes facts, data, stimuli, ideas, and values through his conscious will and arrives at a conclusion by the way of personal introspection and reflection. A herd-minded person just goes along with whatever happens to be the Truth of the Moment. Therefore, an independent-minded person at least has the ability to think of good vs bad on his or her own terms whereas the herd-minded person is totally at the mercy of the elites, powers-that-be, and/or the rowdy mob that reinforces peer pressure and peer passion.
Sometimes, the herd-minded person may appear to be independent for reasons of historical accident. So, a herd-minded Liberal may think he or she is free-thinking because his or her views are at odds with the mainstream. When ‘gay marriage’ was favored by only a few, many Liberals who supported the radical homo agenda surely felt this way. Since they sided with a minority view, they could fool themselves that they were free-thinkers who rose above the fray. But more likely, most proponents of ‘gay marriage’ even back when it was a laughable notion — indeed even among many homos — were merely goose-stepping mind-goons of homomaniacal political correctness that was drummed into their silly heads by ‘radical’ professors in the academia and trashy/shallow celebrities in the mass media(run by Jews). There are plenty of minority positions that have nothing to do with independent thought. The hippie movement never came close to winning over the majority of young people in the 60s and 70s, and it prided itself on being the ‘counter-culture’. But most hippies were mindless pothead conformists who were into being ‘groovy’ and ‘far out’. Listen to the interviews with attendees of the concert in WOODSTOCK the movie, and they seem to speak the same kind of lingo.
Of course, Conservatives can make the same mistake. As ‘gay marriage’ becomes the law of the land thanks to the Jewish-homo or Jomo cabal, more and more Conservatives are finding themselves to be in the minority and on the ‘wrong side of history’. Since they choose to stick with their ideals and values against the prevailing winds, they see themselves as free-thinkers who stick up for independent-minded principles. But more often than not, what most Conservatives espouse and believe in has little to do with independent thought. Their positions are herd-mentality positions that were once the dominant views of society. It just so happens that society changes(according to the wishes of the elites and their brainwashed mobs), and one herd-mentality overtakes another herd-mentality. So, the rise of ‘gay marriage’ and Conservative resistance are both cases of herd-mentality, even thought latter makes sense whereas the former doesn’t at all. Though there are relatively independent-minded thinkers on both sides, most ‘gay marriage’ proponents are herd-minded dupes, and most opponents of the homo agenda are Conservatives with a knee-jerk resistance to anything new and different.
However, since most Conservatives are herd-minded, they can gradually be brought over to accept the ‘new normal’, for which they will then become the most vociferous champions. If one day, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin argue that ‘gay marriage’ is a very Conservative idea, then most herd-minded Conservatives will go along or offer at most meek/silent resistance. The reason why so many Conservatives have been won over to Jew-worship, MLK-worship, Oprah-worship, interracism, open borders, libertarian tomfoolery, and even ‘gay marriage’ is because most of them are intrinsically herd-minded.
And of course, both the Liberal elites and Conservative elites prefer the herd-minds over the independent-minds since sheep are much easier to control than lone wolves. And herd-mentality is especially favored by Jews — who run both American Liberalism and American Conservatism — since they comprise the elites and seek to manipulate the goy masses who are incapable of thinking independently. If goy herds really began to think about reality, their thoughts would lead to the obvious questions as to "why do Jews have so much power, and why do they bitch and whine about ‘white privilege’ when they got the most power and privilege?"
There was a time when many Jews were indeed for independent-minded thinking. When the elites were goyim — Wasp in America — and when herd-mentality used to be knee-jerkedly ‘racist’ and suspicious of Jews(if not outright antisemitic), Jews favored independent-minded thinkers since their views and expressions infused the culture-at-large with elements of doubt, skepticism, contrarian-ism, and dissidence. It meant the encouragement of speaking truth to power against both the gentile elites and the gentile mobs.
Currently however, we have a situation where Jewish elites sit atop the throne(with gentile elites sucking their toes) and look down with derision at the gentile mobs. The last thing that the Jasp(Jewish-Ashkenazi Supremacist Power) elites want is for gentiles to think independently because, after all, independent-minded people will begin to notice or know-tice things of an ‘inconvenient’ nature. So, instead of aiding us to see the truth about the nature of Jewish power, the Jasp elites saturate the media with nonsense about homos and transgender this or that. But most Conservatives are just as useless as the Liberals. For one thing, the so-called Conservative elites are totally bought and sold by Jewish bidders and scared shitless of their Jewish masters. As for most Conservative masses, their main worry seems to be all those Mooslims, all those Russkies, and all those Ching Chong Chinese when the most powerful enemies/destroyers of conservatives and the white race are the freaking hideous Jews. Many Conservatives are so retarded that their main shtick is that they are the truest opponents of ‘racism’ when a true conservative would, instead, question the very notion of such a concept as ‘racism’(and ‘homophobia’). Dumb Conservatives protest, "We are not racist" and "We are not homophobic" instead of demonstrating that ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ are both bogus terms and dirty Jewish distortion of language and truth. As long as Conservatives play by Liberal rules of terminology and narrative, they are bound to lose. All they’re doing is trying to prove that they themselves are even ‘more liberal’ than Liberals. Indeed, when the main argument of Conservatism is that it is more truly ‘liberal’ than Liberalism, what’s the point? It’s like the unwitting conundrum into which Jack Torrance falls into in THE SHINING by Stanley Kubrick. At one point, he becomes skeptical of Lloyd the bartender and demands to know who is paying for his drinks. Later in the washroom, he accuses Delbert Grady of having killed his own family. In both cases, he’s being defiant, argumentative, and defensive of his egotistical turf. But it doesn’t matter. He can’t win because, defiant or not, he has accepted the ‘reality’ of the phantom realm that has come to engulf his consciousness. The only true/effective form of resistance would be to remind himself that there are no ghosts, and there’s only reality. But once he falls into the ghost world, he can argue with ghosts all he wants. It won’t do him any good. His very arguing with ghosts implies that he has accepted the ‘reality’ of the ghost world. So, it’s only a matter of time before the ghosts turn him to serve their agenda. Likewise, as long as Conservatives invoke the narrative and terminology put forth by Jewish Liberals, their ‘conservatism’ can be toyed with and remolded by Liberal mind-benders. (Incidentally, could THE SHINING’s mountain setting be an allusion to all those German Mountain Films loved by the German Right and Hitler? Leni Riefenstahl certainly got her start in mountain films. In some ways, THE SHINING is like a combination of Kafka and Riefenstahl. Nuremberg Maze. And maybe there’s a kind of reference to Hitler’s mountain home Berghof. And maybe an allusion to MAGIC MOUNTAIN by Thomas Mann as well? And the scene near the end where Jack stalks Danny with an ax in the hallway likely inspired a few things in JURASSIC PARK where a raptor stalks the two kids who hide in the kitchen. JURASSIC PARK is kinda like a Kubrick film for kiddies.)
 |
| Defiance after Acceptance is Futile |
 |
| Skepticism under Hypnosis is Useless |
(East Asian traits can also be recognized to some extent on the natives of the Americas since they migrated from Asia in the past 10,000 to 20,000 yrs). By surveying nations like China, Japan, Taiwan, the Koreas, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam, it appears that East Asians tend to be group-minded than individual-minded. If blacks can’t think in terms of universal morality because every Negro and Negress be so much into ‘me, me, me’, many Asians(and natives of the Americas) fail in the area of universal morality because they are so much into ‘we, we, we’. Of course, ‘we mentality’ among Asians doesn’t necessarily mean that they only stick with their own kind. In Asia, most Asians may be slavish and conformist toward Asian standards, but the ‘we mentality’ tends to be malleable and adaptive to whomever and whatever controls the standards of the ‘we’. If indeed Asians were into ‘we Asian’ mentality, we would not see so many Asian girls going with non-Asian men. In America, the ‘we’ is defined in terms of whiteness and blackness, so lots of yellows try to conform the American ‘we’ ideal. So, even when yellows sign onto universal morality — such as Christianity, liberalism, communism, multi-culturalism, diversity cultism, egalitarianism, anti-‘racism’, or etc. — , most of them seem to be just conforming to the new ‘we’-ism of non-Asian foreign lands. (Back in Asia, Asians didn’t need to struggle to survive as Asians since they were Asians in an Asian world. They were Asian-in-Asia by default. So, the ethno-cultural survival skills of Asians have only been tested recently outside the East, and it seems most Asians away from their native homelands simply meld and fade into the ‘new we’ world of the non-West. Consider how Japanese-Americans are simply fading away into the American racial melting pot as the supply of new immigrants from Japan has dried up. In contrast, Jews have proven their mettle as ethno-cultural survivors because they’ve survived for 1000's of years outside their own homeland. Throughout human history, there’s been a tendency of women to go with the men of the winning tribe/race. As yellow women see non-Asian men as the real winners in the West, many of them flock to white men, Jewish men, and even black men. As Asian men are seen as ‘loser geeks’, many yellow women are ashamed to be associated with them. In contrast, Jews long ago developed a cultural mind-set and practice whereby Jewish women were bound to go with Jewish men even when Jewish men were losers. According to Jewish laws, even when Jews lost wars to other tribes, the puds of Jewish men were the true champions because they’d been blessed by God through the Covenant. So, Jewish women got the idea that even loser Jewish men had champion puds, and that kept the tribe together even in non-Jewish lands over thousands of years. Of course, many secular Jews do marry outside the community, but Orthodox Jews continue to emphasize and practice the custom of Jewish pud mating with the Jewish poon as a sacred rule. No such mentality exists among East Asians though it does exist to some degree among South Asians.) Whatever one thinks of Buddhism or Eastern mysticism, when certain Westerners adopted their tenets, they did so as individual seekers of higher spiritual truth and enlightenment. But when we see all those Chinese and Koreans convert to Christianity, it seems like herd-mentality at work. It’s not happening at the individual-initiative level. Though herd-mentality is usually associated with conservatism and reaction, it is just as useful for ‘progress’ and revolution. If Chinese weren’t so herd-minded, Mao Zedong would have had a much more difficult time persuading most Chinese to sign onto the New Order(or Disorder). Even the authoritarian-minded Slavs offered some stiff resistance to Stalin’s radical drive to collectivize agriculture, but so many Chinese mindlessly went along with Mao’s even more harebrained Great Leap Forward. Herd-mentality is a boon for both ultra-reaction and ultra-revolution since it’s the mindless who just go along with whatever is old or whatever is new.
 |
| Great Leap Forward - Herd Mentality at Work |
To be sure, the aura of majority matters less to Asians than the aura of authority. As Asian society has been very hierarchical and status-conscious, Asian conformism has been less about conforming to masses than aping the elites. This explains why so many yellows drifted to Liberalism even when majority of Americans held conservative views. Since the elites are overwhelmingly Liberal, yellows want to emulate and be approved by the ‘best and the brightest(and also the richest)’. The positive aspect of East Asian cultural attitude is that respect for education and striving for success have been universalized among their kind. Yellows, instead of looking horizontally at the masses that constitute most people, fix their gaze upwards at the best-educated, most successful, most respected, and/or most wealthy. So, they push their children to rise higher for self-respect and even for family honor(or bragging rights).
 |
| Me so greedy, me so greedy. |
To be sure, this is true of all peoples to some extent. After all, when we ponder the fate of white folks today in the US and EU, they seem to be ‘turning Japanese’ in their slavish cravenness toward Jews and even homos(and even-even trannies). Jews are so worshiped in America that if Jews say homos and trannies are their best friends, we must bend over to homos and trannies as well in order to appease the Jews. Suppose you invite a Jew to your party and you’re so very excited that the Jew will bless your house by attending, but suppose the Jew arrives with a flaming homo and ridiculous tranny and demands that they be allowed in too, or he will be so very offended. You admire and worship the Jew so very much that you dare not offend him, and so, the homo and tranny are also allowed into the party. And then the Jew, homo, and tranny begin to take over your house, and you are relegated to the dog house, but you are still so very happy since you see the Jew as the rightful master and yourself as his loyal servile dog. Indeed, when AIPAC conference rolls out the goy attendants, it’s dog show time all over again.
 |
| Sarah Palin, the worthless lap-dancing lapdog 'shikse' whore to Jews. On the other hand, a kind of idiot savant of 'antisemitism'. Because she is so universally loathed, her identification with Judaism and Zionism has given both bad press and bad name. One reason why many American Progressives fell out of favor with Israel is because Republicans like Palin beat the war drum for Jewish/Zionist power. Jews are worried about Zionism becoming smeared with Palin-ism. |
And because of the different cultural and political circumstances, evolution favored different kinds of traits among Jews and yellows. Since Jewish community favored those Jews who were most committed to their Jewishness even in non-Jewish lands, those with the most we-tribal traits were favored whereas those with the least were absorbed into gentile society. (But because even the most we-tribal-centric Jews had to do business with gentiles in order survive, evolution favored Jews with a two-faced weasel personality. And indeed today we can see this trait in so many Jews who are, at once, seemingly tolerant & adaptive to gentile society AND resolutely tribal & loyal to Jewish interests.) In contrast, yellows mostly evolved in societies where they didn’t have to work to hard to maintain their identities since they were isolated from the rest of the world and for so very long. Japan was an island nation. Korea was peninsula buttressed by China. China was protected by Himalayas and vast deserts. Even when Mongols came invading, Chinese far outnumbered and absorbed them — and besides, Mongols were yellow themselves and didn’t look all that different from the slanty-eyed Chinese. So, yellow personality is pro-yellow only in yellow-dominant lands. Outside Asia, yellows in places like America are eager to have their identities erased through intermarriage with ‘superior’ whites. Yellows prefer children with Eurasian features than Asian features. Indeed, South Korea is said to be the Plastic Surgery capital of the world. With the rise of multi-culturalism, there’s been some noise about yellow identity and yellow power, but it’s just yellows imitating political correctness as devised by Jews. If anything, the cult of ‘diversity’ encourages yellows to mate interracially with other peoples. If indeed yellows thought independently, they’d realize that Jews are their main enemies, but notice that yellows just take order from Jews and bark at ‘white racism’ on command from their Jewish overlords. It’s like what Ron Unz wrote: "...Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most Asian-American advocacy groups have kept silent on the likely existence of Asian Quotas at elite universities, thereby squandering any credibility they might have had during the contentious California debate. My own long article... quickly accumulated over 200,000 page-views while the analysis was soon widely discussed in the New York Times and numerous other prominent publications... But not a single Asian officeholder or traditional advocacy group took any notice or made any effort to hold the Ivies accountable on a matter of greatest concern to their own community... Asian elected officials or prominent activists could easily apply enormous pressure on the Ivies to release this simple data, but not a single one has chosen to do so. Such timidity is far from surprising. Most prominent Asian activists are either affiliated with universities or have close ties with individuals who are. Regularly denouncing the perceived misdeeds of ‘white supremacists’, rightwingers, or even merely Republicans is an easy position to take given that those groups possess negligible influence within the academic community. But Harvard University and its peers dominate higher education like a colossus, and leveling criticism against such targets is hardly conducive to academic career advancement. Thus Asians found in ethnic studies departments readily seek out the most obscure and insignificant examples of anti-Asian discrimination in throughout the wider world but remain totally silent about the massively visible biases in the most prestigious portions of their own academy."
Given all the yellow bitching about ‘white racism’, you’d think they’re finally standing up for themselves, but the opposite is true. They are merely kowtowing to the new master-elites the Jews. Even though Jewish elites may be discriminating against yellows at Ivy League colleges, yellows are oh-so-eager to win approval from their Jewish masters. If barking at non-existent ‘white supremacists’ will win approval from Jews, yellow dogs will bark ever louder. This is all the more amusing when it’s Jewish Hollywood that funds movies like RISING SUN and the remake of RED DAWN to fan ‘yellow peril’ fears among white goyim. So, Jews play it both ways. Make yellow dogs bark at white ‘racists’, and make white gentiles get all paranoid about them yellows. Given such slavishness among yellows, they can never be principled in universal morality rooted in individual conscience. Most yellows are incapable of individual conscience and thought, and that means no proper sense of higher right and wrong. Yellow moral sense is collectivist and ‘we-group’-oriented. If the official morality of an Asian community purports to be universalist, it’s purely a matter of accident. It’s like all those communist yellows in China, North Korea, and Vietnam didn’t arrive at communism through individual thought but through mass hysteria ignited by the new elites. So, there’s no chance of yellows challenging Jewish power in the manner that pushy-and-chutzpah-istic Jews challenged Wasp power in an earlier time. Also, because most white gentiles naturally feel closer to white Jews than to yellows, if such a challenge to Jewish power were to be posed by yellow upstarts, most white gentiles will side with ‘white’ Jews even though Jews are moving full speed ahead to wussify the white race into slave status vis-a-vis the Jews, Negroes/Mulattos, and Homos.
Yellows are as entitled to their own victim-narrative as any other people — and all peoples have it some extent, as, after all, didn’t American Conservatives just love to play poor helpless victims to all those ‘muzzies’ following 9/11? — , but their victim-narrative lacks a sense of mutuality(though not as much as those of Jews and blacks). If a people are going to declare themselves as victims in some cases, they should also be willing to acknowledge their roles as victimizers in other cases, but we don’t see or hear much of that in Asia. Only Japan has shown some remorse over World War II. But Chinese Communist Party refuses to face up to its foul deeds. And the Chinese are very nationalistic about Tibet and Uighur territories even though the Han Chinese gained dominance over those areas through naked imperialism. And Koreans bitch and whine with soap opera hysterics as if they are poor helpless victims— they even went bonkers over Apollo Ohno in the Winter Olympics even though the Korean skater clearly cheated — when they’d been their own worst oppressors and torture/kill/devour poor helpless dogs. (Indeed, the lack of mutuality and reciprocity can be seen in the Asian treatment of dogs. In Steven Spielberg’s A.I., the Negress scientist raises a legitimate point when she asks that if a robot has been programmed to love mankind, does mankind have the moral responsibility to love it back? Dogs are like David the robot in the movie. Dogs have been selectively bred by humans for traits that direct their emotions to love us, serve us, and obey us. They are utterly devoted to us like children to parents. We’ve bred those qualities in dogs. So, if dogs have been bred to love us, do we have a responsibility to love it back? In the West, the answer is Yes because mutuality and reciprocity are hallmarks of Western thought. In the East, whether it’s dogs or human subjects, the responsibility usually flows only one way. So, the ‘inferiors’ are expected to show complete devotion to ‘superiors’, but ‘superiors’ are under no moral obligation to return the favor to ‘inferiors’. Even in today’s China, countless millions worship Mao, a man who never much cared when tens of millions of Chinese were dying as the result of his vainglorious lunatic policies.) Yellows might show some more conscience in the US, but it’s purely slavishiness to Political Correctness as dictated to by Jews. So, even though it’s Negroes who’ve committed most violence to yellows and even though it’s the Jews who’ve been the main ‘yellow peril’-baiters in recent yrs, Asians will just attack and blame ‘white supremacism’ and ‘white racism’ for all the problem. Some yellows will criticize their own community but ONLY within the range of approved Political Correctness, i.e. they will excoriate some yellows for badmouthing blacks and Jews(and homos), but they aren’t bothered in the least by yellows badmouthing whites. So, even Asian self-criticism is just kowtowing to PC. All the same, yellows wanna be accepted by and intermarry with the white community because they still think America is synonymous with whiteness. I mean how many yellows wanna join with the Asian-Indian, Arab-American, or Mexican-American community even though, of course, there are dating and mating all around in some cases? But in wanting to be white-ish, yellows also take on the trappings of ‘white guilt’, especially because they feel they’ve violated the cardinal rule of PC that says America is so steeped in ‘white privilege’ that the ‘people of color’ — which oddly includes white Hispanics — cannot succeed or reach economic parity with whites. But many yellows do as well or even better than whites. How could this be if PC says US is a very ‘racist’ country? So, yellows feel ‘yellow-white-ish guilt’ for having violated PC. In contrast, blacks don’t feel any guilt for being overly represented in sports and funky music. Blacks think in terms of black power, yellows think in terms of yellow cower.
Jews have learned much from history, hardly surprising since so many history departments in American colleges are dominated by Jews. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, they both went about eliminating the Polish elites. Cut off the head and the body will follow. Guillotine the elites, and the body will go limp since the body doesn’t have a mind or will of its own. After all, even all nationalisms are, to an extent, an imposition of the elites. While some nationalisms are indeed more organic than others — surely a Polish or Japanese nation is more organic than Syrian or Indonesian nation created by European imperialist arbitrariness with territorial and demographic/ethnic integrity — , every national concept(especially in the modern sense) was an idea imposed by the elites upon the masses. So, while there were a bunch of peoples who spoke German, the idea of a modern German nation was forged with blood-and-iron from above. It was the end-result of a vision imposed on various German-speaking provinces by the expanding power of Prussian elites. And though there was something like a peninsula where most people spoke various dialects of Italian, the notion of Italian national identity was imposed upon everyone on the peninsula by the new elites that forged modern Italy. Prior to mass education and mass media, even most Germans and Italians thought locally than nationally.
 |
| The colonization and creation of 'Indonesia' by the Dutch. |
Though Liberals bitch and whine about how they represent Reason, they have no use for reasoned debate at all. They hiss like snakes, bark like dogs, employ hysterics of adjectology(defaming people and ideas as ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, and ‘toxic’), enforce taboos, demand that we worship at the altars of PC, and throw fits. Consider what Nicholas Wade said of his critics: "Many social scientists... have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin. So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up. For many years this tactic has been surprisingly effective. It takes only a few vigilantes to cow the whole campus." Many academic researchers won't touch the subject of human race out of fear that their careers will be ruined or because they actually believe in the PC nonsense — but then, given that PC credentials count for more than real talent in the promotion up the rungs of the academia, why should it be surprising that many academics are PC-addled mediocrities? Besides, as they remain in their cloistered bubble of academic privilege, they can play games with false theories while ignoring the brutal truths of reality itself. Western academics are like Hitler in his bunker playing war games with armies that don’t even exist. Ivory Tower is a hideout of theoretical self-deception. And as people in the media had their minds molded by Ivory Tower professors, they are serve as megaphones for the official scribes of the System. Nicholas Wade: Only the most courageous will publicly declare that race has a biological basis. I witnessed the effects of this intimidation during the 10 years I was writing about the human genome for The New York Times. The understanding of recent human evolution has been seriously impeded, in my view, because if you can't study the genetics of race (a subject of no special interest in itself), you cannot explore the independent evolutionary histories of Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The attacks on my book come from authors who espouse the social science position that there is no biological basis to race. It is because they are defending an ideological position with a counterfactual scientific basis that their language is so excessive. If you don't have the facts, pound the table. My three Huffington Post critics — Jennifer Raff, AgustÃn Fuentes and Jonathan Marks — are heavy on unsupported condemnations of the book, and less generous with specific evidence."
 |
| Vile and Disgusting Jewess Victoria Nuland |
Anyway, since Jews now have such effective and near-total means of destroying reputations and lives, most aspiring and ambitious people in America seek to collaborate with the Jewish overlords who, incredibly enough, have the combination of supreme power and victim-hood sympathy. Usually, when a people represent the supreme power of a social order, the victims are represented in the people who serve them. But in America, Jews not only have supreme power but wear the mantle of sympathy-victim-hood via the Holocaust Cult or Holo-cult. So, Americans cannot even discuss the problem of Jewish control of media, government, academia, law firms, Wall Street, Hollywood, countless NGOs and think tanks, and etc. Indeed, Americans are so dumb that only 9% of them think that ‘Jews have too much power’. This is all the more hilarious since Jews go out of their way to bitch and whine about ‘white privilege’ so as to deflect people’s awareness from the biggest privilege in America that is, of course, Jewish privilege. So, Jews are proud of Jewish power and Jewish privilege but disdainful of white power and white privilege even though the most powerful and most wealthy members of the white race are Jews. So, Jews piss on white gentiles, but white gentiles merely open their mouths to the Jewish golden shower with servile gratitude. In America, 90% of Jews believe that white gentiles have too much power and privilege, but less than 10% of white Americans believe that Jews have too much power and privilege — even though Jews are by far the richest and most powerful people in America and the world. If white gentiles are indeed this dumb, they deserve to lose and fade from history. Live or die, most white gentile elites and wanna-be-elites have opted to collaborate with their Jewish overlords just like many French elites decided to just go along with the German overlords during World War II. As evil as the Nazis were in Eastern Europe and toward Jews, it must be said Germans were far more respectful and admiring of the French than Jews are of white gentiles. Germans wanted the French to maintain French glory and pride(as allies of Germany) whereas Jews want today’s France to be drowned in a sea of black Sub-Saharan Africans and North African Muslims. Nothing makes a Jew happier than to see white French women reject white French men and have children with black Africans and Muslims in waves and waves of geno-erasure. Jews assure whites that their future progenies will become more intelligent, more beautiful, wiser, and more advanced with greater race-mixing. Following the logic of multi-culturalism, North Africa, Brazil, Bolivia, and Mexico should be the wisest, most beautiful, and most intelligent places on Earth. Funny, but the nations that most so-called ‘progressives’ admire most tend to be Nordic ones like Sweden, Denmark, and Holland. Of course, such nations are at the forefront of multi-cultural ideology, but I wonder if Liberals would be so enthused about such nations once the multi-cultural project is achieved there, and they’ve become minority white societies teeming with Third World masses who fail at school, drain the welfare economy, and raise crime levels. But of course, when multi-culturalism fails, Jews will say it was because whites did NOT DO ENOUGH to accommodate ‘diversity’. (If Jews really feel this way, why don’t they all move to Detroit and live alongside blacks? Isn’t it interesting that Jews say whites should do more to accept non-whites, especially Muslims and blacks, but they themselves use all sorts of nefarious means to drive blacks out of big cities to make room for privileged Liberal yuppies and to trigger wars in the Middle East that have led to the deaths of 100,000s of people?) Jews bitch about how ‘anti-Semites’ always blamed Jews for everything, but it’s Jews who blame whites for everything. If a white person kills a white person, whites are at fault. If a white person kills a black person, whites are at fault. So far, so good. But if a black person kills a white person, whites are still at fault. And if a black person kills a black person, whites are at fault still. Why are all those black African acting like apes and killing one another with machetes and by spreading AIDS? Whites aren’t doing enough to save them!
 |
| Who's to blame for black Africans acting this way? Whites, of course, or so say the Jews. It's because whites haven't done enough to make things pleasant for blacks in Africa. It's always the white man's fault according to Jews. But when it comes to the violence and squalor in Palestinian territories, remember the fault is entirely with Palestinians and not with Jewish Zionists who stole the land and have oppressed Palestinians ever since. |
But even ideas that are seemingly ethno-neutral can favor one group over others. Libertarianism will favor Jews over whites and whites over blacks in most endeavors. Even though it’s all about meritocracy and freedom on the basis of individuality regardless of race and color, it will favor Jews over whites since, proportionately, there are more smart Jews than smart gentiles. And there are more smart whites than smart blacks. Of course, in the area of sports and funky music, it will favor blacks over Jews and whites. Libertarianism will also undermine black interests more since blacks are less able to handle freedom responsibly than whites or Jews. If you open a casino and allow drug use in a community full of Negroes, many of them will use them to excess and flip out like a bunch of swinish apes. It’s in Negro nature to be more wild-ass. They are more likely to be act in the mode of "Let’s roll the dice and bump the booty nice."
So, sharing the same ideas doesn’t have the same effect on all groups. Some groups will be better served by the ideas than other groups. The homo agenda ostensibly seems to be about homos and nothing else, but the fact is Jews have promoted it because it’s good for Jews. And why do Jews push open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens(whom the Jew-run media designate as ‘undocumented immigrants’)? At its face value, it seems to have nothing to do with Jews. We are told that it’s about humanitarianism, compassion, sympathy, inclusion, diversity, vibrancy, tolerance, and etc. If such are good things, wouldn’t white gentiles gain as much from open borders as Jews would? So, why are so many more Jews for open borders than white conservatives? It’s because diversity among gentiles will aid the Jewish supremacist strategy of ‘divide and rule’ over the goyim. Meanwhile, smart and responsible white conservatives understandably want to maintain white domination in a nation founded, developed, and constructed by their ancestors who were the visionaries, conquerors, and settlers who made it possible in the first place. (Jews will bitch about how white gentiles stole land from the Indians, but plenty of Jews sold goods to white settlers and got rich off it, so Jews are no less responsible. Jewish merchants sold clothing, food, tools, equipments, liquor, guns, and more guns to white settlers in the conquest of the American West. It was a Jewish guy who designed those tough jeans for cowboys. And Jewish bankers funded the expansion. So, Jews need to shut the fuc* up.) Jews understand that, despite all the rosy ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric, open borders policy serves Jewish interests far more than it serves white interests. Indeed, only an idiot would say that Maine and Minnesota have been well-served by the arrival of all those Somalis who just suck up public expenditure. But Jews love it since a diverse gentile community is easier to toy with in a divide-and-rule manner.
What about Latinos, Hispanic-Americans, or whatever they are called these days? As for native ‘Hispanics’ of Indian or mestizo descent, most of them are like East Asians with maybe lower IQ and less commitment to education. Calling them ‘Hispanic’ because they speak Spanish makes about as much sense as calling American blacks and American Indians ‘Anglo’ because they speak English. As for white Hispanics, they are incapable of universal morality due to issues of ‘national character’. Though we generally associate Hispanic-American politics and sentiments with Leftism and ‘progressive’ politics, the essential Latin character is rooted in a rotten kind of conservatism. Compare Spain with Britain or compare Italy with Germany. Both Spanish culture and Italian culture through the centuries became overly conservative around the influence of the Catholic Church, the family and clan, and the village. Another factor is the matriarchal factor in Latin cultures. Though Latin societies were as male-dominated as Northern European ones in the social, legal, and political sense, they made for larger space for maternal/feminine feelings, not least because of the cult of the Madonna. So, if a Northern European dad punished his son for bad behavior and if the son ran off the mother, the mother would sternly and ‘coldly’ back up the father. Therefore, the kid would realize that he better grow up and face responsibilities of adults. In Latin nations, if the father chased the kid around with a stick, the kid(especially the son) would go running to mama-mia, and she would protect him with hugs and kisses, and this kind of shtickolini would carry on even when the son was all grown up. So, Latin men tended to develop mama’s boy tendencies and failed to mature fully into hardened adults. It’s like them fellers in Federico Fellini’s I VITELLONI. They’re amusing and funny but so totally pathetic and ridiculous.
 |
| Childish Italians in Federico Fellini's AMARCORD |
THE GODFATHER is about loyalty, but betrayal is as integral to the ‘Sicilian thing’ as honor is. In Part I, we learn that Paulie ‘sold out the old man’. And someone ‘fingered’ Sonny to the Tataglias. And Vito and Michael pretty much expect Clemenza or Sal to turn against the family and make a deal with Barzini. On a more sinister level, the father and son might have intentionally exposed the two men to Barzini’s pressures so that one of them would have no choice but to betray the family. They were used as bait to fool Barzini. And indeed, Sal didn’t wanna do what he did and only did it as a last resort. Betrayal is so common among Italians that Vito orders Luca Brasi to go the Tataglias and pretend to turn against the Corleones. When Michael is in Sicily, it is one of his bodyguards who betray him and end up killing his wife. In Part II, Fredo turns against Michael. And in the flashback, the younger Vito Corleone(played by Robert DeNiro)is able to get revenge on the old man who killed his father, brother, and mother because someone in the old man’s clan turned on his master. So, it all comes full circle. Ironically, everyone betrays everyone in a world where loyalty is such a paramount virtue. One might say that, paradoxically, Italians were so much into loyalty precisely because betrayals and backstabbing were so common. In a world where you can’t trust everyone, you wanna uphold the value of loyalty as much as possible. But the chances are you yourself may have to betray someone, and that means others will lose trust in you — after all, they could be next — , and so, everyone’s eyeing everyone for his own advantage. But one could also argue that betrayal became so common precisely because so much premium was placed on loyalty. If you are expected to be loyal to the group, clan, or organization at all cost, it means you have to betray your deepest principles of morality. And in a Christian society where people are supposed be about brotherly love and understanding, being expected to remain loyal to family, clan, or organization above all else could poison the soul.
The problem of Latin culture is also related to the burden of tradition. Southern Europe is simply older in history and civilization than Northern Europe, and on a positive note, this means a rich heritage of culture and custom. On the negative side, it means a lot of dead and stale baggage(though not as crazy and stinky as in India). Christianity and other Western virtues were implanted and implemented in a more of ‘blank slate’ manner in the North since Northern Europe didn’t have much of a high culture prior to the rise of Christianity. Also, the various Germanic groups in the North were more homogeneous, and therefore, they were more likely to be cohesive and able to work together more fitfully.
In contrast, the diversities in the South, especially in parts of Southern Europe, Spain, and Portugal were much more problematic as there had been large influxes of totally non-European peoples. Also, even among whites, Latins and Germanic were different. As Spain and Italy had been conquered by Germanic barbarians, there was a strange blend of Latin-ism and German-ism. And some degree of mixing added some of the hallaballah and haggly-waggy Northern African and Middle Eastern genes to Southern/Mediterranean Europeans there. The fearful threat of the non-European world and the dread of the bloodlines being ‘polluted’ by foreign invasions made the Spanish and Italians more conservative. Though southern Europeans often revile Northern Europeans for ‘racist purism’, such accusations were partly a projection onto Northerners their own fears about their ‘polluted’ gene pools. (It’s like light-skinned Indians and white Hispanics are very mindful of their racial distinction from darker-skinned peoples, BUT they love to make a big stink about how they are part of ‘people of color’ vis-a-vis Northern European types.) A southern Italian was upset that a Northern European saw him as a greasy ‘dago’ because, deep down inside, he harbored the same anxieties about himself.
In a world lacking in Rule of Law and shared-and-enforced higher principles, people turn to both tradition and opportunism. Since society cannot move forward — as dysfunction reigns all around — , tradition becomes of paramount importance. But moribund tradition may not be sufficient to put food on the table, so there is endless acts of opportunism to get a slice of the pie. In an ideal world of Rule of Law, everyone would agree on the rules and cooperate as conscientious citizens. But with breakdown of Rule of Law, you try to gain any little edge over others. During times of crisis, all peoples act like this. Germans and Japanese were doing all sorts of crooked things right after World War II when food and shelter were hard to come by. But as dust cleared and a new order was built, Germans and Japanese shifted into more socially responsible gears — though, to be sure, Japanese society is like well-managed corruption than functional Rule of Law. But Italians, Portuguese, Argentinians, and many other Latin peoples seem unable to dig themselves out of the corruption rut. Of course, another problem is the preference of style over substance in Latin culture. Consider the Mexican-American War. Americans were more into can-do spirit and real pragmatic achievements in machinery, industry, and technology. American officers didn’t put on fancy uniforms. In contrast, Mexican officers put on fancy attire and had more style. But style cannot beat substance in war. But the Spanish and Italians came to favor the uniform over the gun. It’s no wonder that Italy has been famous for design but not so much for engineering. (Nazis had design and engineering but then lost all sense under the reckless megalomania of Hitler.)
Understandably, disgust with stagnant tradition and greedy opportunism led many Italians and Spanish peoples to the left(and even the far left), but national character being what it is, the Italian and Spanish left were essentially rooted in the traditionalist and opportunistic world-view. It was less about social justice or equality than about reaching for a convenient crutch to explain their weakness vis-a-vis Norte Americanos and Northern Europeans(especially of Anglo and Germanic variety). Though the Spanish and Italians had ruined their own societies through their own corruption, venality, and reaction, they could conveniently employ leftist rhetoric to instantly turn themselves into poor victims of Yanqui capitalist-imperialists or Northern European ‘racists’. Their leftism was mostly childish antics, a lot of bitching and whining. It was just a variation of running off to mama.
Also, leftism was a handy excuse for failing to face up to real challenges in favor of delusional shortcuts to progress: It was economics reduced to taking from the rich and giving to the poor. While the Latin rich were plenty corrupt and undeservedly guarded their wealth with various privileges, the only true solution to Latin social dysfunction was a combination of Rule of Law, change in national character, the culture of integrity, and culture of honesty. But leftism needn’t face any of those issues and simply scapegoat the rich — and ‘racist’ Northern Europeans and Norte Americano yanquis — for all the problems. But what is the state of Cuba today after so many decades under leftist rule? Of course, many still blame America for the embargo, but this complaint never made much sense. If indeed America is about capitalist exploitation, wouldn’t Cuba be better off not trading with such an evil and parasitic power? Also, why do leftists want Americans to buy cigars, alcohol, and sugar from Cuba when they never tire of reminding us of the evils of smoking, sugar consumption, and binge-drinking? What is the state of Venezuela today after so many years of Hugo Chavez and his successor? How is Argentina doing under ‘leftist’ rule? What did the ‘leftist’ regime in Spain achieve in the 2000s other than ‘gay marriage’ — if one is retarded enough to regard the homo agenda as some kind of positive achievement? Not that Conservatives have any more integrity, but the point is the problems of certain societies go beyond politics or ideology. It’s about national character, issues of Rule of Law, and the culture of integrity/responsibility. Some cultures inculcate children with the culture of responsibility while other cultures do not and instead encourage kids to blame everyone else but themselves or their own culture. And some peoples are naturally more prone to be self-reflective while others are naturally more prone to be self-righteous. This is why it’s poisonous to encourage blacks to blame others for their own problems since blacks are, by nature, a bunch of self-centered ass-apes who tend to be low in introspection. It’s like pouring gasoline on fire or giving whiskey to the Irish.
 |
| Mario Puzo: An Expert on(as well as apologist of) the Latin Character(or lack thereof) |
When Negroes act bad, it’s all about me-me-me. Still, it’s a pretty rotten cultural attitude that was ingrained in Mario Puzo’s character. Worse, the Latins tend to project their own rottenness onto the Northerners, indeed as if to suggest that everyone of every group is equally rotten. So, THE GODFATHER would have us believe that, well, Sicilian-Americans do what they do because, after all, everyone is part of the ‘same hypocrisy’. So, what Vito and Michael do are no different from what Wasp businessmen and politicians do. But really, if the Founding Fathers and the original settlers of the America were Southern Italians and acted like Clemenza, Sonny, Sollozzo the ‘Turk’, the Tataglias, Barzini, and even the well-educated Michael, would America have become the promising land of progress and productivity? America would likely have turned out like Argentina or vast Cuba.
In THE GODFATHER, the worst possible crime is for someone to betray the family, and yet, so much of the business-as-usual among southern Italians requires someone to betray someone. So, even though someone within the ‘family’ who betrays the ‘family’ is the worst possible scum, the family tries to encourage members of other ‘families’ to betray their own ‘families’. The young Vito Corleone(Robert DeNiro)finally gets his revenge on the old man who’d murdered his family by ‘turning’ someone in the old man’s clan. Of course, in any power equation, all sides play this game. American government tried to ‘turn’ Soviet agents, and the USSR sought out American agents who’d spy for the Soviets. But at least in social and moral principle, the Anglo ideal is that betrayal is wrong all around and only justified when absolutely necessary.
Also, the Rule of Law allows what might be deemed as betrayals under different circumstances into a matter of contractual competitiveness. Without Rule of Law, you must belong to one side or another based on ‘tribal’ loyalty. And if you turn against your original side and go to the other side, you’ve proven yourself as a traitor. But under Rule of Law, one can say one’s loyalties switched from one side to another based on individual free will and meritocratic competitiveness. Where individual will and freedom are paramount, your basic loyalty is to your self-interest and the legal contracts that ensure your right to choose among various options and groups. So, if you leave company A and go to company B, it’s not betrayal but merely changing jobs based on your self-interest based on contracts. And since everyone in such a system is bound by law than by blood loyalty, tribalism, clan-ism, or group-ism, all sides accept such behavior as legitimate since everyone has the same rights. And in matters of politics or ideology, it’s okay for someone to go from Party A to Party B if he or she sincerely underwent a change of heart. In contrast, in an order where the culture of individual conscience is weak, morality and right-and-wrong are about taking sides and sticking to one side in a ‘my country right or wrong’ manner.
But where individual conscience is allowed and even cultivated, it is okay for a person to go from one side to another IF he or she sincerely underwent a change of heart. To be sure, many political and ideological decisions and switches are made for reasons other than principle. Most politicians change their positions on issus on the basis of self-interest, and politics is mostly prostitution, which is why almost all Democratic politicians and increasing numbers of Republican politicians have signed onto ‘gay marriage’. It is why almost everyone is Congress is a servile running dog to the Jewish-Zionist Lobby. And most likely, Elia Kazan turned against his leftist compatriots more out of self-interest than scruples, which is why his political transformation has garnered less respect than that of Whittaker Chambers whose change of heart was sincere and principled. One can do the right thing for the wrong reason, and one could do the wrong thing for the right reason.
At any rate, loyalty is a difficult issue all around since everyone has many interests, many friends/associates, and many ideas/values. It’s impossible for someone to be loyal to everyone and everything. If someone has friends who’ve come to hate one another and if both estranged ex-friends tug at his or her loyalty, whom should he or she choose? We know it’s difficult to love more than one person in a romantic relationship. Being loyal to more than one lover is almost impossible on an emotional level, as illustrated in Francois Truffaut’s JULES AND JIM.
The Ancient Greeks had a difficult time with their gods since various gods demanded loyalty but giving loyalty to one god or goddess could well estrange and even enrage other gods and goddesses. Paris realized this when he awarded the Golden Apple to Aphrodite and not to Hera and Athena. It’s like Teddy in A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE doesn’t know what to do when both David and the boy-Hitler-look-alike-kid(the real son of the mother) order it come to him.
Sometimes, the liberation from strict loyalty can feel liberating, as in the case of Peter O’Toole as Lawrence of Arabia(in David Lean’s movie), who seems freed of any particular loyalty to anything. He’s on a grand adventure to serve the British, the Arabs, himself, or whatever. But after awhile, he begins to feel uncertain about what he is and where lies his ultimate destiny. Lawrence is a paradoxical figure as his life becomes, at once, all about him and nothing about him. As he begins to ‘write’ and act out his own ‘book’, he isn’t bound to any single political system or interest. He himself if the master of his destiny. But in having to satisfy and fulfill promises to all sides — the British commanders, the diplomats, and so many Arab tribes who don’t trust one another — , he has to be everything to everyone. Initially, he felt morally and culturally superior to the petty and barbaric Arabs whose world-view and behavior seemed rooted in ancient bloodlust and vendettas. (He also felt superior to the British — even officers above him — because he saw himself as a man of great empathy, vision, and creativity in contrast to the narrow, rigid, and bigoted outlooks of the British from top to bottom who were, furthermore, lacking any genuine good will about the Arab world.) But once he’s beaten and possibly homo-raped by a Turkish officer, he becomes as blood-curdling as the Arabs. He goes from a leader who’s above the fray of petty Arab bloodlust to a warrior whose vengeful rages are just as ‘tribal’ and personal.
At any rate, it surely simplified things for Jews to have reduced the number of gods to just one, the one and only God. Monotheism. That way, Jewish loyalty need not be divided and could concentrate on one vision of power and truth. But however one may conceptualize the spiritual realm, the real world is a different matter, and loyalty is always a matter of contentiousness since so many peoples and things demand your loyalty. So, every person is divided among loyalties to one’s family, friends, occupation, ideology, faith, and etc. Even within the family, what happens when the parents divorce? What happens when a parent is torn between children who grow to hate one another? What if one spouse is a Jew and another is a Catholic? What happens when one’s close friends are Jews but another close friend supports the Palestinian cause? What happens one is an ardent believer of evolution but has friends and family members who are into Creationism? What happens when one’s commitment to truth compels him or her to embrace race-ism(race + ism = belief in the existence of races and racial differences) when the PC orthodoxy enforced by Jewish Supremacists severely punishes most people who dare speak up on that topic, especially without Jewish approval. (Paradoxically, anti-race-ism aids and abets Jewish racial/tribal supremacism since suppression of racial truths blinds us to the reasons as to why Jews are so rich, influential, and powerful. Jews want us to believe that Jewish advantages are purely historical, cultural, or social. If historical, European gentiles are to be blamed for Jewish success, i.e. Jews were forced to excel in finance, business, and academics since ‘antisemitic’ gentiles forbade Jews from farming the soil. If cultural or social, there’s the promise that all of us can become just as successful as Jews if we just adopt the correct formula. It’s like arguing that blacks are superior in sports purely due to historical and cultural reasons, i.e. since blacks were made to do manual labor and discouraged from using their brains, they came to excel at physical stuff. But weren’t most native/indigenous folks of the Americas also made to do manual labor without much in the way of intellectual pursuit? Indeed, even Liberals say we need a lot of Mexicans since they seem to have a knack for picking lettuce and tomatoes — and doing all sorts of manual labor for cheap bucks. So, how come Mexicans are not so good at sports? Some might say it’s because Mexicans are physically smaller than blacks, but isn’t size a general characteristic of racial differences? Furthermore, even among Mexicans and blacks of same body size, blacks still do better in most sports. Isiah Thomas wasn’t particularly tall, and there are surely many Mexicans of at least that much stature. Yet, why aren’t they as good in basketball? After all, basketball isn’t only about height as there have been many excellent players who weren’t so big and plenty of big guys who were suited for the sports. So, why have even most smaller players been black? Furthermore, black success in sports undermines the argument about how the legacy of slavery holds blacks back. It’s been said that blacks have been so traumatized by slavery and its legacy that so many of them have no faith and confidence in themselves to succeed in anything. They are full of despair and just wanna hide their head in shame inside a hole, which is why they fail in school in such high numbers. But the fact is blacks are full of they-selves and think they is #1 and the center of the universe even though they don’t know shit. If anything, they suffer from excessive self-esteem. Also, if indeed blacks are so traumatized and lacking in confidence due to legacy of slavery, how come they have so much energy for dribbling the ball, running, jumping, hitting, singing, dancing, and etc? How come they got so much energy for shaking their booties, humping ho’s, and screaming & hollering in churches and dance clubs? If the legacy of slavery have indeed robbed blacks of their pride and confidence, they should be failing in sports as well, especially since the sporting industry was no less racially discriminatory against blacks as other sectors in the past. Besides, white American rage at black athletes was much more powerful than against, say, black professors or black scientists. Indeed, elite universities had been integrated long before baseball leagues. And there were many more whites who were sympathetic to blacks in the academia — which always had a large number of progressive and liberals — than in sports industry that pandered to working class white passions that were often blatantly anti-black. So, why did blacks do better in sports than in academia? And why have Asians have done so poorly in sports despite the massive Chinese government investment in track-and-field in the Olympics? If we want an honest answer, we simply cannot discount the role of genetics. If indeed Liberals are really concerned with black under-presentation in the math and science departments, why aren’t they similarly concerned with white, brown, and yellow under-representation in many sports? Liberals, even as they insist that racial differences don’t exist or are infinitesimal to the point of irrelevance, seem to act on the premise that blacks are indeed advantaged in sports for natural/biological reasons. So, even though black representation in quarterback positions in the NFL is in line percentage-wise with the national share of the black population, Liberals demand that there should be even more. Why? Isn’t such an argument on the basis that blacks are naturally superior in athletics, and therefore, blacks should dominate the quarterback positions as well in other positions? To be sure, Liberals don’t seem to mind that most kickers are white. I guess since that position is the least prestigious, it’s okay for whites to hog all of it. Anyway, all this insistence on racial equality really aids and abets Jewish supremacism since Jewish power keep expanding without being noticed for what it really is: tribal supremacism. If Nazi supremacism was promoted with declaration of ‘Aryan’ supremacy, Jewish supremacism is protected with declaration of ‘racial equality’. At least the Nazis were honest in their racial-tribal arrogance. If we were to realize that Jewish power is based on higher Jewish intelligence, pushier/nastier Jewish personalities, and greater innate drive among Jews to stick together and subvert others, we would come to notice, debate, and challenge the power of the Jew. But if we are led to believe that Jewish power is just an accident of history[or doesn’t even exist], then we can make believe that it’s nothing special, and that all of us can become just as successful as Jews as time goes by. Of course, Jews also distract us from the issue of Jewish power by endlessly raising controversies about the white-black gap in education, wealth, and etc — or Jewish elites bitch about the male-female gap in wages when, in fact, Jewish women earn more money than gentile men, especially black and brown gentile men. Just like there are so many ways to slice a pie or pizza, there are so many ways to cut and paste social data and frame issues. Since Jews control the media, most of the issues are framed to make white gentiles responsible for all the ills around the world. No wonder they were called ‘dirty Jews’. Given the power of the Jews, the real issue should the be Jewish-gentile gap in media, law firms, high tech, medicine, academia, courts, Hollywood, and etc. but Jews have made it a taboo for us to notice that they have the most power, wealth, and influence due to factors that are genetic as well as cultural and historical.)
Most people don’t enjoy betraying others, but a distinction needs to be made among individual betrayal, culture of betrayal, and necessity of betrayal. Some people simply betray others for nothing other than individual gain, as with the ‘Take me to America’ bodyguard in THE GODFATHER. Nevertheless, such individuals are more likely to exist in a society with a culture of betrayal. Sicily’s culture of loyalty was inseparable from its culture of betrayal. That’s how gangsterism operates. It’s based on both total loyalty and total self-interest. You’re 100% loyal to a clan and even willing to kill innocents at the behest of the clan. But if another clan offers something better, you switch loyalties and become 100% for that clan(at least for awhile). The Anglo ideal of loyalty is more moderate. Loyalty is important but one must never totally give oneself to a group, an idea, or cause. It’s like what the Christian says in CHARIOTS OF FIRE. He loves the King/Queen and Country and all that, but as a man of God, he cannot race on Sundays. In contrast, the Sicilian ideal is that you should be 100% for the clan or the ‘family’. If the clan orders you to murder a prostitute(as in THE GODFATHER PART II), you do it without question. If you’re a Sicilian Catholic priest who heard someone’s confession, you might pass the secret to someone within your clan even if you’ve violated the law of the church. Such moral vacuity means the loyalty can never be based on anything meaningful or moral. Thus, no matter how powerful the cult of loyalty may seem, it doesn’t go very deep because of weak moral foundations. Also, even though the underlings may be loyal to the boss, who’s to say the boss will reciprocate the loyalty? This is what Hyman Roth exploits in the relationship between Michael and Frank Pantangeli. Though Michael didn’t turn on Pantangeli, Roth fixed it so that Pantangeli would think that Michael betrayed him, which is why Pantengeli decides to squeal on Michael to the FBI. Also, in a loyalty culture, one is more likely to feel disregarded and disrespected if one is not favored, and that might lead to betrayal.
In an individual meritocratic culture, you are expected to go out into the world and prove yourself. But in a loyalty culture, you expect favors simply because you are part of the clan. Carlo was especially bitter in THE GODFATHER because, even though having married into the family, he wasn’t handed a key position. Also, loyalty culture is hierarchical, which is why Fredo was so angry that younger brother Michael bossed him around in THE GODFATHER PART II. Of course, not all loyalty cultures are the same. Sicilian variety is different from the Japanese kind. As Italians believed in the higher God, they at least felt that there was an authority higher than that of the boss. Also, Italians are innately oily and shifty due to their innate genetics. Japanese are, by nature, more rigid emotionally. Also, as traditional Japan lacked faith in the higher one-and-only God, the loyalty to one’s superior took on an almost spiritual nature, which is why a Japanese traitor was bound to feel more guilt-ridden about his treachery, indeed even to the point of slitting his belly open if necessary. When Japan lost the war, plenty of Japanese killed themselves as a matter of honor. But most Italian Fascists just hid or changed their clothes and pretended to be anti-Fascists and welcomed the Americans. It’s in the Italian nature due to both culture and nature. Italians are a bunch of oily mama’s boy hustlers — though Greeks are even worse.
 |
| PRINCE OF THE CITY |
But in a Rule of Law system governed by individual meritocracy, it’s perfectly okay for one to quit at Google and go work for Apple if the latter offers better pay. As it’s competition under agreed-upon Rule of Law, no one gets killed, and the competition continues with both companies trying to lure the better kinds of workers with more promising opportunities and pay. This is why the notion that THE GODFATHER is a metaphor for capitalism is disingenuous. While Anglo-American capitalists have played it dirty — especially in the 19th century — , their behavior wasn’t entirely devoid of Rule of Law, and if anything, once the capitalists became rich, they funded the very institutions that advanced greater Rule of Law and social progress on all fronts. How many Sicilian gangster families have done that? To be sure, American capitalism has become more gangsterist with the rise of Jewish power that is, at its core, tribal and amoral toward goyim. Jews are like Irish-and-Italians with brains. Just look what Jews have done with Wall Street. Just look how Jews operate foreign policy. Just look at the collusion among Jewish-controlled media, Jewish-controlled Hollywood & music industry, Jewish-controlled finance, Jewish-controlled government, Jewish-controlled courts. Just look at how Jews use their dirty power to undermine and destroy all their enemies. Jews are like gangsters and ideologues rolled into one. They are Leon Trotsky and Meyer Lansky rolled into one. Unlike the Irish, they fight with ideas and intellect as well as with political machines and clout. So, Jews don’t merely wipe out their enemies in gangster style. They have them ‘purged’. It’s like how William Kristol gloated about how all the ‘Arabists’ were purged from the GOP. It’s like how Jennifer Rubin the ghastly Jewess used her poison pen to have Jason Richwine purged from American Heritage Foundation. Or take the hideous Jewess Victoria Nuland and her dirty deeds in Ukraine. Look how Jews in the media and government are working in tandem to bring down Russia so that it too will be a gangster paradise for Jewish Lawyers in Love. Consider how the hideous Jewess Sabrina Rubin Erderly admitted to journalistic fraud during her college years, but she was still fawned upon by the establishment media and given a freehand to write up even more ludicrous stories that finally culminated in the UVA rape hoax. As in the days of Lillian Hellman, Jewish crooks are protected and promoted for telling lies. In contrast, those who speak the truth about racial differences and Jewish power are silenced and destroyed. Just ask James Watson and the late Helen Thomas.
Anyway, even the Latin Left isn’t truly progressive or reform-oriented. It is less about getting to the source of the problem and pulling out the poison weeds roots and all but about fixing the blame on other nations and peoples for Latin problems. So, Castro just blamed America for all Cuban problems, past and present. So, Latin American leftists espoused Marxism and lionized communist intellectuals like Eric Hobsbawm as convenient crutches as to why North America became so powerful and rich while much of Latin-America lagged so far behind. (Latin American intellectuals love to blame the ‘gringo’ or ‘yanqui’, but how come Canada has proven itself to be far more productive and functional than most of Latin America? Canadians didn’t send gunboats to Latin America.) Indeed, it sure took long enough for Eduardo Galeano to admit that his book OPEN VEINS is mostly a crock of baloney. Latin American leftism was ironically fueled by one of the worst strains of conservatism. One knee-jerk aspect of conservatism(at its least dignified) is the blind notion of us-vs-them and the readiness to fix all blames on others as scapegoats. (Though PC would have us believe that the powerful scapegoat the weak, it’s just as usual for the weak to scapegoat the powerful, indeed when the powerful are not to blame for the problems of the weak. Mugabe of Zimbabwe can blame white nations and white folks all he wants. The disaster he brought upon Zimbabwe was the doing of blacks led by his rotten self. Of course, the powerful also scapegoat the weak. In America, powerful Jewish supremacists scapegoat all the problems of American society on middle class, working class, and underclass whites. New York Times is more angry with hillbillies living in trailers in the South than with Zionist bankers on Wall Street who’ve used all sorts of dirty tricks to rake in trillions from the rest of us. But then, there are powerless ‘white trash’ types who scapegoat powerful Jews for everything. While it’s true that Jews are indeed responsible for much that is rotten in the world, many of the problems of ‘white trash’ community must be blamed on ‘white trash’ folks themselves as many of them are indeed dumb and childish, like the family in Clint Eastwood’s MILLION DOLLAR BABY.) Liberalism, at its best, counters such mindlessness by calling for a more even-handed and open-minded assessment of problems and crises. The impulse behind Latin American leftism has essentially been conservative since Latinos used Marxism as a crutch with which to push most of the blame for their own failures on the gringos or yanquis. It was especially despicable coming from white Latin Americans. After all, long before Anglos arrived in North America, the Spanish and Portuguese had settled vast areas of South and Central Americas — and the Caribbeans. They’d spread germs and wiped out millions of natives. The extensive race-mixing happened as the result of white males taking native women, sometimes by rape. And Brazil imported ten times more slaves than North America did. And white Latin elites enjoyed power and privilege over the native populations, mestizos, mulattos, and blacks. So, for Latin American whites to play the role of ‘oppressed people of color’ is truly stomach-churning.
 |
| Just blame the Gringo |
 |
| Northern European ass-lickers of globalist Jewish Supremacists |
Paradoxically, Germany and Great Britain are politically more craven and servile toward Jews precisely because they have more of a moral culture. One would think a more moral people would be more principled and more courageous, but this isn’t the case when they don’t control their own moral narrative. When, in the past, Brits and Germans controlled their own moral narratives, they didn’t feel that they had to prove their worth to other peoples. But now that both UK and Germany are essentially controlled by Jews directly or indirectly(Germany relies on Jew-controlled US), politicians and elites in both nations go out of their way to prove their repentance and goodness to their Jewish bosses. But since such moral sense is based on anxiety-riddled fear of alien Jewish power, British and German elites are a bunch of craven wussies wetting their pants in front of Jews. Because Northern Europeans are more sensitive about moral matters, they are more willing to bend over backwards to prove their moral worth. In doing so, their backs eventually break, and they are rendered spineless. Since those who control the moral narrative in Northern Europe are Jews and since Jewish supremacists manipulate morality in the most cynical manner, moral sense has become warped in much of Northern Europe, which is why even Sweden — which isn’t guilt of either Nazi or communist crimes — goes out of its way to prove its worth before the Jews. In contrast, Southern Europeans aren’t very morally sensitive. If anything, they are natural-born Machiavellians and don’t give much of a crap about what Jews think. They are also less likely to be politically correct. They will be politically correct against Northern Europeans — shaming Germany and Nordic nations for their ‘racism’ against Southerners — , but when it comes to their own behavior, they are more likely to make fun of blacks and crack jokes about Jews. It’s hard to shame the shameless. So, greater moral sensitivity among Northern Europeans can actually produce a culture — at least an elite culture — that is more craven. It may have the trappings of higher morality but is really motivated by the anxiety of reputation. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are really shit-scum who suck up to Jews. What is especially disgusting is that they are so preening in their moralism even though their purported moral values are little more than appeasement of their Jewish bosses. Anglo-Brits may have beaten the Germans, but Jews beat the Anglos. Given the political cravenness of Northern Europe, their moral sense survives in non-political areas like work quality, diligence, honesty(outside politics), mutuality, and reliance. And those qualities continue to generate a good deal of productivity and wealth in that part of the world. But unless Northern Europeans regain political control away from the Jews and define their own future, they will essentially be cattle working for Zio-globalist supremacists.
Northern Europe, in contrast, was geographically safer, and thus, they grew more trusting and less paranoid. The only Northern European nation that became pathologically paranoid was modern Germany and only because the discrepancy between its ambitions and the geographical realities. (To be sure, one could argue that Great Britain was paranoid in its obsession with maintaining the ‘balance of powers’ on the Continent. Though British continental policy was essentially strategic, it may partly have been a projection of the British way of doing things. As British political culture tended to be more liberal and pluralistic than in most parts of Europe, it may have preferred a kind of Europe with similar ‘division of powers’ among many kingdoms and nations in the name of mutual recognition and ‘fairness’. Just as the British didn’t want all the power vested in the king, the clergy, or the business class within Britain, they didn’t want to see all of Continental Europe dominated by one kingdom or nation.) While nations like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark well understood that they could never become great powers, Prussians began to hear the call of their true potential. Eyeing the rise of modern nationalism in France, Prussians led the way in uniting the Germanic states into modern Germany, and it wasn’t long before it found itself as the biggest economy and the most powerful military power in Europe. This realization made Germans want to be recognized as a great power. Therefore, when the French, the British, and Russians were perceived as encircling and strangulating Germany to deny its rightful ‘place in the sun’, Germans grew increasingly paranoid and resentful. Similarly, when Japan was first modernizing in the 19th century, it merely wanted to survive as an independent nation-state. But as it defeated China for the control of Formosa and Korea and even fought the Russians to a draw(or even semi-victory), the Japanese began to feel mighty big about themselves. When their demands for great power status were not satisfied by the British and Americans, Japanese grew increasingly bitter and paranoid. Similarly, China in the 80s only wanted to make economic progress and eat better. But with the sudden rise of China, many Chinese have caught the ‘great power’ bug and take even the smallest slights with paranoid fury. But so do the Jews. Jews are now so addicted to their great power supremacism that they throw conniptions every time they don’t get everything their way. So, if Putin won’t bend over to every Jewish demand(as craven white gentile elites and politicians do in America), he is made out to be the new Hitler who must be gotten rid of. (And given that American popular culture is so debased, the majority of Americans, including Conservatives, believe Putin is an evil man because he’s disliked by the Pussy Riot.) German resentment need not have turned paranoid if the British hadn’t themselves been so paranoid about the rise of Germany, but then, Germans would have done better not to be get so worked up about the rise of Russian power. But apart from the rise of German paranoia and the calamity it led to, Northern Europe has been the most stable place in the world in much of the modern world. It had the combination of homogeneity and security. Also, as Anglos came to dominate the world — and their wealth flowed to other parts of Northern Europe linked by trade with the British Empire — , they began to feel more magnanimous and idealistic about properly governing the world. And it was true enough that, in general, the British ran a more humane and progressive imperialist operation than most other imperialists.
And in a way, British ‘racism’ paradoxically also made the British more moralistic. Though racial purism could be used for horrible purposes — as happened with the Nazis — , it also had the effect of making a people feel more orderly, cohesive, united, and responsible. If indeed race-mixing leads to higher morality, mulattos and mestizos of Brazil and Mexico should be the most moral people in the world. We know that to be false. The British, because they remained white, felt they should uphold British rules and values. Though white Britons lorded over their non-white subjects who were deemed racially and/or culturally inferior, they also felt they should live up to the principles of the higher and pure-blooded white race. As the British believed in both racial superiority and the cult of ‘fairness’ worthy of true gentlemen, their racial supremacism wasn’t merely arrogant and nasty(though it sometimes was) but also good-willed, helpful, and magnanimous. The British believed in the White Man’s Burden as a moral duty of the white race to spread civilization around the world. Though the element of class had its nasty side in British history/society, its positive influence was in cultivating manners and values than just inculcating us-vs-them tribalism. If a British gentleman saw a lowly brutish British thug mistreating a colored person, he might feel a moral obligation to come to the aid of the colored. Such values partly explain why today’s British elites tend to sympathize with the non-white immigrant community more than with ‘angry British yobs’ and others of their ilk who are deemed ‘racist’. But what had once been a virtue is now a vice as Great Britain is being flooded by nonstop immigration that can lead to the very demise of Britain.
Anyway, Anglo propriety and magnanimity would have been difficult to maintain throughout the Empire if the Brits had mixed in huge numbers with the dark-skinned natives. For one thing, it’s undeniable that dark-skinned natives were more backward, more barbaric, more savage, more reactionary, more childish, and/or more primitive. And possibly less intelligent. They were incapable of running a modern system of governance and economy. They needed to be guided by whites with superior ability and knowledge. It was because the Brits remained white that they were able to maintain their high standards and function at a high level of competence. If they’d mixed with the natives in huge numbers, it would have been more difficult for the Brits to remain culturally and morally British since many of them would have had divided loyalties, confused values/customs derived from two very different cultures, and mixed-up genes. This would have been especially problematic with black Africans since black genes are funkier, nastier, and more out-of-control.
Because we live in politically correct times, we think ‘racism’ was and is totally bad. This is why, when a black Zimbabwean told a BBC reporter that things had been better when the white regime of Ian Smith had run the nation, the white reporter begged the interviewee to take his words back. To the white Liberal, nothing is worse than ‘racism’ as if ‘racism’ was about nothing but the Holocaust and trading Negroes across the Atlantic. In truth, ‘racism’ was often a case of ability-ism or abilitism. There was no denying that whites were more able and had the ability/means to run modern economies. This superior ability vis-a-vis non-whites could be cultural — and in some cases, non-whites could learn to be just as clever as the British(and there are plenty of smart and able Asian-Indians and Singaporean Chinese) — but, in some cases, there was also a genetic-racial basis to the differences. So, for Zimbabwe to be run like a modern nation, it needed white British rule. And it was ‘racism’ that made the British elites in places like Zimbabwe feel that they had a special mission and responsibility to run things according to their own standards. If the British elites in places like Zimbabwe had racially mixed over the years and had become a bunch of mulattos, they would have been genetically and culturally more black African, thus less likely to be good at governing according to the British way.
Indeed, one of the problems that Lawrence faces in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA upon going native is that while the Arab way makes for good lightning strikes in warfare and looting the enemy, it’s no way to rule a modern social order. If order is to be established in the Middle East in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, whites have to do it the white way, not by the native way which is just a lot of throat-slitting antics over who should carry whose water. So, even though ‘racism’ came to be associated with some bad stuff, it was also associated with good stuff. On the positive side, it meant that Northern European white imperialists should remain true to their high standards of morality, ability, and governance. And in order to maintain such standards, it certainly helped that whites were mindful of their racial and cultural whiteness. And because whites ran things better, even dark-skinned natives did better under British rule than under their own. Though Asian-Indians like to boast that there has been no massive famine in India since the end of Independence, this had nothing to do with better governance by Hindus themselves. Rather, it was because more advanced agricultural technologies advanced by the West were introduced to India and because foreign aid continued to pour in. When we compare the first half of 20th century with the second half, we have to take into account the differences in science and technology. After all, America itself changed drastically from the first half to the second half of the 20th century. Even by 1950, there were plenty of Americans without electricity and indoor plumbing. So, if Asian-Indians managed to evade certain calamities in the second half of the 20th century, it really owed to advances in science, medicine, and technology in the West that were applied on India. People always bitch about how evil South African Apartheid was, but to a large measure, Afrikaner ‘racism’ was really a form of abilitism. It was predicated on the notion that the abler whites of Northern European stock should run the nation since they had the brains and knowhow. Racial equality sounds good on paper, but it can lead to equalization of ability and the lack of ability. If whites are more able and blacks are less able, forcing racial equality will mean that blacks should be given equal access to the running of institutions and machinery. But what happens when blacks run places like Detroit, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Birmingham, entire regions of Mississippi, and South Africa after Apartheid? It’s not only bad for whites but it’s bad for blacks too since black rule leads to demise of social order and economy. Once that happens, not only do whites flee but blacks are left mired in their own dysfunction. While ‘racism’ could be unjust in collectively favoring one race over another — even favoring dumb whites over smart blacks — , it’s also undeniable that white rule was better for both whites and blacks than black rule over whites(the horror!) and black rule over blacks. While, as a matter of pride, black Zimbabweans may be happy to see their own at the top, in terms of functionality, production, and social order, white ‘racist’ abilitism did far greater wonders for black Africa. Today, black Africa is making some stride because lots of Chinese and Asian-Indians with superior abilities are paving roads, setting up enterprises, and building schools and hospitals.
Israel operates on the ‘racist’ premise that Ashkenazi Jews with superior ability should control most of the commanding heights of governance and the economy. Of course, in the long run, imperialism is bound to come to a close as the majority native peoples demand self-rule, but one cannot disassociate the superior ruling-and-management styles of Northern Europeans from their race-ism. It was because they remained race-ist that they were able to maintain the consciousness of higher standards that were essentially particular to their culture. Paradoxically, Western universalism was grounded in the Western particularity. Being purely British, white British imperialists felt they should live up to high British standards. This could sometimes lead to sneering arrogance and contemptuous behavior among the British — as seen in GANDHI by Richard Attenborough — , but it also had the effect of preventing British rule from becoming muddled, lax, and confused.
Of course, the moral issue became confused somewhat because the highest values of the British Empire were espoused by its upperclassmen. The lower elements of British society — the dregs — were often crude and uncultured. They were used as cannon fodder and given the dirtiest jobs, physically and morally. So, naturally, they felt far less moral obligation when it came to upholding British standards. At times, as in Australia, these uncouth buggers even went around wiping out the natives like animals to hunt. In such cases, the British elites were caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they relied on the manpower of the ‘dregs’ to do the dirty work of expanding and settling the empire. On the other hand, as gentlemen with a culture of ‘fairness’, it just wouldn’t do to allow the ‘dregs’ to act like barbarians and treat the native like animals, especially as one of the missions of the Empire was to spread the light of Christianity. And yet, weren’t the ‘dregs’ of British society so crude and lowly because they were economically and socially browbeaten and even oppressed by the snobbish upper classes?
Wasn’t the conceit of superior moral principles among the British upperclass made possible by the immoral privilege it enjoyed over and enforced against the masses?
A similar kind of dynamics existed in the American South, with upper class Southern gentry being somewhat more generous toward the Negro than the "po’ white trash" who felt downright competitive with the Negro and were hired by Southern gentry to do all the dirty work in the race relations. And in New York, the urban gentry elites depend on the ‘working class’ members of the police for their safety and security, but they also constantly berate the police for brutalizing the helpless Negroes. Urban gentry elites order the NY police to ‘stop and frisk’ the Negro, but they also complain about how the sensitivities of blacks are not being respected by the police.
It’s worth asking if the physical quality of whiteness itself has something to do with morality. This isn’t to suggest in any way that having white skin, in and of itself, makes one more moral. There are plenty of decent non-whites and swarthy-looking Europeans, and there are plenty of nasty, vicious, and vile light-skinned whites, especially among the drunken Irish and the even more drunken Russians. (It’s like the mother in KINGS OF SUMMER says, "The Irish are the blacks of Europe.") But perception might subtly affect how we see others and ourselves. Indeed, in most cultures, lightness, brightness, and whiteness are associated with cleanliness, purity, and enlightenment whereas darkness, brownness, and blackness are associated with filth, obscenity, and danger. Consider the Ancient Egyptian poem "Hymn to the Sun":
"He says: Thou appearest beautifully on the horizon of heaven,
Thou living Aton, the beginning of life!
When thou art risen on the eastern horizon,
Thou hast filled every land with thy beauty.
Thou art gracious, great, glistening, and high over every land;
Thy rays encompass the lands to the limit of all that thou hast made:
As thou art Re, thou reachest to the end of them;
(Thou) subduest them (for) thy beloved son.
Though thou art far away, thy rays are on earth;
Though thou art in their faces, no one knows thy going."
It exults in the brightness of the day with the rising of the sun.
But consider how it describes the dark night:
"When thou settest in the western horizon,
The land is in darkness, in the manner of death.
They sleep in a room, with heads wrapped up,
Nor sees one eye the other.
All their goods which are under their heads might be stolen,
(But) they would not perceive (it).
Every lion is come forth from his den;
All creeping things, they sting.
Darkness is a shroud, and the earth is in stillness,
For he who made them rests in his horizon."
It compares the darkness of night with death, paranoia, fright, and criminality.
In Greek culture, Apollo the Sun god is second only to Zeus whereas Hephaestus(or Vulcan) who dwells in the underworld is seen as something of a lesser(and deformed) god. And of course, when Greeks die, they are thought to end up in Hades, the dark underworld. By some perverse trick of nature, areas that receive the brightest rays of the sun created the darkest people, whereas the places that receive the least amount of sunlight created the lightest-skinned people. In India, women using whitening creams to look lighter. While there are many positive attributes associated with blackness — consider the awesome monolith in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Woody Strode as the giant hired killer in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST — , even blacks often prefer light-skinned people. Indeed, some black Africans like whiteness so much that they’re convinced that albinos have magical qualities. Thus, albinos in Africa are killed for their body parts by black jigger-jivers not out of hate but out of superstitious love/admiration for their supposedly miraculous properties. And consider the special interest people have for the white gorilla, the white tiger, the white lion, etc. But it’s not just white color but also facial angularity that might have led to more acute perceptions of moral standards among whites. The white face is most geometric among the races, and such features may have a perceptive influence that favors clarity, form, and order. Albinos are even whiter than white folks but they have fatass lips and snubby noses, and such features don’t inspire an appreciation of form and clarity. They look like white hairless ape-like creatures.
Though we must always remind ourselves that looks can be deceiving and say very little about the true inner-character of a person, there’s no denying that looks do subtly influence our view of others and the world. If you looked like Quasimodo of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME — one of the movies as I haven’t read the book — and if your people also look like Quasimodo, you will likely have a different view of the world than if you(and your people) looked like Alain Delon. Though we can all agree that one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover — actually, the essence of a book can be glimpsed by its cover as serious literature and popular genres(like romance and mystery) are packaged differently — , we do prefer to associate physical attributes with the deeper meaning of things. So, we want our heroes and heroines to be beautiful or noble-looking, whereas we prefer our villains to be ugly, gross, or nasty-looking(even if attractive). Jack Palance played many heavies/villains because he just looked bad(albeit in a magnificent way). And people vote for politicians often based on books, appearances, height, and etc. The taller candidate, even if a dodo puppet of Jews, seems grander in character simply because of his stature. We respond to Clint Eastwood differently than to hawk-faced Lee Van Cleef and rat-faced Eli Wallach in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY because of the particularity of his looks. Jesus was portrayed as a beautiful man in many classic paintings even though He may have been a funny-looking Jew. Also, we are affected by our self-image. Though each person has a innate personality regardless of looks, our self-image affects not only our view of ourselves but of the world since our sense of self-worth is inseparable from our sense of how others see us. In some extreme cases, even if others have a good impression of us, we may have such a negative view of ourselves that we find it hard to cope with our lives. Consider the problem of Anorexia Nervosa where perfectly decent women keep losing more weight to be more presentable. Though the world finds them ever skinnier and more-appalling-looking, they believe themselves to be getting prettier in the eyes of the world. Since losing weight generally improves looks, some women come to think that continuing to lose weight will make them prettier and cut away the ugliness. They have no sense of the law of diminishing returns. When a fat woman loses weight, she looks better, but there’s a point where her looks will get worse if she continues to lose weight, and her face looks like that of Skeletor.
The relationship between the movie director and the star has been like that between the Jew and the goy. Movie directors are, by and large, not good-looking and hide behind the camera. But to compensate for their lack of looks and charisma, they seek power and control. Movie stars, in contrast, no matter how popular, must follow the dictates of producers and directors — though some are savvy enough to gain control of production and/or direction, as with Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson(before he got to hitting the bottle too much). There are far more Jewish puppet-masters than Jewish politicians. There are many more Jewish writers, directors, and producers than frontline movie stars. Jews often use a goy ‘front’ to gain control and push their view of the world. Even many Jewish characters are played by more mainstream-looking goyim, as in the movie AVALON by Barry Levinson.
Even within members of the same race, the looks have a way of affecting behavior, outlook, and behavior. So, good-looking people tend to hang together. Rich men go for good-looking women. Good-looking women are more confident than ugly-looking women. Of course, people also look for ability, character, and integrity; looks alone are never enough. The younger sister character in Edward Burns’ NEWLYWEDS is very pretty but a real pain the ass, and after awhile, you just wish she’d fall down the stairs and break her neck or something. Even so, all things being equal — suppose everyone were similar in innate character, intelligence, and personality — , looks are everything. And even when both good-looking people and ugly-looking people are for social change and reform, the motivations — subconscious if not conscious — behind them are often different. Good-looking people will be more likely to anticipate social change with a sunny outlook and attitude whereas ugly-looking people will be more likely to call for change as a form of vengeance(as with character of Alberich in NIBELUNGEN). It’s like Cybill Shepherd’s character and Albert Brooks’ character in TAXI DRIVER seem to be driven by different emotional agendas in their support of the presidential candidate Palantine. Same goes for Holly Hunter’s character and Albert Brooks’ character in BROADCAST NEWS. When a pretty wasp activist calls for reform, he wishes that the world will be as radiant, pretty, and attractive as himself or herself, but when an ugly Jew calls for reform, he or she wants to undermine everything that is considered to be mainstream, healthy, and normal in favor of the degenerate, nasty, and the ‘new normal’. The face of the Jewish radical soul is none other than Masha Gessen.
 |
| Masha Gessen - We are obligated to find as attractive the very Jews who find themselves to be ugly and hate the world for it. |
 |
| But even Gessen has nothing on Andrea Dworkin. |
One might argue that the universal moral philosophy began with Greek thought and art. Logic was crucial to Greek philosophy, and the rules of logic are, after all, beyond culture. As Greeks, more than any other people, developed and fused empiricism and logic in both social and natural observation, they could take credit as the true originators of universal morality. Socrates didn’t so much preach or even teach; he demonstrated his sense of truth by logical argument. Though Greeks were culturally arrogant and regarded non-Greek as ‘barbarians’, the Greek way could be adopted by other cultures more usefully than culture-specific views and values of most cultures. To adopt Chinese or Egyptian culture, one had to become ‘Chinese’ or ‘Egyptian’. In contrast, one could adopt Greek philosophy without becoming Greek. To accept Confucianism is to become ‘Chinese’ in manners and customs. But studying the ideas of Socrates/Plato didn’t so much turn one ‘Greek’ as inspire one to think in a certain abstract way. Besides, Plato was a ‘futurist’ of sorts. Unlike most philosophers of most cultures throughout history who studied the past & present and sought to justify the existing order of the dominant elites, Plato’s societal views were based on theorems of the perfected society yet to be. And unlike religious prophecy that left it all up to God, Plato’s works argued that man, through the power of the mind, could bring about such an order through logical introspection, truth-seeking, and proper understanding of the world through the self. Greek thought wasn’t simply rooted or grounded in Greek history and tradition but sought to go beyond them.
The matter of Greek art is somewhat trickier. More than any other Ancient culture, Greeks came up with the cult of the independent-individual artist/playwright. In most cultures, dramatic works(often accompanied with music) conveyed, continued, and reinforced the values, sacred truths, and mores of the society. And they were often spiritual/religious/ritualistic in manner. Greek playwrights, in contrast, began to create works where characters embodied individual psychologies and motivations. They were more than archetypes in emblematic situations geared towards the preservation of the sanctity of the social order. Greek drama began to move away from officialdom. Of course, we are talking especially of the Athenians as Spartans and Greeks of many other city-states weren’t much into that stuff. Thus, a Greek drama could be harshly critical or mockingly satirical of the prevailing social order, and it could represent the morality of individual conscience. As for Greek sculptures and architecture, the accuracy, precision, and clarity had a way of suggesting universal and timeless qualities than particular and cultural ones. Also, Greeks were into the cult of nudity, and an unclothed figure is more universal than one who is clothed in the attire of his or her particular culture. Also, even Greek clothing was simpler and less elaborate/adorned that those of most other cultures that were intrinsically more ‘exotic’. Even so, we have to be careful about Greek art since what Western Civilization rediscovered much later was a washed-clean and blank-slated version of Greek art and culture. Time had wiped and scraped away most of the colors, designs, and patterns that had been painted into the sculptures. And of course, most of the eyeballs had been moved from statutes too. So, much of original Greek art was actually a lot more particularist than ‘universal’ or ‘classical’ than neo-Classicists assumed or were apt to believe. Ancient Greeks were really Greekolopouloses.
So, the appreciation of Greek universalism was partly based on actual achievements of the Greeks but also partly an accident of history due to the ravages of time.
But, it must be said that time tends to favor the universal because the ultra-particular tends to be rigidly restricted to a time and/or a place. In a way, the development of the Jewish God was also the result of time peeling away at the particularist elements of the cultures from which Jews absorbed various ideas and influences. Jews absorbed cultural, spiritual, and philosophical expressions, ideas, and images from various cultures, but over time, the particularist crust cracked and fell off and what remained was the kernel of the idea about a single unified spiritual essence and moral truth.
Greek influence on Western Civilization was less about blank slate than blanked slate. It was time that had blanked much about the Greeks that had been very particular and restricted to their culture. Even so, there was an element in Greek culture that fused the ideal and the real, the godlike and the humanlike. In many cultures, gods were depicted in rigid poses as if gods were too mighty and dignified to require the casual movements of humans. So, Egyptian statues of gods and pharaohs tend to emphasis the static, as if their greatness is as fixed, perfect, and eternal as the constellation itself. And since the Egyptians believed that they’d arrived at cosmic perfection, there need be no distinction between the living world and the dead world. Pharaohs lived on in the other world, and they were reborn into the living world. In Buddhist nations, there are basically two poses for Buddha, with him sitting meditating or lying meditating.
Anyway, the reason why Northern Europe became the summit of universal morality seems an accident of history than anything else. Some in the Alternative Right community argue that white people — especially Northern Europeans — are genetically predisposed to be more empathetic, sympathetic, and so on, but this is based on selective evidence. To be sure, there might be some truth to the argument when we consider the treatment of animals in European nations. Europeans came to value dogs and cats more than other cultures — though there were times in European history where animals were treated horribly. As dogs played such a crucial role in the advancement of mankind — and were full of affection for humans — Europeans came to recognize the special relationship between man and dog. In contrast, even Asians with full-bellies have no compunction about killing and eating dogs. Worse, they even have dogs tortured before they’re killed so they will taste better or increase the sexual drive. To be sure, Japanese don’t eat dogs — which may be an accident of history since a certain feudal lord forbade it — , and there are plenty of Asians who’ve come around to seeing the evil of eating dogs and cats, as well as of tormenting bears for bile. But the culture of cruelty is still endemic in Asia. Arabs and Muslims in the Near East are also a nasty bunch. The Koran says dogs are filthy and should be killed as vermin. As for blacks, they are so loutish that even chimpanzees and baboons despair ‘there goes the neighborhood’ when blacks come near. Needless to say, black Africans treat one another in horrendous ways, so one can well imagine how they treat animals. And the biggest abusers of dogs in the US are Negroes who are crazy about dog-fighting. That said, there’s a long history of animal cruelty in the West too, and we mustn’t give into the convenience of amnesia. Queen Elizabeth got her jollies by attending bear-baiting bloodbaths. The English, until pretty recently, were still into fox-hunting-or-lynching. It was especially offensive since English aristocrats put on fancy airs and attire to practice this most detestable of customs. And the Spanish still have the ghastly bloodsport of bull-fighting. And surely, few cultures were as cruel to animals as the Roman Empire that put on gladiatorial spectacles where thousands of animals could be destroyed in a single day.
There are two sides to everything. Characteristics of whites that could be more sympathetic and moralistic in one setting could be colder, more ruthless, and more heartless in another setting. We need only consider the actions of so many Nazi Germans during World War II. Depending on how the German character is nurtured, shaped, and directed, the Germans could be among the most conscientious and moralistic people or the most coldly ruthless and heartless people. Also, the issue of morality is so never easy since certain virtues can be harnessed to serve certain vices and vice versa(or vice virtuosa). For example, the German culture of trust and responsibility was a moral virtue. It has allowed Germans to work and cooperate with one another better. It has made Germans more mindful of their duties and obligations to community and nation. But such virtues can be directed to serve someone like Hitler. Hitler came to power promising and delivering many positive things for Germany in rebuilding the economy, ending massive unemployment, regaining lost territory, and rebuilding German power. So, he won the trust and respect of many good and decent Germans. But the Nazis in power harnessed the virtues of the German people toward waging war and committing genocide. (It’s like Jewish supremacist elites today harness, exploit, and distort the basic decency of many Americans to win support of the Jewish War on Iran and Russia. Even good people can easily be led astray as the bad can easily be packaged and sold as the ‘good’ — consider how the Jewish media have promoted ‘gay marriage’ and the Pussy Riot as positive/wonderful things — and the good can easily be vilified as the bad — consider how Christian bakers who refuse to bake ‘gay wedding cakes’ are vilified as scum of the earth, and so many decent Americans have fallen for this Jewish-homo or Jomo canard. Consider what happens in MEET JOHN DOE where the powers-that-be turn a hobo into an instant saint and then destroy him as an instant villain. People followed him and abandoned for the same reason: a sense of goodness, but in both cases, they were duped by media manipulation. So, it’s not good enough to be good. Goodness can be manipulated, especially because it tends to be naive, earnest, and trusting. One has to be critical about the nature of power. One needs to be hard-nosed as well as good-hearted.) We have a habit of seeing the world in terms of good guys vs bad guys, and we assume that good guys are all good and bad guys are all bad. But deep down inside, we know many on the ‘bad’ side possess certain virtues. The men in the submarine in DAS BOOT are tough and decent German patriots. They are industrious, loyal, courageous, and conscientious toward one another. They aren’t like cowardly and craven Italians who run off to mama-mia at the first sign of panic. They aren’t like craven Koreans who won’t take any blame for the ferry disaster. (If Italian men lack moral character because their mothers spoiled them too much, Korean men lack moral character because their fathers beat them too much. Italians know they can always run to mama, and Koreans know they better always hide from papa.) But the men of virtue in DAS BOOT are fighting for Hitler. So much goodness is being used to serve so much badness. But the something similar could be said for the ‘good’ guys. We have a tendency to sympathize with victims as the ‘good’, but so-called ‘victim groups’ are often rife with vices, and if anything, part of the reason they came to be victimized in the first place could have been the result of their own rotten vices. This isn’t ‘blaming the victim’ but identifying vulnerabilities that open a person or a group to certain hostilities that are all too common in nature and society. Take the Negroes. We talk of their noble suffering under white Southerners — and ‘racist’ Northerners’ as well — , but the Negro is a dangerous kind of human with many apelike characteristics. Negroes have been ‘kept down’ because they are difficult to have around. Sure, such a view is officially deemed as ‘racist’ by most people, but even white Liberals in the North prefer to remain apart from most Negroes. Why is that? And look at Gypsies. We’ve heard about how they too were targeted by the Nazis, but the fact is Gypsies or Roma are a bunch of chicken thieves, and even Liberal Jews don’t like them. Jews may promote Negroes and Gypsies as ‘fellow victims’ of ‘white supremacism’, but most Jews would rather live next to white ‘conservative racists’ than with Negroes(who kick Jewish butt) and Gypsies(who look to rob Jews blind at every turn). And of course, Jews themselves have many vices. Though the story of Jews surviving the Holocaust and regaining their footing in the world is inspiring — and we would like to believe in the noble vision of Jews as being like Anne Frank of sacramental myth — , the fact remains that many Jews are nasty, vile, hideous, sadistic, cruel, conniving, sneaky, duplicitous, deceitful, self-righteous, cunning, and manipulative. Abe Foxman may be a Holocaust survivor, but he is a disgusting cretin who shamelessly milks the victimization of Jews to gain wealth, clout, and privilege for himself. When white Conservatives look to the likes of Abe Foxman and Sheldon Adelson for guidance — their Jewishness supposedly makes them automatically good and noble no matter what they do or say — , what is really ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in this world?
Anyway, it’s too simplistic to claim that whites — especially Northern whites — are genetically predisposed to be more moralistic than other peoples. While I wouldn’t entirely discount or reject such an argument, human nature is too malleable for a formulation so unambiguous. After all, the Vikings were pretty terrifying in their day. And Russians, though genetically close to Northern Europeans, are a pretty rough bunch.
Of course, when Alternative Rightists mention the genetic predisposition for higher morality among (especially Northern)Europeans, they do so with a mixture of pride and despair. Pride because it suggests whites are innately of superior moral character but also despair because it implies white morality can be milked by Jews and others to turn against itself. Susan Sontag may have said ‘white race is the cancer of history’, but Jews are the cancer of white history. Just like cancer cells pervert the natural process of cell multiplication to destroy the body, Jews manipulate the moral nature of whites to turn against and devour the white body. Morality teaches, guides, and sanctions people in their dealings with others, but a sound moral system must also serve to protect and ensure the survival and interests of the members of a group.
So, if moral development has made white people interact with non-white nations and peoples in a fairer and more decent way in accordance to international agreements and laws(and rules of basic human rights), that’s a good thing. But when morality is perverted to the point where white people are made to feel their moral worth is incumbent on surrendering their territories, women, wealth, and very survival(as a race/nation) to other races and cultures, that is morality as a cancer. Morality is about good-and-bad, but good vs bad is irrelevant when you can’t even survive. What’s the point of being a good white person if you aren’t even allowed to survive as a white person? Though there are matters of higher morality, there is also the matter of basic morality, and the first moral rule of a people is survival, and to survive as a people and culture, you need borders and power within the hands of your own people in your own nations. This is why Jews hate the White Right. Jews want the power in the West in their own filthy hands. And to make white people surrender more easily, Jews have spread the notion that there is no such thing as the ‘white race’ on the false premise that ‘race is just a social construct’. So, even if all of Europe were to be overrun by Muslims and Africans, it doesn’t matter since people are just people. On the other hand, whites are told that they must always be mindful of their ‘white privilege’. Now, any sensible white person would say a white person should be privileged in a white land because it’s his homeland. After all, if you can’t be privileged in your own land, where can you be? Isn’t a Japanese more privileged than others as a citizen of Japan? Isn’t a Jew more privileged as a citizen in Israel because he’s Jewish? But ‘white privilege’ in white lands is seen as evil. This is all just a Jewish ploy to undermine any possibility of white pride in white lands. According to Jewish morality, white people are responsible for the evil of the social construct of race. Jews are hopeful that most whites today have rejected notions of racial identity and pride. But Jews still see old racial power structures to be alive and well in the West. White ‘racism’ is dead as a conscious ideology but still alive as subconscious biases and structural way of doing things. Jews are not entirely wrong as it’s true enough that the very fabric of society and life in the West does prefer whites for success. But why should this be a problem when Japanese favor the Japanese in Japan and Israelis favor Jews in the land of Zion? According to Jewish morality, the main problem of whites is that they still exist as a power bloc. As long as they exist, they shall rule the world as the ‘privileged race’. But then, this is rich coming from Jews since they are the most privileged among whites and most intensely aggressive in their tribalism and nationalism.
Now, if like Buddha, Jews were to argue that the problem of morality is that the very nature of life is evil, they might have a good argument against whites, but then it would apply to everyone else as well. If, as Buddhism says, life is about life devouring life — life can only perpetuate itself through violence done to other living things — , then one could argue that every moral system is really an illusion. How can we be truly moral where even the ‘best’ of us depend on the destruction of other life-forms for survival? We can be good to some people and things, but we must still disregard the interests of others. We can be good to dogs and cats, but we still have to feed them by having other animals killed. We can win the ‘good war’, but we must still kill a lot of innocent civilians. So, according to Buddhism, life itself is the problem. As Jews would have us believe, whites don’t deserve to exist since no matter how good they try to be, their power, wealth, privilege, and advantages derive from exploitation of non-whites in the past, present, and future. As the world system was created by Western imperialism, whites will continue dominating everyone even if whites today are sincerely committed to ‘equality’. Even if committed to ‘equality’, whites inherit more power and privilege from the past into the future.
(And of course, as affluent white Liberals in big cities do inherit lots of money and privileges from their successful high IQ parents, they have a tendency to project their own advantages on the entire white population. These affluent white Liberals are more likely to be aware of and bitch about ‘white privilege’, but they, of course, maintain and expand on their inherited ‘white privilege’, all the while pretending to increase awareness of it to end it. Their shtick goes, "Look, I’m a privileged white person and am nobler for admitting it unlike you white ‘racists’." This might carry some weight when these white Liberals address rich people in Hollywood, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, but more often than not, their main political targets are whites living in trailers in the South. You see, the rich urban Liberal gentry tends to be well-protected from ‘leftist’ ire because they are for ‘gay marriage’. With homomania being the main moral hysteria of the age, it’s just how things go. And even when ‘leftists’ do raise a stink about Hollywood and Silicon Valley, they mention ‘too many whites’— and even ‘too many Asians’ — but never ‘too many Jews’ or ‘too many homos’.) The flaw in this argument is that parts of the non-West have risen very fast, and they are no different from the West — or even more fervent — in their pursuance of power and advantages. And this is especially true of Jews, the most powerful and privileged people in the world. So, Jews need to shut the hell up.
Jews have bio-engineered the mind and body of the white race. Bill Clinton has become little more than a Jewish agent of white destruction. When he extolled before a graduating college class the vision of the future where whites will become a minority in the very nation founded by white people, the mostly white students and faculty erupted in applause and cheering. Such a response is unthinkable in Mexico, China, Turkey, Japan, Kenya, Russia, etc. Imagine if the Chinese minority in Russia took control of the government and other elite institutions and persuaded Russians that Russia will be more intelligent, more beautiful, more wise, more moral, more redemptive, more vibrant, and more etc IF white Russians allowed massive immigration from China. Suppose a white Russian politician went to a Russian graduating body and said in a few decades, Russia will be majority Chinese and/or Muslim. Can you imagine white Russian students erupting into cheers? And yet, that is precisely the kind of moral mentality that has spread like a cancer all across Western and even Central Europe thanks to the dirty influence of toxic and hideous Jews. Today, if a politician in Sweden told a graduating class that Sweden will be majority Muslim/African in 50 yrs, the students will cheer wildly as if Sweden must fulfill its moral mission through radical ‘diversity’. Hardly surprising since Swedes have been persuaded and indoctrinated by Jews that the preponderance of blond hair and blue eyes in Sweden means it’s inherently a Nazi state. So, no matter how Liberal and ‘progressive’ Sweden may be, it’s still regarded as a Nazi-lite state since too many people are not only white but the wrong kind of white: the kind that Hitler liked best. So, the cancerous suicidal form of morality has taken hold among Swedes to expunge their own whiteness. If old ‘racism’ was about whites feeling superior to non-whites, today’s Jewish Racial War on Whites has whites believing that the purer forms of whiteness are more evil. The more mixed one’s whiteness is, the better it is. So, Latins are better than Northern Europeans. So, Latin American whites with a drop of Indian or black blood can pose as ‘people of color’ whites. Of course, when they are deemed to have done something objectionable, they are attacked for their ‘whiteness’. So, George Zimmerman was denounced as a ‘white Hispanic’. And the psycho-killer Elliot Rodgers, who is half-Asian, was attacked for his ‘white privilege’ and ‘white male misogyny’ by the Jew-run media. Jews don’t try to convince blacks that they must mix blood with other races in order for them become better — though in actual practice, Jews do prefer lighter-skinned ‘black’ like Malcolm Gladwell and John McWhorter than dark-skinned ones with blacker expressions, demeanor, and personalities — , but Jews push this on the white race. Jews don’t go to the Chinese and Kenyans and say they must mix blood with other races in order for them to be morally improved and cleansed. Jews don’t tell Africans and Chinese that they will become more beautiful, more intelligent, and more wise only if they mix with other races. But Jews stress this point to whites all the time. Indeed, Jews often berate a lot of whites for still preferring the sexual company of their own kind that mixing with the rest of the world.
 |
| Obama-supporting Nasty Jew who welcomes the demographic demise of the white race. But the punk loves Israel. |
Lest we forget, recall that even the housing boom(made possible by toxic derivatives) had been sold as a moral imperative since both Liberals and Conservatives agreed for a time that every American — and even illegal aliens — had some God-given right to ‘own’ a house. There was ‘ownership equality’ before ‘marriage equality’. When it comes to morality, people too often confuse the packaging for the product. As the ‘gay’ agenda was packaged in moralistic wrapping and propagated all across American, countless Americans — especially the impressionable young — just gobbled it up. It’s not surprising that Wall Street is among the biggest donors and backers of the homo agenda. It has long been in the business of packaging garbage into something of value. How did the creep Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET rake in so much so fast? How did Bernie Madoff get away with the loot for so long? Because both mastered the art of packaging shit in gold wrappers. Of course, powerful Jews treated Madoff as the goose that lays the golden egg as long as he robbed goyim and made his rich Jewish clients richer. But when the scheme finally blew up, the Jew-run media spun the Madoff scandal as one where Jews were the main victims of his dirty deeds. In fact, Madoff had stolen for as long as he did because he served as a cash cow for Jews. As long as Madoff was robbing the world and plowing the profits to his rich Jewish clients, he was part of the Jewish Boys’ Network and well-protected from regulators(who are under the thumb of their Jewish bosses). But when the thing went bust, Jews turned on him and made themselves out to be his poor-poor primary victims when, in fact, they’d enabled him as long as he was robbing the world and making fellow Jews rich. Wall Street packages garbage in gold packaging, and Hollywood packages the ‘gay’ agenda toxicity in moral and spiritual packaging. And stupid Americans just buy it up as they’re addicted to either mindless celebrity culture or ‘radical-bohemian’ culture. The mainstream dummies get their values from Oprah & Ellen Degeneris and the so-called intellectual types get it from academic radicals who are funded, promoted, and protected by the Jewish elites like George Soros.
 |
| Bernie Madoff. I'll bet this guy supports 'gay marriage'. Selling shit as gold. |
So, even though England lost something epic in its failed war with the American colonies, the English system remained intact. In contrast, the French invested so much into the defeating the British in the American Revolutionary War that the French monarchy was soon bankrupted and toppled soon after. After WWII, the English exited from their empire more gracefully than the French did. The English naturally felt a bad omen about Napoleon. And the English found the Germans too extreme in their sense of destiny and mission. No matter how much Hitler admired the English, Anglos couldn’t return the favor because they found him so unhinged, extreme, and rabid. Also, the class snobbery of Britain was allergic to mass demagogic passions unleashed by Fascists and Nazis. To the British elites, Hitler was gutter trash who’d gained control over the proper ruling elites of Germany. And it was the Englishman George Orwell who wrote the most compelling indictment of Stalinist-communism. Of course, Old England has been lost forever with the arrival of American Rock n Roll in the British Isles, whereupon the Brits lost their sense of moderation and balance, paving the way for something as degenerate and ugly as Punk Rock culture, soccer hooliganism, vulgar materialism of neo-yuppie-ism, the mindless fanaticism of political correctness, and the cult of obscene interracism that seeks to impregnate millions of white British women with the jigger-jiver sperm of black African and Caribbean men. This is what happens when the elites of a nation submit to Jewish influence.
In some ways, Political Correctness is useful to UK elites in regaining control over the white lower classes who’d commanded political legitimacy during the Age of Punk. As the great evil of U.K. history was thought to be class snobbery and exclusion, the children of the white working classes gained the kind of moral legitimacy that blacks have in the US. Unfortunately, the working class yobs trashed their opportunity and advantage by indulging in drugs and foul youth culture, and things began to fall apart. It was then that both the British Right(represented by Margaret Thatcher) and the British Left(represented by New Labor Tony Blair) decided to use race/culture issues to morally browbeat the white working classes and rob them of their moral currency. Thatcher praised immigrants for being so hard-working unlike useless and lazy white natives, and Blair celebrated ‘diversity’ as adding color and vibrancy to British society. As issues of race, culture, and sexual orientation came to usurp issues of class/economic oppression, the white working class went from the morally advantaged to the morally disadvantaged as they were more likely to be ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, and ‘homophobic’. Though the British ‘left’ loves to attack yuppies and the like that gained economic prominence in the 1980s, the fact is the rising urban classes were very much on the side of Political Correctness. Thus, the elites in the UK, as in the US, used a new kind of ‘leftism’ to undermine the principles of the Old Left premised on economic divisions.
Rest of Northern Europe was somewhat different from Britain. Germans and Scandinavians tended to be heavier, simpler, thicker, harder, and denser in their way of thinking. Such qualities could manifest themselves in a low manner or high manner. Among the low, it meant blind obedience, excessive discipline, harshness(without irony), and etc. Among the high, it could mean labyrinthine philosophical ideas with turgid terminology and winding sentences that seemed to go on forever about who knows what? Has anyone understood BEING AND TIME by Martin Heidegger? I couldn’t get past the first page. Who else but a German would write a 400 page tome about ‘is’ and ‘when’? I’d rather ask "when is lunch?" Some people say it’s mighty profound stuff, but I can barely get my head around the Wikipedia entry. If someone tried to pull that stuff in the Anglo world, critics would have either called for empirical proof or made a cutting remark and brought down the house of cards. Of course, the downside of the Anglo way was that the insistence on dry facts & proper form and over-emphasis on irony/wit sometimes had the effect of making Anglos allergic to matters of depth. Indeed, as brilliant as much of British literature and culture are, they tend to glide on the surface and only dip into depths beneath. Brits like things that can be seen, sensed, and analyzed with a degree of clarity. They don’t like to grope or sink into the dark and imagine/ponder the meaning of things that can only be vaguely sensed. But sometimes, it takes such leap — or plunge — of faith and imagination to gain deeper knowledge(even if it may turn out to be factually wrong in the end).
Shakespeare was a deep writer, but even in many of his works the meanings exist on the conscious level. It’s like Hamlet is intellectualizing and rationalizing everything with the ‘To be or not to be’ yammering. Such culture of alertness made the British relatively moderate and cautious, certainly more than the French who could be swept off with passion or the Germans who could become obsessed with a vision or idea. But it could also make the British snobby, smug, and sneering in their arrogance that refused to get ‘wet’. Like a bird always cleaning its feathers. No wonder the Brits got so tutti-fruity. For a people who mastered the seas, the British were ironically very good at remaining culturally (high and)dry. Brits were less likely to take off their clothes and run in the woods and go swimming in the lakes like some German nature cultists. British had their Romanticism, but it was mostly verbal.
But it was different with Germanic and Nordic peoples. Scandinavian languages sound coarse, clumpy, and stony compared to English, which had been softened by the invasion and influence of Latin-Romance peoples. (Paradoxically, Roman influences were both harder to penetrate into and easier to preserve in Britain. Because Britain was an ‘island nation’, Romans had to cross the sea to invade and settle there. But because of its separation, once Roman influences were planted there, they were more protected from Germanic barbarian marauders than other parts of Europe. Though Britain was later hit by waves of Germanic/Nordic invaders upon the decline of the Roman Empire, the effect was intermittent than total.) I guess it’s like Hong-Kong-ese have become more sophisticated and ironic than Chinese in Beijing who were less influenced by foreign elements. So, the Nordic and Germanic peoples are more purely Teutonic. And qualities of Teutonism is heaviness, hardness, narrowness, coldness, ardor-ness, somberness, seriousness, and such. Do such qualities make the Teutons naturally more moralistic? No. It all depends on how those qualities have been shaped, nurtured, and manipulated. Thus, Teutons can become the most moralistic people or the most amoral people — though, to be sure, one’s man’s morality is another man’s amorality or immorality, e.g. Nazis thought they were actually behaving morally against evil Jews. The contrast between Germans during the Nazi era and Germans during the postwar democratic era is striking but perhaps not too surprising. In both cases, most Germans led lives of seriousness, dedication, and civility. It’s just that during the era of the Third Reich, the Nazi elites laid down the rules of what was good, whereas after the war, it was the democratic elites under pressure from the Americans(and Jews) who set the political agenda. In both case, most Germans went along — as East Germans conformed to communism — out of a sense of civic duty and social harmony. And this is why Jews are still afraid of the Germanic/Northern-European peoples. Teutonism can be very philosemitic or very antisemitic depending on how it’s directed and led. Of course, it would be best if Germans were encouraged to think as free individuals, but Americans and Jews haven’t wanted that either. After all, if Germans thought as free individuals, they would not only denounce the Nazi past but also intelligently examine why the Germans came to hate the Jews, and such inquiries would unearth some unpleasant truths about vile and vicious Jews as well. (When we consider what Jews have done to Russia in the 1990s and recently — and of course Jews played a major role in Russian communism until the 1950s — , it’s worth looking into the Jewish responsibility for the economic hardships of the Weimar years. If Jews can act so utterly crooked toward Russia and rob American blind via control of Wall Street, media, and government, why wouldn’t German Jews during the Weimar yrs acted otherwise?) Also, a free-and-individualistic thinking Germany will not only denounce what was bad about Germany but what is rotten about America and the Jews. America, especially as it’s come under the influence of Jews, doesn’t want Germany to be critically and intelligently anti-American. Today’s anti-Americanism is often a form of anti-Jew-ism because many people know that Jews run America. When America had been Wasp-ruled following the end of WWII, there was some degree of tolerance for the development of German individualism and contrarianism, and that accounts for a good amount of anti-Americanism in West Germany during the Cold War years. But since the end of the Cold War, Jews have taken total control of America, and they want Germany to just bend over to the dictates of Jew-run America, and therefore Germans have come under ever greater pressure to promote political correctness and clamp down on any kind of dissent, especially from the Right of course.
Anyway, Germans can be fearfully & fearsomely good AND fearfully & fearsomely bad. This is why German totalitarianism — rightist or leftist — is far more dangerous than, say, Latin totalitarianism. The Teutonic mind takes orders & obligations with seriousness, diligence, and punctuality. The Teutonic mind believes in common faith, common agenda, unity of forces, and the cult of trust. It could mean a well-functioning capitalist economy under a democratic system or it could mean well-trained warriors gunning down Jewish men, women, and children with cold-blooded efficiency. In contrast, the Latins make bad totalitarians. By their very nature, either cultural and/or genetic, the Latins tend to be sly, sneaky, snaky, and the like the Paulie-character in THE GODFATHER. Paulie looks at the bridal money bag and says, "Twenty- Thirty-grand. In small bills, cash. In that little silk purse. Madon', if this was someone else's wedding, sfortunato."
Germanics have spines of steel whereas Latins have spines of spaghetti. The Teutonic-Latin contrast was wonderfully illustrated in Lina Wertmuller’s SEVEN BEAUTIES where a big fat German officer calls an Italian prisoner-of-war a ‘worm’. The courtroom scenes in 4 ½ minutes captures the essence of the Latin character: the childishness, corruptness, buffoonery, venality, opportunism, deceptiveness, clownishness, cravenness, cowardliness, mamamia-ness, shadowiness, spinelessness, style-over-substance-ness, superficiality, vulgarity, and shamelessness. (Another film that colorfully illustrates the difference between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans is BREAD AND CHOCOLATE.)
Latins — especially Southern Italians — may talk big and put on a grand show about honor, but when it comes to saving their own skin, they’ll just run, hide, cheat, and swindle like a mothafuc*a. Greeks are sometimes even worse though they aren’t Latin. (Remember the two Italian soldiers/deserters who joined the American for food in Ernest Hemingways’ FAREWELL TO ARMS but just took off and ran when things got rough. Or consider the Italian family in THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS who partake of the food but then slink off without joining the group.) Perhaps repeated humiliations by other peoples, domestic divisions, and culture of corruption have made everyone family look out for itself. Furthermore, because of the discrepancy between the grandeur of Roman/Italian history and the depths to which the Roman/Italians sunk and were defeated, a kind of neurosis pervades the Latin heart. They feel as the highest and the lowest of peoples, indeed especially low because they’d been so high. Greeks have the same kind of neurosis. They are inheritors of the greatest civilization as a tomb.
Jews are hideous cretins, but at least they are very good at various tasks. They steal a lot but they also produce a lot, and much of the wealth of the modern world owes to Jewish enterprise and genius. In contrast, many Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks can sometimes be as headache-inducing as Gypsies and Albanians. Their main export products seem to be excuses and more excuses and blaming others — mostly Germans and Americans — for their own problems. The great Lina Wertmuller — oddly an Italian film director with a Germanic name — courageously delved into the Italian character, as well into issues of sexual politics that went against the dogmatic feminist grain. SEVEN BEAUTIES strives for personal-and-individual meaning between the greasy venality of the Latin character and the brutal hardness of the Teutonic character. Many Italians supported Fascism because, being all too aware of the dysfunction and disorder of their own society, they wanted order and efficiency. But Germans had order and efficiency, but that didn’t stop them from acting like lunatics. In one of the exchanges, a Spanish anarchist prisoner in the German concentration camp explains his view of things:
Pedro: But soon, very soon, a new man, a new man will be born. He’ll have to be civilized, not this beast who’s been endowed with intelligence and obliterated the harmony in the world and brought about total destruction just by disturbing nature's equilibrium. A new man… able to rediscover the harmony that’s within.
Pasqualino: You mean, put things in order?
Pedro: Order? No, no, the orderly ones are the Germans. No, a new man in disorder is our only hope. A new man… in disorder.
Dystopianism as a new kind of utopianism?
Personally, though the character of Pedro is clearly courageous and conscientious, he also seems to be half-crazy, so I cannot share Wertmuller’s enthusiasm for him. Though preferable to totalitarians, his vision of humanity seems to be far-fetched and utopian in its own way. We know, deep in our hearts, that most people can never become this idealized ‘man in disorder’. His courage seems to be superhuman but also reckless and pathological, indeed against the very instinct of man for self-preservation. But then, self-preservation itself can be problematic in relation to morality. All organisms seek to preserve themselves and reproduce in order to ensure the survival of themselves and their own kind. Thus, the very essence of life has nothing to do with morality. Morality is an illusion of the consciousness. The very basis of life has nothing to do with morality. Microscopic organisms devour other organisms and reproduce not for any moral reasons but because the very ‘logic’ and mechanism of life are about survival, dominance, and reproduction. And life feeds on life. Even life that doesn’t feed on life — like green plants that feed on sunlight and water — compete with other plants for supremacy. A forest covered with trees makes it difficult for new trees to grow due to lack of sunlight under the shades. Self-preservation means an organism has to out-compete, destroy, and devour other organisms, and this is carried out with utter ruthlessness in nature. And before the rise of consciousness, all of life acted in this manner without awareness. It’s like yeast do what they do without knowing what they do and why. But higher animals with consciousness know what they are doing. They don’t ‘think’ and ‘understand’, but they are aware of the fact that they must compete to survive. And even though they don’t know about reproduction, they go into heat, and once they have offsprings they protect their young with ferocity. And to ensure the survival of their own offsprings, they kill other animals and their offsprings. So a grizzly bear mother will kill a moose calf and feed it to her cubs. There is no morality in any of this — though the bond between mother and offsprings could be seen as a form of proto-morality since the mother risks her own life to take care of her young; the mother animal at least FEELS she must live for something other than herself. In that sense, motherism could be seen as the mother of morality. Generally, the basic rule of life makes organisms ‘amoral’. Lions ‘steal’ from hyenas and vice versa. A leopard will attack a wildebeest that is giving birth. There is no mercy. It’s tough enough to give birth, but imagine being attacked and devoured during the process. Thus, 99.99% of life exists in the amoral universe, and indeed, most life-forms have to be utterly amoral in order for them to survive. If lions and hyenas — or savage Negroes — began to have moral doubts about what they’re doing, they would have less to eat. We say that it’s immoral to take a life, but the very essence of life is for life to take life and reproduce most of its own kind. And behind the facade of civility, we humans act in accordance with the natural dictate of life. We have cleared away most wilderness to make way for farmland and industry to make stuff that we need. We have fishing vessels to haul countless tons of fish from the sea for our eating pleasure. We’ve set up slaughterhouses that destroy millions of animals every day so we can have meat. In order to have farmland, we must clear away wild animals that may pose harm to man or livestock. We like to flatter ourselves that we at least have tried to minimize cruelty, but the reduction of cruelty has made for greater efficiency, and that means we can kill many more animals. Killing a cow with spears may be more cruel, but it will take a full day for a bunch of men to kill and slaughter a wild beast. Killing it with an industrial air gun is less cruel, but we can kill many more in a single day on an unprecedented scale. One could argue that the Nazi way of killing Jews and other undesirables was less cruel, but then, many more could be killed via ruthless efficiency. If Nazis acted like wild savages, they might have managed to kill dozens a day. But they were so efficient that they could sometimes kill thousands per day.
Nothing seems more moral than the preservation of life, but preservation of certain lives entails the destruction of other lives. Is mercy a mere weakness of nerves? What if one tribe spares another tribe, but the latter returns to destroy the very tribe that spared it? Stalin came very close to being shot, but he was spared by some Tsarist officer, but look what he did later to the counter-revolutionaries. As we are social beings, we live in groups and organizations, and it means we must follow orders in order to survive and make a living. But what if following such orders for our own survival, self-preservation, and happiness necessitates the destruction of other peoples? This is one of the questions raised in SEVEN BEAUTIES. The main character, Pasqualino(Giancarlo Gianinni), will do anything to survive, and in that sense, he is the very incarnation of the life force. But how does it square with morality, with the higher sense of right and wrong? The question is especially confused since the spirit of sacrifice — that we like to associate with morality — is no less evident among the Nazis. If morality means to rise above individual interest and be willing to give of oneself for the higher/greater/common good, one could argue there was a moral component — however perverted — to the Nazi enterprise. So many Germans were willing to work long hours and fight & die on the battle-fronts for the greater glory/defense of the nation, the race, the Fuhrer, the future, or whatever. They didn’t run and hide like Pasqualino. To be sure, one can run and hide for moral reasons. Pasqualino’s Italian companion seems to have deserted for reasons of conscience than out of cowardice. As a deserter, he seems like a stereotypical cowardly Italian. But he morally justifies his desertion as a defiance against Mussolini. It’s also redemptive because he’d failed to resist tyranny in the past. But talk is easy and cheap, and one might mistake his reasoning as mere self-rationalization. So, for him to truly prove the worth of his newfound conscience, he feels he must prove it by action, and so, despite all his fears, he rises against the Germans and is willing to die as a form of protest/penance. (Moral anxiety of sacrifice is also at the heart of MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE and THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY, both of which revolve around flawed saints.) But moral heroism is always easier said than done. To the last, he confesses his fears and begs Pasqualino — acting as stooge of the Germans — to shoot him quickly lest he shit his pants and shame himself. So, the friend isn’t like the lousy Italians in Ernest Hemingway’s FAREWELL TO ARMS. (Wertmuller used to be a big name in America in the 1970s. Her films, SWEPT AWAY and SEVEN BEAUTIES were shown on PBS uncut repeatedly, which is how I was introduced to her. Since then, she’d fallen out of favor in the film community for several reasons. For one thing, her output was artistically far less impressive following SEVEN BEAUTIES, her masterpiece. As Tyrell said of Batty Roy in BLADE RUNNER, "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Wertmuller was too intense to sustain her inspiration for long. She continued to make ‘crazy’ films, but the mania turned into mannerism. In this sense, she was comparable to Fellini who wasn’t much good after 8 ½, his masterpiece. But the other reason she fell out of favor was ideological. After all, even her less good films far out-classed anything by the likes of Jane Campion, Sally Potter, and the dreadful Chantal Akerman. Feminists who were gaining in power in the 70s denounced her, and a new generation of film critics disdained her style as gimmicky showmanship. Also, her view of humanity didn’t fit into any neat ideological mold and was bound to upset the left as well as the right. Indeed, given the paucity of the right in the arts and cinema, Wertmuller, like Camille Paglia, was bound to please certain elements of the right more than of the left. Though being independent-minded isn’t necessarily rightist, it still challenges the orthodoxy of the left and thus can be used as ammo by the right. Consider how unorthodox leftists like Albert Camus and George Orwell came to be much appreciated by the right for their dissension from leftist dogmatism. After all, the most that the right could hope for in cinema was counter-leftism than rightism, and Wertmuller was a counter-left leftist, or a contrarian-leftist. Her films are bound to confound a lot of people who prefer a neat categorization of characters, issues, and themes. But things are never so easy in a film like SWEPT AWAY. It will upset feminists who want to see women as victims since the conflict is between a rich woman and a poor communist male. But it will upset Marxists too since the communist male is brutish and tyrannical. Feminists said the ‘personal is political’, but SWEPT AWAY shows that the political can also be personal, i.e. the poor man seems to use communism as a crutch against the rich who look down on his kind; it’s more about resentment and envy than a sense of social justice and high-minded idealism. So, various issues intersect in ways that are bound to make a lot of people uneasy when watching Wertmuller films. It’s never so simple as victims vs villains. A rich woman can be an oppressor of men in class terms, a poor man can be a tyrant over rich women in sexual terms, and so on. Given the death of classical leftism and the rise of sacro-decadent UGLE — urban globalist liberal elite — neo-‘leftism’, one might say Wertmuller’s films were prophetic, but she’s still out of favor since she stuck her finger into the nerve centers of leftist anxieties, hypocrisies, and neuroses. So, the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum would have us believe that Wertmuller is akin to Leni Riefenstahl — not least because John Simon has been an admirer of both — and that we should pay attention to Chantal Akerman instead. And unsurprisingly, all the gnomic drones of political correctness, the products of our colleges, feel obligated to sing praises to Akerman even though most of them are deathly bored to death by stuff like JEANNE DIELMAN.) From the perspective of the life-force and its need for self-preservation, there’s nothing more natural than deserting from war. Why risk fighting and dying when you can run away to safety? (Of course, many choose not to desert since the long-term chance of survival and well-being upon desertion may be endangered if one failed to stick with the unit. Desertion may save oneself from a battle, but where does one run to? How does one return home? What will happen if one is caught and tried by a tribunal? In this sense, both desertion and loyalty are partly motivated by fear and cowardice. Deserter fears the battlefield. The loyal soldier fears the courtroom — or the commissar willing to shoot anyone who won’t obey orders in the back of the head.) This is why the militaries around the world used to have severe punishment for deserters via the firing squad and social stigmatism. Even big and powerful animals will take flight than fight when the going gets tough. But if desertion seems craven and despicable to most people, the mindless marching into war is no less crazy. Consider the story of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Consider the ending of KAGEMUSHA. While’s one’s sense of honor — a form of ethics — may insist on the willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the common good, it can also become insane and even immoral when it’s a lost cause, a pointless waste of life.
In a way, both the Italian and the German modes shown in SEVEN BEAUTIES have a moral logic of their own. The very Italian Pasqualino is all about his own self-preservation. Though craven and cowardly, he also has good sense. It’s like the scene at the end of THE GODFATHER PART II when Sonny reiterates his father’s sentiment that "only saps die for their country... your country ain’t your blood." It’s a very Sicilian sentiment. We can readily see the ugly aspect of such a view, but it has some value too. After all, what is a ‘country’? Who controls it? When a country calls upon its sons to fight for ‘national interests’, whose interest are they really about? So many Americans were all rah-rah about the Iraq War but was it really in the country’s interests to invade a nation that didn’t attack the US? Or did Jews merely use nationalism to make gentiles fight other gentiles for the interests of Israel? Of course, Sonny’s view is lousy because he thinks Sicilian-Americans — who owe so much to America — shouldn’t fight EVEN WHEN AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Surely, even clan-centric cynics can see the value of fighting when the nation itself is attacked. But we must keep in mind that ‘country’ is controlled by the elites, and the elites have often used nationalism and bogus issues to drive a nation to war. In that sense, Pasqualino isn’t entirely despicable. Indeed, why should he fight for the Italian Fascist elites when the top guys are themselves so lacking in moral character? And why should Italians fight and die in a war cooked up by madman Hitler and Mussolini as his sidekick? Even though Pasqualino didn’t desert for any higher sense of moral duty — indeed, he would likely have deserted even if the war were entirely justified and necessary — , we can understand why he wants to look out for #1. It’s just the default setting of the life-force. And when we contrast him to the Germans, many of whom were willing to give their lives to the very end — as shown in the film DOWNFALL — , we can see where he’s coming from. Germans are surely more ‘conscientious’ in their willingness to fight and die for the common good and in keeping their vows — morality is, after all, a matter of keeping promises and fulfilling contracts — , but collective conscience isn’t the same thing as individual conscience, something sorely lacking in too many Germans during the Nazi era — but then, it’s generally lacking in all societies; after all, a society where individual conscience is powerful would NOT have submitted to the homo agenda of ‘gay marriage’ and to the foul abuses of Jewish power. Most Americans today are as mindless as the Germans during the Nazi Era. Of course, the current American elites aren’t sending us to kill millions of people, but the ultimate agenda that the Jews have for the white race will be, in the long run, as damaging as the Nazi German agenda for the Polish and Russian Slavs. Even though the Jewish agenda is being pushed under the rubric of ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’, the end-result will be the permanent crippling and demise of the white race that had once rightfully ruled the West.
Paradoxically, one of reasons for Nazi immorality was that Nazism was a form of hyper-moralism. The whole point of morality is to distinguish ourselves from the animal world. We say that animals are incapable of morality, and therefore they are mired in the world of tooth-and-claw struggle. In contrast, we humans are capable of better, and therefore we deserve to create and maintain a world of our own. Unless we separate ourselves from the animal world and wilderness, we can’t be truly moral since we will be competing with amoral animal-kind in a semi-beast-like manner(like all them savage Negroes in Africa). The point of Nazism was that the highest and purest race, the ‘Aryans’, should have a world of their own in order to maintain their highest standards. If ‘Aryans’ were to mix socially and genetically with the ‘lower’ races, their high standards will be diluted and degraded. Such attitudes have existed in all high civilizations to some degree — indeed, they even existed among primitive tribes who consider themselves to be the ‘real humans’ compared to everyone else who is less human. Jews generally chose not to mix with others since Jewish blood was seen as special. Chinese shut themselves from the rest of the world because they felt that the Middle Kingdom had to be protected from contamination by the foreign devil barbarians whose influence and presence might pollute their higher(even highest) standards. All such views, though deemed ‘arrogant’ and ‘xenophobic’ today, were moralistic since they sought to preserve what was deemed ‘superior’ and ‘higher’ from the lower. Morality is hierarchical as it judges people and the world as ranging from noble-of-heart-and-mind to rotten-to-the-bone. The paradox of universal morality is it says (1) we must uphold the highest standards and (2) we must love everyone. Christianity and Buddhism are both highly elitist in morality(as the principles preached by Jesus and Buddha are near-impossible to live up to) and generously inclusive in humanity(as all people are welcome to the church or monastery). Both religions say anyone is welcome but everyone must undergo rigorous moral/spiritual cultivation to attain salvation or illumination. But few people can live up to standards put forth by Christianity and especially Buddhism. In the modern world, we have a kind of debased form of neo-Christianity that says the West must embrace everyone without judgment. This mind-set puts all the moral burden on white folks in the West but none on the ‘people of color’, Jews, and homos. White people must embrace everyone without judgment while non-whites, Jews, and homos can do as they please(that go against the moral values of most white folks)but still demand to be treated as moral paragons. It’s like homos want the freedom to bugger each other and spread HIV, but they also all the love and compassion of the Christian community. An inclusive/tolerant Christianity that can no longer judge humanity with a set of moral/spiritual precepts is useless and suicidal. For any worthy universal system to work, it must defend and enforce its higher standards of truth. For all people to be part of a single humanity, all people must transcend their petty lowliness and ascribe to higher morality. Tribal communities can be flawed since they’re all about the tribe. But universal communities must rise above tribal loyalties and prejudices, and this calls for higher ethics. If Greeks want to act bad in Greece and if Irish want to act bad in Ireland, that is their local/provincial problem. But if Greeks and Irish were to live as one people, Greeks have to rise above Greekness and the Irish must rise above Irishness. Otherwise, we have petty tribalism vs petty tribalism, and there is nothing uglier than that. It’s like you can act like a lout in your own house, but if you want to share public space with others, you need to act in accordance to higher standards of behavior; you can’t treat public space like it’s your private den. In America, we no longer have higher standards. We have universalism that celebrates childish and destructive behavior. It encourages blacks to act like rapper thugs and ho’s. It encourages young girls to act like Lena Dunham. It encourages Mexicans to illegally cross the border. It encourages Jews to act like weasels and sharks, and etc. The New Tolerance is about the white majority having to tolerate, forgive, and even celebrate the bad behavior of non-whites, homos, feminists, and Jews.
When universalism caves into the degraded standards of the lowly and crazy, it becomes corrupted and falls apart. Consider the concept of the ‘university’. It is a sanctum of knowledge open to all but in accordance to its high standards. Anyone can apply to Harvard and Yale, but in order for Harvard and Yale to remain as the leading institutions, they must only admit those who aspire and ascribe to the highest achievements. Thus, elite universities are both universalist and elitist. If universities were simply to become universalist without the elitism — on the basis that any kind of elitism is ‘judgmental’, ‘exclusive’, and ‘intolerant’ — , they would be no better than community colleges rendered worthless by barely literate Negroes.
The current social order tends to associate morality with equality, but the essence of morality is hierarchical since morality arose as mankind consciously formulated a conceptual self-image as being superior to the animal world. Also, morality was linked with spirituality, another form of hierarchical thinking. If human morality says that man is superior to man, religious morality says that God or gods(of the spiritual realm) are superior to mankind(of the fleshly and material realm), and so mankind should aspire to be godly in spirit or beauty. If morality says mankind is equal with animals and that gods are equal with mankind, morality would have little meaning. It would mean that gods, mankind, and animals are all equal. How can one have morality if one believes that all gods, men and women, aardvarks, and worms are all morally equal? Morality inspired and pressured mankind to rise above animals and aspire to the higher standards of the gods — or to highfalutin ideologies(in the secular era). So, the notion of equality is problematic to morality. We can agree that people should be treated equally under the Rule of Law, but morality always reminds us that certain values and characteristics are superior to others. One thing for sure, we know people are not equal morally. Some are more honest, some are more conscientious, some are more loving, some are more caring, while some are more like hideous Jews, cruel Chinese, drunken Irish, craven Italians, bitchy homos, or savage Negroes. If we use the blank slate argument, we can assure ourselves that all people are POTENTIALLY morally equal if raised with the proper values and instruction, but the power of nurture only goes so far. Some argue that we should treat everyone equally EVEN IF differences really do exist because it’s simply humane to do so. So, we should treat mentally retarded people the same as we treat normal people. While I agree that everyone should be treated as humanely as possible, we all know that, for all practical purposes, such people are not and cannot be treated the same. Consider how we officially pretend that Paralympics — insulting label if you ask me — has the same value as the real Olympics, but almost no one watches them. We put on the Paralympics to feel good about ourselves while ignoring the actual events that aren’t even broadcast on TV.
How many companies are willing to hire a mental retard to be CEO? How many Liberals wanna be treated by a doctor with an IQ of 85, especially if it’s something like brain surgery?
There is another problem with morality, perhaps most eloquently argued by Nietzsche. Morality, though the basis of so much human progress, can also hold back progress since common morality is a ‘slave morality’ that disdains the superior man of greater genius, vision, and awesomeness. And such fascination with power accounts for the popularity of movies like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS where the audiences willingly allow themselves to be seduced by the genius ubermensch Hannibal Lecter. Is he evil or is he simply on a higher plane of consciousness? Are we to him what sheep are to us? If indeed he is so intelligent and so superior to us, isn’t he above and beyond our ‘slave morality’? Doesn’t he have a right to eat us just like we have the right to eat sheep? And notice how Clarice is drawn to him — almost as much as Bella is to Edward in TWILIGHT — as he fixes his genius-visionary gaze upon her. Lecter seems to take a shine on Clarice as a kind of cute pet he’s grown fond of. It’s like the farmer in BABE spares one particular pig. And though we kill and eat sheep, we don’t kill dogs and cats. And consider the fascination that so many viewers have with Roy Batty in BLADE RUNNER. Though a ruthless killer, people get a kick out of his higher intelligence, greater beauty, and awesome strength. And of course, his ‘slave status’ gives him something of a ‘moral’ cover for his violence. But I suspect he would have acted the same even if he hadn’t been ‘exploited’ as a slave. He was created with the hyper ‘will to power’, so he looks upon most ugly weakling humans as toys.
Anyway, the moral paradox of Nazism can be glimpsed in what the fat female Nazi officer says in SEVEN BEAUTIES:
"In Paris, there was a Greek who made love to a goose.
He did it for money, he did it to survive . . . and you,
you subhuman Mediterranean larva,
you even find the strength to get an erection. . . .
That’s why you will end up the winners of this war . . .
you will be the ones who are left . . . you tiny slithering worms . . .
no ideals or ideas . . . and us,
with our dreams of a . . . .superior race . . . it’s far too difficult."
In her view, the Germans will lose not because they are too immoral but too moral. In trying to be too human, too lofty, and too glorious, they waged war on the lesser humans of the world, but there were too many untermensch. And these beastly creatures will eventually overrun the world since they are driven only by animal instincts. It’s like the tragic failure in Werner Herzog’s AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD. The Conquistador’s dream of creating a great new empire cannot withstand the power of dark and powerful nature with all its torrents, muck, and savagery. Nazis used industrial savagery to rid a large part of the world deemed as overrun with ‘subhuman’ savagery, but they were outnumbered... or so the female Nazi officer in SEVEN BEAUTIES seems to think.
In some crazy way, Nazism was the biggest medical experiment in the world, and one of the great ironies is that so many German doctors joined the Nazi party and aided-and-abetted, directly or indirectly — consciously or unawarely — , in the destruction of so many people. After all, doctors are supposed to save lives. And yet, there’s a perverse logic to medicine for its essential mission is to save certain lives by destroying other lives. In a way, just about everything mankind has done to improve the survival and well-being of humans have been a kind of ‘medicine’. It’s like American Indians called any potent stuff ‘powerful medicine’. Agriculture is a form of ‘medicine’ in the sense that it clears the wilderness and wipes out dangerous animals so as to make the land fertile for growing food so that more humans can live. The military is a form of ‘medicine’ in killing or fending off invading forces in order for the nation to survive. Or, the military may invade other lands, clear it of its original inhabitants and make the land available for new settlements for the people on the conquering/winning side. Wipe out the sickness of dark savagery, make way for healthy civilization. So, quite often, what is good for the well-being of one side is bad for the other side. Much of medicine has to do with killing germs. Hospitals improve the survival rate of humans through sterilization and antiseptics of as much germs as possible. For patients to have a better chance of recovery, the hospital must be a hostile place for non-human life-forms. Of course, killing germs isn’t the same thing as killing humans, but both share an underlying logic: the ‘foul’ and ‘filthy’ must be destroyed in order to improve the chances of the ‘clean’ and ‘pure’. This is why humans have long loathed certain kinds of pests and insects that carry disease. And humans have come to associate certain peoples with certain animals. Jews have been compared with rats for their resilience, adaptability, toughness, resourcefulness, tenacity, and stealth. Though Jews resent this, some Jews have felt sort of pest-like because they looked different and even thought & acted differently from the goy majority. It’s not by accident that Franz Kafka wrote about a man who wakes up to find himself an insect. And there’s the famous Jewish comic book MAUS where the use of Jews as ‘mice’ — than rats — both refers to how gentiles perceived them and how Jews perceived themselves. Mice can be regarded as pests but also the hapless prey of all sorts of bigger and stronger predators. We hate rats but we feel some degree of sympathy for mice. After all, the most famous cartoon character was Mickey Mouse, not Ronald Rat. Some Jews subconsciously feel that they have a Mice-as Touch. If everything King Midas touched turned to gold, everything Jews touch become contaminated. Jews have conflicting attitudes about this, and not every aspect has been delved and analyzed by Jews. There is no denying that Jews were much impressed by the beauty and magnificence of Western/Christian/‘Aryan’ culture, arts, ideas, and peoples.
 |
| Alberich the 'Jewish' dwarf in Richard Wagner's NIBELUNGEN |
Now, suppose a non-Jewish nomadic tribe arrives in the Jewish community. Suppose this tribe has a lot of people who are deemed gross, ugly, and repulsive by Jews. Suppose this tribe — called ‘chingchongfingfongs’ — has a lot of people who are even smarter, cleverer, and nastier than the Jews. How would Jews react? Wouldn’t a lot of Jews become a bunch of anti-chingchongfingfongites? Anyway, a lot of Jews appeared to Germans what chingchongfingfongs might appear to Jews in our alternative universe. And deep down inside, Jews agreed with Germans and other antisemitic Europeans about the nature of Jews, but being egocentric Jews, they were loathe to admit it — though some did. After all, why did Jews have this great desire to gain entry and even control of the Western World? If Jews hated the ‘antisemitic’ West so much, why didn’t they just pack their things and all go off to Africa, Latin America — which was starving for immigrants and settlers — , Asia, or Muslim Middle East? Why did Jews insist on remaining in the West? And why did so many Jewish men have the hots for ‘Aryan’ and European women? If Jews really felt that all races are the same, why weren’t Jewish men content with Jewish women? So, deep down inside, Jews wanted to gain possession and control of the more attractive European peoples and world. It’s like Woody Allen’s romances are mostly about himself as the ugly Jew bedding all sorts of attractive white women. His choice of sexual mates seem to be ‘antisemitic’ as his whanker never much seems to be interested in Jewish pooter. So, Woody Allen’s sexual preferences aren’t much different from that of the ‘Aryan’ anti-Semites. Indeed, lots of Jewish men feel that way. Not long ago, I was watching a wedding where some nebbish Jewish guy was marrying a woman who looked like a classic blonde ‘Aryan’ type. I’ll bet the Jew made some serious money in finance or high-tech or something. Why didn’t he marry some ‘nice Jewish girl’ — though the idea of ‘nice’ and ‘Jewish’ together always struck me as hilarious? Deep down inside, Jews know that they will destroy the white racial ‘purity’ that they themselves want. If indeed Jews really hate the idea of ‘racial purity’, why are so many Jews obsessed with blonde ‘Aryan-looking’ women who look so racially pure? Why don’t rich Jewish men get it on with mestizo Mexican women and North African women? Jewish obsession is paradoxical because they love what they hate. They say race-mixing is good for the white race, but Jews prefer the ‘pure’ whites over the mixed-raced people. If mixed-races are indeed ideal or even superior, why don’t all the Jews move to North Africa or the Middle East where most people have mixed blood, certainly much more so than the peoples of Northern Europe or East Asia? But Jews prefer to bed pure-blooded blonde Europeans(or pure-blooded East Asian women). Suppose there’s a ‘pure Aryan’ woman and a woman who’s half-white and half-black. If mixed races are so wonderful, Jews should prefer the latter but Jews prefer the former. In mixing with ‘pure’ whites, Jews create new mixed-race people, but Jews will still prefer other ‘pure’ whites than the product of their mixing with whites. Blacks feel the same way. Tiger Woods may tell the world that he’s proud to of mixed-race, but notice that all of his preferred sexual partners are very white — and often blond Nordic — women. So, even as Jews promote race-mixing, they keep searching for ‘pure-blooded’ ‘Aryan’ women. So, Jews are more into race-mixing than with the race-mixed. Once the race has been mixed, it’s less enticing and appealing to Jews. Jews have to find new ‘pure’ blondes to mix with. This suggests a repressed sense of self-loathing among Jews. Though they bitch and whine about how ‘anti-Semites’ put them down as ugly and filthy, their behavior seems to suggest that Jews themselves prefer white ‘purity’. But every time non-whites take a white woman, they produce a mixed-race person that is somewhat less special to Jewish eyes despite all the politically correct BS Jews peddle about how race-mixing will make everyone more beautiful and wiser(because I guess Bolivia and Morocco are the most beautiful and wisest places on Earth). So, even though Jews want to lay their hands on ‘Aryan’ women and have children with them, they know deep down inside that the children will be less attractive than if the white women had children with white men. Jews feel that Jewish sperm will uglify white beauty though Jews are loathe to admit this on a conscious level. I mean if Audrey Hepburn had children with Robert Redford and Alan Dershowitz, which set of children are going to look better? To be sure, her kids with Dershowitz are likely to be smarter, but when it comes to beauty and even nobility(though not lately as most whites are acting like tards), whites beat the Jews(in general of course, as there are plenty of attractive Jews and plenty of pug-ugly whites, especially among the Scotch-Irish who sort of have that ‘white trash’ retarded look and the Poles with their fat-headed goofy faces).
 |
| Nazi Medical Experiment |
Medicine-as-metaphor has been essential but also deeply problematic for civilization and humanity. In some ways, we treat doctors as holy men. Even in primitive societies without what we consider as real medicine, certain sorcerers are seen as possessing magical healing powers. They are respected for their ‘powerful medicine’, like in those Westerns with Indians. In Africa, sorcerers and witch-doctors kill albinos and grind their body parts into medicine. In China, traditional medicine says rhino horns, tiger penises, and bear paws have magical healing powers, and as a result, many animals have come to the close to extinction. Medicine always favors some over others. People with diabetes have long depended on chemicals drawn from slaughtered pigs. There was once a controversy in the 80s when some doctors took a heart of a baboon and implanted it into a baby. Medical research has entailed horrific things done to animals in laboratories around the world. Things are still pretty awful even in the most advanced nations, so one can imagine the horrors that must be happening in Chinese and Indian laboratories of medical research.
There has also been an element of vanity in medicine because it had been hogged by the elites for most of history. Elites would order holy men and doctors to come up with some ways to ensure their longevity or even immortality. Today, we have transhumanists who want to fuse bio-engineering and medicine to create their idea of the ‘perfect’ person. And there is a branch of speculative medicine today where some people look for the ‘cure’ for death. If everyone could live forever and if death were to be seen as a disease to overcome, then what about all the new people who need to be born? Unless the living die and make room for the newborns, there won’t be enough space and resources in the world to take care of everyone. (But then, maybe the elites figure only a special select of VIPs should ‘live forever’ while most people go through the usual born-live-and-die.) As immorality is still way out of reach, there’s of course the ‘medicine’ of plastic surgery that ‘treats’ and superficially reverses the natural process of aging. And then, there’s the ‘medicine’ that uses radical surgery to change the sexes of men and women, which to me, sounds like a total perversion of medicine. For a man to become a ‘woman’, his manly organs must be mutilated and destroyed. What kind of medicine is that?
Though one part of medicine calls for basic treatment for all peoples with common sicknesses, another aspect of medicine is borderline narcissistic, utopian, and neurotic. This is especially true of mental health medicine today. Though mental health is largely about identifying neurotic problems among people, the fact is even medicine is controlled by humans who are all too imperfect. So, ironically, mental health medicine itself can become neurotic. One of the characteristics of neurosis is obsessive behavior, and it seems modern mental health medicine has become neurotic in identifying just about everything as a disease. The mental health community has a Compulsive Diagnostic Syndrome. So, if someone is more garrulous or more shy than normal, geez, maybe he or she is ‘sick’. Mental health medicine was used in the USSR to throw anti-Marxists into asylums because the official dogma posited that only a mentally sick person would fail to see the obvious and rational truth of communism. Denying the truth of Marxism would be like denying the existence of gravity. Today, the Jew-run media use the term ‘homophobia’ to describe those who oppose the homo agenda. According to Jews, you must be mentally sick to reject the obvious moral necessity of ‘gay marriage’. If you consider fecal penetration between men to be gross, you must be suffering some kind of obsessive fear of something that is perfectly normal and natural. According to Jews and homos, a fruitkin’s fecal-stained anus is the biological and moral equivalent of your mother’s vagina in the sphere of sexuality.
Michel Foucault was one of the major thinkers who grappled with the issue of how medicine-as-metaphor has long been a control mechanism by the state and the elites. Because medicine is a science and science is supposed to be objective, there’s a sense that medical authorities and doctors are always objective. (Needless to say, many administrative officials of the medical community aren’t doctors but ‘social scientists’ invested with a certain ideology.) And since most patients know nothing of medicine, they put their entire faith in the medical community that supposedly ‘knows everything’. Thus, the doctor-patient relationship is almost ‘spiritual’. Relying on doctors is not the problem; the real problem is cult of the perfect doctor. When it comes to broken bones, it’s entirely up to the doctor. But when it comes to more controversial treatments and the mental health issues — as the brains are incredibly complex and since mental health cannot be disassociated from the prevailing values of society-at-large — , the cult of the objective doctor is far more problematic. There was a time when the American psychological institutes used to objectively say that homosexuality was a mental sickness. Today, they are more likely to say homosexuality is ‘perfectly normal and natural and healthy’ and that those who feel uneasy about homosexuality are the ‘mentally ill’ ones. Especially as Jews control much of medicine and psychology, they force their agenda and pervert the sciences.
Indeed, this was done even in evolutionary sciences with the Jewish media and academia’s promotion and protection of willful deceivers like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, a Marxist who once told a colleague that he’d happily falsify the truth in order to push the correct ideological agenda. (Of course, Jews in the media do the same thing. They will gladly falsify facts to keep waging the Jewish War on Russia. So, the Jewish-run media peddled the lie that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and invaded Crimea in 2014 when, in fact, Russia was merely reacting to crises provoked by Ukrainians and Georgians working in cahoots with World Jewry. More recently, the Jewish-run media tried to push the anti-white narrative that ‘blonde’ fraternity boys at UVA had a 30 yr ritual of raping freshman coeds. While there’s no denying that there were many great Jewish scientists in the 20th century, there’s a kernel of truth in the ‘antisemitic’ charge that ‘Jewish Science’ often deviated from true science so as to serve the Jewish agenda. Of course, all peoples and regimes have perverted science in similar manners, but as Jews have been more prominent in academia and media than most peoples, Jewish perversion of science needs to be carefully observed and studied. Incidentally, though many people decry the growing partisanship of the mass media, it is great for Jews as long as Jews control the narrative. Partisan news, after all, is more invested in pushing a narrative than looking at all sides and being rational/fairminded as to what really happened. If a society were openly and officially anti-Jewish, partisan news would be bad for Jews since anti-Jewish sentiments would be prevalent and encouraged. But as US is Jew-dominated, all partisan news on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ have to be pro-Jewish. So, we have pro-Jewish ranting from Liberals, and we have pro-Jewish ranting from Conservatives. Since most news today is partisan, there’s no pretense of objectivity, rationality, and considering all sides when it comes to Jews and their enemies. While Liberal news attack Conservative news and vice versa, the official line that both sides must uphold is the sanctity of Jews and Israel. As long as Jews control nearly all of the media, the rising partisanship of the news has been a great thing for Jewish power. As anti-Jewish voices are not allowed in the media, partisanship only exists in the media in the form of Judeophilia.) Given the power of Jews, one would think it would be most normal, natural, rational, and healthy for us to take notice of it and discuss its ramifications on the world. After all, what was unhealthy about the USSR was that Soviet citizens couldn’t freely discuss and debate the power within the Kremlin. But Jews in the media have fooled us that we’re mentally ill if we were to notice any kind of Jewish power over us, i.e. if we notice Jewish power, we are like one of those Medieval ignoramuses who saw ghouls and witches in the wind. That Jews control both medicine and media in this country should be alarming to us all. The media and medicine are both shrouded in the cult of ‘objectivity’. The media are ideally supposed to inform us of the nature of power without fear or favor, the motto of the New York Times. And medicine is supposed to be about science than political or social agendas. But both have been taken over by Jews to drive their agenda. So, psychologist Cass the Ass Sunstein berates those who reject the Global Warming as mentally ill and deserving of being silenced... or legally sanctioned and punished. Some Jews even say that certain truths(despite or especially because of mounting facts about them) — especially about race — should be banned because they may be too much for most of us to handle. Or maybe too powerful in waking the goy masses up to the nature of racial differences and Jewish power. (The officially sanctioned morality of the Jews since the end of WWII preaches that Nazis were especially evil because of their belief in racial differences and that the Holocaust was the most evil horror in history because its crimes were justified on racial grounds. Thus, the narrative since the end of WWII insisted that any notion of racial differences is evil and that there’s only one way for the progress of humanity premised on the conviction that race is just a social construct and a myth. Even though new scientific research into genetics isn’t anything like Nazism, it nevertheless points to the differences among the races, and this could lead to increased racial consciousness, and that could lead to white gentiles uniting to defend their rights and interests against other races and groups, Jews included. Also, if race is real, then racial identity is valid, and that can lead to racially identified communities that are less willing to racially mix with other races. Jews want to mix the races not because ‘race is a myth’ but because they secretly believe that races are real and do exist, thereby could serve as a point of unity and pride for a people in challenging Jewish power. By making people believe race is a just a myth, Jews seek to mix all the races so that racial identities will be confused, thereby making it difficult for any group to rise up in racial unity. If the new science says race is real, then any race can argue for its own survival and preservation. That will slow down the Jewish interracist agenda. So, Jews keep pushing the notion that race is just a social construct, just an illusion. So, if all Europeans mix with non-Europeans and if all of Europe becomes non-white, no need to worry since mixed-race folks are no different from white European peoples. Or so the Jews would have us believe.) Ideally, both the law and medicine should be about objectivity and truth. But we know that laws are very often the tools of the powerful — the ideologues, the lawyers, the judges, the politicians, the rich people who buy the politicians. In contrast, medicine is a science, and so, ideally, it should not come under the pressure of non-scientists. Of course, this is true of certain areas of science. I’m sure both Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to trust the doctor when someone undergoes eye surgery. But there are areas of medicine that simply cannot be divorced from social, political, and ideological concerns. Take abortion. Is it ‘murdering the unborn’ or is it simply a matter of women’s health? Or lethal injection in death penalty cases. Is it morally justified or inhumane? Should less money be spent to spare the lives of the old in favor of lives of the young? Should foods and drinks that are bad for people’s health be classified as toxic and banned? But then, to raise the question of humaneness is antithetical to science since scientific truth is amoral. Indeed, even at its most objective, medicine is an applied science(than a pure science) at best because there is no objective law in the cosmos that says human lives should be spared and saved at the cost of other lives. Who’s to say it’s objectively right that laboratories should carry out painful experiments on animals so that humans can live? Pure science is about knowing the truth. Medicine is about using what we know from science to favor certain lives over others. It’s like the German film LIVES OF OTHERS which should be called ‘lives over others’ since it’s premised on the notion that the life and freedom of a bohemian artist is more valuable than those of others.
Still, because medicine is so closely wedded to science — in the way that law can never be — , there is a greater respect for doctors than for lawyers and judges. This is all the more understandable since doctors saved so many lives, but there’s a dangerous side to this since we may over-value whatever comes out of the medical community, especially because so much of the world of medicine is directly or indirectly associated with political pressures. For instance, all the money that went into AIDS research were diverted from other areas. Also, some medical theories can be very wrong, but because we think of medicine as a science, we are far more likely to trust the experts. At one time, many people believed that margarine with transfat is better for one’s heart than butter is. Recently, medical science is saying that saturated animal fat isn’t as bad as it’d been previously reported, and that we should be more wary of calories from carbohydrates — even from whole grain cereals. Worse, there’s a close association between medicine and big business, especially in the pharmaceuticals, which also has a close association with the mental health industry. So, mental health experts keep telling us of new mental maladies that need to be treated by new expensive drugs cooked up by Big Pharma, which, the way it’s going, should be called Big Harma. I sometimes wonder how all those people coped in the past when very few people had access to drugs.
 |
| Transfatty Margine. A health food once upon a time. |
The cult of medicine is especially dangerous in an authoritarian society in which people tend to have a knee-jerk respect for officialdom. This was one of the dangers of Germany with its authoritarian tradition. As National Socialism was promoted as a kind of national health campaign, even initially skeptical Germans got caught up in the excitement. They came to associate social and political order as relational to clean bill of heath. They came to see Hitler as a kind of sorcerer-doctor who was finally cleaning up Germany and restoring its national, economic, and social health. And things dramatically improved so much so fast that many Germans became convinced that treating Jews as a form of social-and-even-biological disease was indeed the necessary cure for Germany. And yet, the great irony was that Hitler was a mentally unbalanced individual and many of the men around him were pathological cases themselves. It was as if the lunatics took over not only the asylum but the world around it. But Germany had been so economically, socially, and culturally ‘sick’ during the Weimar years — during which Germans felt under occupation as French later did during the Vichy years — that many were willing to give a chance to political ‘doctors’ with a radical proposal. Hitler said Germany ailed from a Jewish cancer and the tumor had to be removed. To an extent, Hitler was right about the Jewish Problem — and in some ways, prophetic about the nature of the Jew, and we can indeed see its effect on both the US and EU today — , but he turned it into an obsession where everything about the Jew was terrible. Worse, as time wore on, it wasn’t enough for Hitler to focus on fixing Germany, and he began entertaining ideas of remaking the world around Germany, especially the landmass of Russia. During the Nazi era, it was difficult tell where the real medicine ended and quackery began. Many genuine doctors became Nazi Party members, and they thought it morally feasible to euthanize certain kinds of undesirables — even Germans. Or some might be perfectly fine doctors when it came to healing bones but have radical notions about racial science and how it applied to medicine. If indeed, some races were seen as subhuman or even anti-human, might it not be feasible to exterminate them like germs or carry out horrifying experiments on them? Even more disturbing is the fact that some medical knowledge of genuine value arose from these gruesome experiments, which further complicates the morality of medicine. In some ways, however, Nazi Germany went out of its way to be more moral. It was the first nation to ban vivisection of animals. Also, we should be mindful of the fact that the medical community is not the same thing as the medical organization that speaks in its name. A whole bunch of doctors could think in one way, but the organization, under pressure from powerful elites, could pursue a different path. It’s like there’s a huge discrepancy between rank-and-file Republicans and GOP elites whose priority is to appease the globalist Jewish elites.
The problem with medical-logic-when-taken-to-extreme is due the contradictory fact that we are ourselves a bundle of germs. Humanity is never about health vs germs, but useful germs vs hostile germs. And yet, even hostile germs are necessary to some degree in order to strengthen our immune system. One might say most forms of animate life are walking, floating, flying, or swimming sacks of shit. They eat, turn what they eat into shit and piss, and excrete the material. And the process — and many others — not only involve but require the existence of certain kinds of germs. Indeed, if our eyes could see the amount of germs that are really around us and in us, germ-freaks would flip out and go nuts. Though one way to characterize doctors is as humble practitioners who do their best to save lives — and there have been plenty of such doctors — , there is always an element of egomania in medicine. When a Western doctor goes to some part of the Third World, he or she deserves praise as a man of goodwill. But the fact that he or she knows that he or she has power of life-and-death over his or her prospective patients imbues him or her with an element of godly power. Though he or she is only trying to heal, the success or failure of the treatment will decide the fate of the natives. So, it’s not surprising that many in the medical community — of course, especially in the mental health medicine community — have used medical authority as a means to gain power and control over others. To be a doctor — or to even play the role of amateur doctor — is to imply that you are objective, imbued with authority, supported by knowledge, and possessing of truth, whereas the patient finds himself in a situation where he feels he must defer to the doctor, respect the doctor, trust the doctor, and even submit to the doctor. He comes under the mercy of the doctor who has thumb up or thumb down power over the patient’s life.
3 hrs can feel like the passage of 30 yrs. So, if you know which buttons to press, you don’t have to do much since the person whose buttons were pressed will do the rest through the process of ‘universal mythologizing’. And the evil husband sure pressed the right set of buttons in Scotty. Scotty filled in the blanks. Also, there’s something about the power of spell that is addictive. Scotty is spellbound with Madeleine, and it grows into an addiction. Even though he plays the role of rational/skeptical/cynical detective who’s trying to break Madeleine out of her (paranormal-suicidal)spell, he’s also fallen into the spell, and there’s a subconscious part of him that doesn’t want her to break out of the spell since he himself has fallen into romantic fascination/fixation with her ‘illness’. Indeed, we wonder if he would have fallen into such mad love with her if not for the fact that she was ‘sick’. The ‘sick’ part of her makes her vulnerable, thus allowing him to step into her life as hero and savior. But the ‘sickness’ adds shades of mystery to her pretty face so it’s not just a pretty face but a tragically beautiful face; if hypochrondriasis is fear of non-existent illness, maybe something like ‘hypochrondrophilia’ could mean an obsessive love for someone or something for his/her/its ‘sickness’, as with the case in MARNIE where the Sean Connery character falls in love with the Tippi Hedren character precisely because her ‘sickness’ turns him on. So, even as a part of Scotty wants to talk Madeleine out of her ‘madness’, another part of him savors the fact that her soul is in another world, an impression that imbues her with mythic/goddess-like dimensions. Indeed, consider the scene where Scotty spies on her as she lays flowers at the grave of Carlotta Valdez; the scene, shot through soft filter, looks like both the Garden of Eden and Hell. It’s like remembrance of paradise gone forever and yet revived through myth. Pretty face and biology aren’t enough for a crazy romance like the one that envelopes Scotty. They must be fused with myth.
 |
| VERTIGO - Carlotta's Grave |
 |
| A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Imprinting of David. A Blessing and a Curse. |
 |
| Priss - No Joking Matter |
It is illness that makes people weak, vulnerable, and dependent, and this is when one can make the moves on someone. But Scottie has been claimed by Madeleine whose tragic essence has been ‘imprinted’ onto him. Midge can’t find a way in to take advantage of his illness. He’s possessed by another. But when the illness is still virginal, one can make the move to possess it with passion. It’s like the Sean Connery character slips a secret kiss on the Tippi Hedren character in MARNIE when she freaks out from the storm and falls half-unconscious into his arms; similarly, it is when Scottie falls off the stool near the beginning that Midge is able to hug him without holding her emotions back. As these Waspy characters are into control of emotions and coolness, they are uncomfortable about being overly emotive(like Katy Jurado in HIGH NOON who says it like it is), and therefore, caring for illness is a useful excuse to get ‘fresh’ with someone, like what happens in FAREWELL TO ARMS. And in this, Hitchcock may have appreciated the methodology of Freudianism that got intimate with the patient — often female — on the pretext that the rational scientist was trying to ‘cure’ her. It’s like if you want to see the boobies, one way is to become a doctor so that you can pretend that it’s purely clinical and nothing else, indeed as Bill Harford tells his wife in EYES WIDE SHUT. At any rate, if a physician can only denude the physical part of the woman, the psychoanalyst can probe & penetrate into her mind and soul that are indeed more private and intimate places; Jews sure are experts at ‘mind-fuc*ing’ people. Anyway, Scottie’s illness gives Midge an opening for her to become more intimate with him, but his illness about Madeleine is a barrier she can’t break. In the end, he’s ‘sick’ for Madeleine, and Midge is ‘sick’ for Scottie, but there isn’t anything Midge can do about it. Oddly enough, it’s as though Midge falls most in love with Scottie just when she realizes he’s fallen in love with Madeleine. Part of the reason is jealousy, and jealousy makes a person more competitive. But it’s also because she is touched that someone as cynical and rational as Scottie could gain such total faith in something. Since Scottie and she seemed so alike as bosom buddies, she wishes for herself the kind of emotions that Scottie has for Madeleine. So, in a way, she’s jealous with Madeleine for stealing Scottie’s heart, but she’s also jealous with Scottie for he has gained a sacredness of emotions that has always eluded her. And yet, in losing him forever, she sort of gains that kind of sacredness for herself as she is filled with a profound love for him as she walks down the corridor of the hospital out of his life.
Myths take on a life of their own despite seeming fixed in their eternal sacredness. At their core is an instability that may inspire the imagination to sprout off new narratives. For example, when Scottie was with Madeleine, he wanted to be with her forever; nothing would have hurt him more than losing her. But lose her, he does, and it’s as if he’s lost his sacred love forever. He is thus condemned to be eternally unconsolable, or so he feels. And yet, the myth inspires him to create a new ‘Madeleine’, and the obsession is so absolute that the resurrection of ‘Madeleine’ becomes as sacred or even more so than his sacred love for Madeleine before her ‘death’. So, when he embraces the newly resurrected ‘Madeleine’, would he have been willing to go back to the old Madeleine if someone like the blue fairy appeared to him and said he could be transported back in time to be with old Madeleine again and even prevent her death? (It’s like the Disciples were heartbroken to observe the death of their master Jesus. As they’d dearly loved and respected Him, they felt nothing was more sacred to them than the time they’d spent with Him while He was alive. But when Jesus returns to them, they come upon something even more precious and sacred. While Jesus was alive, He was a great man and teacher, the stuff of myth-making. In His resurrected form, He is a myth larger than myth. He isn’t merely the stuff of myth-making but myth-made.) Though ‘Madeleine’ isn’t Madeleine — though both are myths pasted upon Judy Barton — , in some ways, she(the second ‘Madeleine’) has become more than Madeleine since Madeleine, despite her alluring ‘sickness’, was only a person named Madeleine — at least to Scottie’s mind — whereas ‘Madeleine’ is truly a creation of Scottie’s fevered imagination. But then, Scottie didn’t so much create ‘Madeleine’ as model her on Madeleine, in which case, we wonder who was the true author or ‘auteur’ of ‘Madeleine’. Scottie? The evil husband? Judy Barton as Madeleine? Or the real wife Madeleine who was the model that Judy Barton imitated to create the double. But then, did Judy Barton really imitate the real Madeleine[the actual wife], or did she create her own Madeleine based on her assumptions of how a rich socialite woman talks and walks? And how much was she coached by the evil husband in working on her accents and the way she moves? The evil husband is a rather odd character; he seems urbane and sophisticated — a natural born aristocrat — , and yet, he says he wishes he could live in the pioneer days of California when things were rougher, tougher, and more free — presumably more free take what one wants with a six-shooter, whereas in the modern world of law-and-order, it’s much more difficult for a man to get what he wants as he can’t wield his power like a conqueror. To gain possession of power in the civilized world of law-and-order, one needs to be more creative and devious, like the devious general in PATHS OF GLORY who, like the Neocons and Liberal Zionists, pull the strings but then snip them off when things go badly, claiming no responsibilities and pushing all the blames on others who were sucker enough to have fallen for their manipulations. Though we despise the evil husband for his thirst for ‘power and freedom’, something of his character exists in all of us, indeed, even in Scottie and Judy. Though Scottie is not a killer, he sort of ‘murders’ Judy — or buries her alive beneath the facade of Scottie’s fantasy — to have what he wants, which is ‘Madeleine’. He ‘forces’ her into becoming what she isn’t in order to realize the dreams of his own ‘power and freedom’. And Judy, a poor girl who came to San Francisco from some nondescript small town, was willing to conspire with the evil husband to get what she wants. And then she ‘conspires’ with Scottie to give him what he wants so that she can have what she wants: his love and attention. In some ways, what Scottie does to her is more ‘violent’ than what the evil husband did. The evil husband didn’t make her surrender her identity and true self. He merely coached her into putting on an act. In contrast, Scottie really wants Judy to abandon her true self and become this ‘Madeleine’. And yet, in having played Madeleine and then ‘Madeleine’, Judy herself isn’t sure what she really is. After all, modern identity isn’t merely about the culture or place we are born into. It is about every individual creating his or her identity by imitating/emulating certain images and styles sold to the public by the fashion and entertainment industries. Before Judy Barton became Madeleine, was she really her true self? But what was her ‘true self’? If she was happy being what she really was, why did she leave her hometown and come to a big city? She obviously wanted to be something else, someone more glamorous. When Scottie meets Judy Barton in the street, she is heavily made up and fashion-conscious(though in a rather tasteless manner). It makes us wonder if she really is so lacking in taste or if she made herself look especially tacky to avoid being identified by Scottie. So, even before she was remade into Madeleine, she was already unsure of what she was; or she was displeased with what she was. Was she a small town girl? A big city woman? A hick? A city slicker? If we can switch from one identifying image to another, is there a stable meaning to the concept of ‘I’ and ‘myself’? In traditional communities, the chances are you were born into a culture, religion, and a stable set of customs; and as they were likely to define you and remain with you for your whole life, you had both a weaker and stronger sense of ‘I’. A weaker sense of ‘I’ since your identity was given to you and reinforced by the community whether you liked it or not. But also a stronger sense of ‘I’ since your identity remained fixed and stable for your entire life. In the modern world, one’s sense of ‘I’ is stronger in the sense that each person gets to choose how to define himself or herself. But the sense of ‘I’ is also weaker since you could be one thing at one time and then another at another time. Consider how the hippies became yuppies. Consider how some people juggle various identities: new age spiritualist, urban professional, cynic, globalist-cosmopolitan, libertarian, ass-tattooer, Christian, etc. Besides, fashions change all the time, and as fashions change, sense of identity also changes. When Americans today look at photos of Americans partying in the 1920s, there’s a sense of disconnect because the fashions were so different then. If image matters in defining what we are, then was there any stable and certain person named ‘Judy Barton’ to begin with? In a way, doesn’t the fashion/cosmetic/entertainment industry Madeleine-ize all women by make them want to be something other or more than what they really are? Every look, style, and manner of modern womanhood have an element of affectation shopped from the wider world dominated by advertising conglomerates and shopping outlets. At the most basic level, one might say that a woman is just an animal, and her drives are wild and sexual, like with the winged creatures in THE BIRDS and the black horse in MARNIE. But in a civilized setting, a woman must lure men with colored feathers than with beaks and talons.
Scottie and Judy’s ‘selfishness’ may seem more sympathetic to us because they fall in love, but both are willing to break rules of conventional morality and even decency to get what they want. It’s like Negroes often say they ‘gotta have me’ something, and they’ll willing to do anything to have it. Consider how Michael Brown the Clown of Ferguson just had to ‘have me’ some free cigars. And even though the evil husband is one nasty son of a bitch, maybe he too is a dreamer who felt trapped by his rather staid, stuffy, and all-too-respectable life, and maybe his wife, the real Madeleine, was just a cold-hearted bitch who didn’t show him any love(like the first wife in REBECCA); maybe he too had a great love in hiding and wanted to get away and be with her. Often, it is the most beautiful dream that makes us blind to all the evil that we do. This is true politically as well. Hitler did have a glorious dream of a great German nation, but it blinded him to all the evils he would have to commit to build it. The notion of Manifest Destiny was grandiose, uplifting, and inspiring, but it turned a blind eye to all the suffering of the American Indians. Zionists had a great dream of a new Israel, but the beauty of that vision blinded them to all the injustices that would be meted out to the Palestinians. And think of the great dream of waging war on wicked Saddam Hussein to liberate the Iraqis and spread democracy all over the Middle East. It appealed to me too, and despite my knowledge that WMD scares were totally baloney, I supported the war with a blind spot to all the horrors such a war might unleash. And think of the wonderful dream of the Civil Rights Movement and the building of the Rainbow nation in South Africa with the end of Apartheid. They both sounded very nice, but then, they sounded TOO NICE, for reality is never very nice. But the power of such dreams blinded us to the horrors that would be unleashed by the rise of the ghastly Negroes who are naturally stronger and more aggressive. Beauty blinds us to ugliness. We like to believe beauty = truth, but more often than, beauty is an opiate or mask over the ugly face. Indeed, all creatures are ‘ugly’ and all faces are masks of beauty. Rip off the face-mask of the most beautiful person in the world and you find a mangle of tissue, bones, veins, and etc. — the ugly stuff of inner organs so prominently featured in David Cronenberg films. Since complex organisms must mate in order to produce new life, evolution created pretty outward appearances that effectively mask and hide all the real ugliness within. I mean what person would want to mate with another person whose skin has been torn off and whose flesh, veins, and organs inside could be seen from the outside? It’s why the guy in THE FACE OF ANOTHER by Kobo Abe and Hiroshi Teshigahara needs a new face. The odd thing about beauty is it’s both generic and particular. There’s a general set of rules that determine what is attractive and what isn’t, and indeed people all over the globe prefer certain facial types over others. So, in this sense, there are general markers for beauty. And yet for something to be truly beautiful, it has to possess certain unique characteristics — visual signatures — that might even be considered a kind of defect if not so piquantly placed in the beauty in question. Such ‘defects’ add character to a person. For example, the slightly droopy lips of Jeanne Moreau might be deemed as a defect in most women, but, in combination with her other features, they lend her beauty a peculiarity lacking in generic beauty.
 |
| Jeanne Moreau |
 |
| Catherine Deneuve |
 |
| Lauren Bacall |
 |
| Patricia Neal |
One thing that I never much cared for in Hitchcock’s films is Hitchcock generally had the hots for perfect beauty, especially Nordic/blonde types like Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly(whom I could never stand, except in HIGH NOON). And yet, VERTIGO is special because Kim Novak, though pretty, was no great beauty, and the film is about molding imperfection into a thing of perfection. Novak as Judy Barton — even the name Barton sounds blah — looks sort of attractive, but everything about her face, makeup, hair, and dress looks wrong, indeed so wrong that most people would never think she could be sculpted into a woman of beauty. And yet, the evil husband saw something in her that resembled his fancy wife, and Scottie notices the same thing upon seeing her in the street and indeed goes about remolding her into ‘Madeleine’. This suggests there are two layers to beauty and/or obsession. For those who are really obsessed with a certain kind of beauty, they can notice its vague presence in ways no one else could. It’s like some miners see specks of gold where others don’t. Though Judy Barton looks like some cheap tart indistinguishable from countless other cheap tarts, there was something about her that piqued Scottie’s attention instantly, and later he chiseled away her extraneous features and added polish to bring out the glimmer. Of course, it turns out Judy was really Madeleine, and therefore, the job is made all the easier for Scottie, but it’s still something of an inspired miracle that he noticed her right away, because a lot of people, including myself, would never have noticed that Madeleine and Judy are the same person. Judy’s dilemma becomes ironic. Usually, when people want to hide something, they take on another personality/identity. But Judy is hiding in her own self from her incarnation as Madeleine. And yet, in another way, she never felt so real, alive, and beautiful than as Madeleine. So, paradoxically, she’s hiding everything(beautiful) by not hiding anything(mundane). As Judy, she is simply herself, but she is hiding that mythic side of her that fell in love with Scottie who fell in love with it, and in hiding this side of her from Scottie when they meet again, she is hiding everything. A part of her wants Scottie to her love as she is(as Judy), and yet, another side of her wants to be Madeleine again because she was never so classy, beautiful, alluring, and mysterious — and never so admired and loved — than as Madeleine. In turning into ‘Madeleine’, she is both betraying her real self that is Judy and claiming her dream self that is a goddess. So, which is truer? One’s biography or one’s mythology? But in some ways, even every biography has an element of myth. After all, Judy put on makeup, wore dresses, and exuded a style that she borrowed from fashions created by the larger society. Even a cheap tart tries to make herself look alluring according to fashion, and what is fashion but mass-marketing of the myth of beauty? So, even though Judy might seem like a cheap tart in a big city, she might impress someone as a goddess-type in a small town of simpleton rubes. To a hillbilly, she might seem like a real classy lady. It’s like female country music singers of the 1960s and 1970s look rather cheap, but they were much admired as classy by good ole boys who ain’t never seen anyone so purty and dressed up. It’s like the country singer Barbara Jean(Ronee Blakely) in NASHVILLE is like a goddess to the simpleminded soldier(Scott Glenn) who came to watch her perform.
One can remake onself without changing one’s identity. Consider how Arianna Huffington went from a ‘conservative’ to a ‘progressive’. Consider how many times Clinton and Obama changed their stripes despite not having changed their identities. Indeed, all politicians in a democratic system must be whores who change things about themselves in order to serve the truly powerful men of the world — who happen to be mostly Jewish in America. Such changes can be idealistic or corrupt, but then, idealism and corruption often go hand in hand, indeed without even being noticed by those involved. The great ideal of tranny men is that they want to ‘change’ into women, and they may see the transformation as something beautiful, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, but the notion of cutting off perfectly healthy organs and pumping someone with tons of artificial organs is pretty corrupt. Again, it goes to show that beauty blinds us to perversion and evil. It’s like the serial killer in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is so transfixed by his dreams of metamorphosing into a beautiful woman that he’s blind to all the horror he’s causing to the woman he’s preying on. (To be sure, even genuine love/affection can blind one to one’s own humanity. Consider the father in EYES WITHOUT A FACE who loves his disfigured daughter and tries to give her a new face so that she could lead a healthy normal life, but he goes about doing so by murdering other women for their facial skin. A father’s love for his daughter leads him to coldly kill the daughters of other fathers.) When Bella wants to be beautiful and immortal forever as a vampire in TWILIGHT, to what extent is it a romantic ideal and to what extent is it a corruption of narcissism? It certainly doesn’t do much for humanism, which is all but dead in the modern West. A real pity as I believe the West will dearly pay for the ultra-narcissistic cults of homomania that cannot morally and spiritually sustain a civilization in the long run.
Anyway, Judy becomes confused as to whether she is Judy-hiding-Madeline or Madeline-hiding-Judy. Besides, in the end, aren’t we what we make ourselves to be? (In contrast, Steiner — James Coburn — in CROSS OF IRON says a man is what a man really FEELS himself to be.) After all, isn’t Holly Golightly really ‘Holly Golightly’ and no longer Lulu Mae? People change religions, ideologies, manners, nationalities, and cultures. If a deeply conservative Muslim Turk comes to America and become a liberal Christian American, is he pretending to be someone else or did he genuinely change into someone else? Though Judy can never be truly Madeleine in identity, if some cheap tart goes out of her way to become a classy lady, who’s to say it’s all fake? If some ignorant small-time rube studies hard to become a person of knowledge, hasn’t he truly become a person of knowledge? And what is classiness but a manner of style? No one is born classy. Classy people are brought up to be or learn to be classy. To the extent that Judy learned to be classy as Madeleine, didn’t she imbibe some of that classiness and really become someone like Madeleine? If so, her need to become Judy again is less a case of returning to her true self than hiding her ‘truer self’ — as classy Madeleine — and pretending to be what she isn’t anymore. Suppose you went from an ignoramus to a person of knowledge but was forced by circumstances to act like an ignoramus again. Are you returning to your true self or repressing your ‘truer self’ that has become a person of knowledge? To be sure, Judy’s stint as Madeleine didn’t last too long, and it was all an act, but maybe she really got into it and, at some point, stopped seeing it as an act but the kind of person she really wanted to be and could be, especially as it was so well-done that it drove a handsome detective crazy and made him fall deeply in love with her. Anyway, Judy’s dilemma with Scottie is that the more she becomes ‘Madeleine’ to make him lose his senses and love her more, the more he may come to his senses. On the one hand, her transformation into ‘Madeleine’ will make his mind fly off into the la-la-land of dreams, and yet if she looks so absolutely like Madeleine, Scottie might realize that, wait a minute, Judy IS Madeleine. And yet, paradoxically, by becoming more and more like Madeleine, she could hide the fact that she was Madeleine because Scottie will be so swept up with the miracle of having recreated Madeleine that he will be blind to the simple fact that he’s really with the same woman again. Truth can be the best lie. Scottie is so overwhelmed by the myth of re-creation that he fails to see fact of the matter, i.e. that ‘Madeleine’ looks so much like Madeleine because they are the same person who is Judy. Thus, the truth becomes her most effective mask. When she is finally found out, it wasn’t her looks but a piece of jewelry that, like a whole bunch of Queens in MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, finally breaks Scottie out of his spell and restores his rationality. Once again, he becomes the Scottie that Midge once knew.
 |
| UNDER CAPRICORN |
Hitchcock, of course, wasn’t the only film director fascinated by the darker implications of modern medicine. One of the most frightening psycho-medical horrors is THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE by Fritz Lang. A funny one is THE PRESIDENT’S ANALYST with James Coburn. In pre-modern times, sinister figures sought to gain control over others through sorcery and witchcraft, which were the ‘powerful medicine’ of their day. But why bother with bat-wings and such when there are drugs and advanced methods of gaining control of others? Medicine is the modern sorcery, a theme pursued in Ingmar Bergman’s THE SERPENT’S EGG. Medicine begins by searching for cures for simple diseases, but as it advances, it is no longer content to deal with diseases and begins to prefer the ideal over the normal. It used to be that the best that we could hope for from medicine was to save us from illness and pain. Thus, medicine was for restoring normal health. But once normal health became a given for most people — with ever-dwindling number of abnormally diseased people — , medicine began to focus on promising the ideal over the normal. Thus, normal was no longer good enough for mental health. Medicine turned from normative to narcissistic. This is one of the themes of Kobo Abe and Hiroshi Teshigahara’s THE FACE OF ANOTHER. When the film begins, a plastic surgeon/doctor fashions an artificial face for a man with a disfigured face. But the twist is that the man doesn’t get his old face back but obtains an ideal face of a handsomer man. If such an ideal could be attained for everyone, wouldn’t normality itself become a kind of disease? Normal would no longer be good enough as everyone would demand the ‘fantastic’ or ‘ideal’. It would be the end of humanism and the coming of idolism as everyone tries to remake oneself in the image of the gods(or at least celebrities). Today, people look to plastic surgery, but in the future, it could be done at the genetic level. Suppose some lunatic suggests a whole bunch of guys should be tweaked to look like Pierce Brosnan(especially in NOBLE HOUSE) and a whole bunch of girls should be tweaked to look like Ashley Greene(especially in the first TWILIGHT). FACE OF ANOTHER was a pretty prophetic film as to where the culture would eventually go. (The far less successful is John Frankenheimer’s overly obvious and preachy SECONDS.)
MARNIE is a very interesting example of ‘romysterine’, or maybe ‘romedistery’ — romantic medical mystery — is better. And yet, something is missing that makes the film fall short of greatness. It’s because the Sean Connery character is presented as too straight when it’s clear that he’s as obsessed and perverse as Marnie. Though his obsession is addressed, he seems to have it all under control, indeed as if he has every right and credential to play amateur psycho-analyst. MARNIE suffers from the same thing that mars THE ROPE. Though the James Stewart appears to possess a dark side — something that has at least an indirect emotional link to the thrill-murder of a young man by his two ‘friends’ — , we are led to believe at the end that he was really just joshing and didn’t mean any of it. So, in the end, we are left with Stewart as teacher-preacher full of moral outrage and with the two killers who are shamed and denounced. THE ROPE would have been psychologically more interesting if the Stewart character came to realize there is indeed a sick connection between what the killers did and what he’d been pontificating about in Nietzschean terms. (In a way, the moralization in THE ROPE rather disingenuously abets the official line of America of the WWII period and its immediate aftermath. While films like THE ROPE and THE STRANGER — by Orson Welles — explore and flirt with nihilism, narcissism, and megalomania, they all-too-conveniently pretend, as Allan Bloom did later in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, that the real sickness was with the Continental Europeans, especially the Germans. You see, reading too much Nietzsche made these characters lose their mind and carry out a mindless act. It’s as if the American way is to be decent, normal, moderate, and sensible, whereas the Continental, especially the Germanic, way is to be arrogant, grandiose, know-it-all, radical, and nihilistic. Real Americans have too much horse sense not to fall for the allure of intellectualism-over-moralism. Indeed, even in a movie like STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where all characters are American, the killer seems a bit alien in his homo-ishness and dandy neo-aristocratism. It’s an especially dangerous kind of aristocratism since it’s oblivious to conventions & obligations and instead obsessed with egotism and privilege. It’s not noblesse oblige aristocratism but a wanton infatuation of the self. One might see it as a comment on a certain kind of haute English class snobbery as Hitchcock drew much of his inspiration from his British background. In a way, the killer in all the more dangerous because his Old World snobbery and New World vulgarity are rolled into one. But even British-like snobbery was supposedly nothing compared to the darker implications of the Germanic soul, and such suspicions of Teuton-ism was intensified as Germany was the enemy of the Anglo/American world in World War I and became an even bigger threat during World War II under the sorcerer Adolf Hitler. And as Hollywood was Jewish-run, it was willing to make a bunch of movies during wartime that heightened awareness of the especially sinister character of the German culture, politics, and philosophy. To the extent that Germany under Hitler had really become insane, the dark fears and fascinations about Germany were understandable. But what was disingenuous was the overly neat and convenient conceit that THOSE GERMANS monopolized the darkness of the soul whereas WE AMERICANS were all about moderation, decency, and common sense. But in fact, America wasn’t only a nation of moderation but also a nation of extremes of grand ambition, wild egotism, excessive violence, megalomania, hyper-individualism, and even nihilism. It’s somewhat fitting that Harry Lime in THE THIRD MAN the film is an American. He represents the devil-may-care Americanism in contrast to the common sense humanist Americanism of the Joseph Cotten character. And in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, we see two sides of George Bailey. One side is the decent and caring small town lad who respects his father and cares about his community. But another side is egotistical, contemptuous of his humble origins, and wants to ‘lick the world’. Indeed, the great tragedy of Bailey’s life is the great divergence between what he really wanted and what he ended up with. When his Savings-and-Loans loses $8,000, Bailey isn’t merely distraught over financial/legal problems but by the realization of all the things he’s had to abandon and sacrifice in the name of doing the ‘right thing’. So, he goes into a kind of MULHOLLAND DR. daze where he imagines another reality in which he was never born. And yet, his fantasy is disingenuous since his main gripe isn’t really that everyone else would be better off if he were never born but rather that HE HIMSELF would have been better off if he’d been born elsewhere and could have had the chance to pursue his grand ambitions. To be sure, having grand ambitions isn’t the same thing as having dark fantasies of Wagner’s operas and invading Poland, but there’s a logic to grandiosity that tends toward nihilism and megalomania. Indeed, there’s always been a contradiction in the heart of Americanism. The American Myth spiritualized the settling of America in humble moral terms. We’ve all heard of the narrative of how simple religious folks — Pilgrims or Puritans — sought refuge in the New World. They wore simple clothes and prayed to God all the time. We’ve also heard of how the Founding Fathers were different from the radicals of the French Revolution and Napoleon who made himself emperor. Unlike the highfalutin kings and radical revolutionaries of Europe, the founders of America were sensible and moderate men of reason and common sense than of intellectual arrogance or megalomaniacal ambitions. And most American folks were hard working farmers idealized by Thomas Jefferson. And with the westward expansion, most Americans were God-fearing folks who built towns with schools and churches and did what they could to do away with the outlaws, gamblers, and hussies. And American conservatives love to wax romantic about small town values, the kind seen in THE WALTONS and LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. But there was another side to Americanism, one of boundless egomania, ambition, extremism, hedonism, and even nihilism. As there was so much money to be made, it gave rise to the hyper-tycoons in the late 19th century who were called ‘robber barons’ or ‘captains of industry’. Social Darwinism was very appealing to the American elites in the late 19th century. America fought brutal wars of conquest and subjugation against non-whites & non-Americans and between Americans during the Civil War. American morality could be pragmatic and common-sensed, or it could be highfaluting, extremist, and absolutist. It goes to show that even moral righteousness could take on a nihilist tinge. It could become enraged and even orgasmically ecstatic with its absolute sense of God-given truth. Though Americans scoff at the French for messing up the French Revolution with extremism, Americans had their own French Revolution moment with the Civil War, an orgy of mutual destruction that was, in some ways, more damaging and horrific than the French Revolution. Because the North won, the Union was preserved, and slavery ended, we tend to remember the Civil War as a great triumph that somehow redeemed the tragedy, but it was a war that could have bee avoided if Abolitionists in the North hadn’t gotten so out of hand with their rhetoric and influence. Instead of working towards a common sense approach as to how slavery could gradually be phased out, Abolitionists were willing to risk an all-out war that would destroy innumerable lives and properties for the sake of their rapturous self-righteous glory. It was a case of righteousness turning downright nihilistic. John Brown took it even further. The same happened with the rise and spread of communism as the Reds were willing to use any amount of violence to make a ‘better world’. And the madness continued after the Cold War with the US bringing ruination to the Middle East in the name of ‘spreading democracy’ and ‘fighting terror’. Though the sheer recklessness of American efforts — driven by Jewish supremacist Zionist agenda — has done little but spread misery throughout the Middle East and encouraged even more terrorism throughout the region, American self-righteousness aided and abetted by the Jewish-controlled media had made most Americans blind to their nation’s terrible impact on the world. And yet, US accuses Russia of being a bully nation and invading other nations. It isn’t even remotely true that Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Empire, but Jew-run US wants to create a New World Order in which all nations would have to follow the dictates of Jewish globalism. Jews look forward to a day when even Russia and China have ‘gay marriage’ and imprison bakers for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’, as is already the case in Jew-run USA. In some ways, the styles of American leaders have misled us as to the real ambitions of Americanism. Abraham Lincoln ruled as a semi-dictator but had a down-to-earth homegrown personality. So, we like to think of him as ‘Honest Abe’ who didn’t mean to cause all the havoc but just stumbled into the mess. Because FDR didn’t rant like Mussolini or Hitler, we’re likely to remember him as some nice guy who took on evil forces in defense of goodness and decency. In fact, he was a devious and cold-hearted bastard who played the imperial game almost as aggressively as anyone else. As for the American military-industrial complex, it’s been the dominant war-mongering force in world affairs since the end of WWII. During the Cold War, its influence was somewhat justified as the threat of communism was real enough around the world. But its tentacles that spread and groped for more war have led to all sorts of horrors during and after the Cold War. Though America has been known for its small-town values and nice green suburbs, it’s also been the nation of larger-than-life personalities, and of course, Orson Welles CITIZEN KANE was about one such American as it was based on William Randolph Hearst.
A key difference between US and Nazi Germany was US could have lots of power-mad Hitlers whereas Germany could only have one. As a bunch of ‘Hitlers’ in business, government, and culture in America competed with one another, there was far less danger of a single Hitler taking power in the US. In that sense, US was better not because it had no ‘Hitler’ but because its system allowed so many of them. Indeed, if Nazi Germany had allowed many ‘Hitlers’ — strong-willed characters struggling and fighting to ‘lick the world’ — , it could have avoided World War II. Other ‘Hitlers’ would have stood up Der Fuhrer and told him to bugger off because most Germans don’t want a war. As each ‘Hitler’ insists on his own rightness, he is unlikely to bow down to other ‘Hitlers’. Indeed, consider all the Jewish ‘Hitlers’ in America. They took on the Wasp elite and rose to the top. And a Jewish ‘Hitler’ like Norman Finkelstein refuses to take shit from other Jewish ‘Hitlers’ like Alan Dershowitz. As a political liberal, Orson Welles pretended to be critical of megalomaniacal personalities, but like Oliver Stone, he was a larger-than-life personality himself fueled by his own grand ambition. There was a reason why Ayn Rand was especially appealing to Americans. And in the 1980s, Donald Trump was the hero of the New Reaganite Capitalism. America has also produced the biggest music and sports stars in the world, not least because it has a lot of loud, crazy, and brash blacks and their white imitators. Also, Hollywood became the mega-dream-factory for the entire world. In the past, when America was more moralistic and when famous people could have their reputations destroyed by scandals, famous people were more mindful of how they were perceived by the public. They might be rather excessive and debauched in their private lives, but they were careful to maintain a decent public image. But as American moralism gradually fell by the wayside and then was dumped altogether in the late 60s and 70s, famous people and big name stars could brazenly indulge all their fantasies out in the public, and so, American Culture today is one of shameless excess, trashiness, and wild abandon. Big name rappers, sports stars, kids with vlogs on youtube, celebrities[people who are famous for being famous], and ordinary ‘shoppers’ during Black Friday sale all act like stupid louts. There’s the moral righteousness of Political Correctness that idolizes the Civil Rights Movement and the homo agenda, but it’s mostly useless since its brand of morality tends to be hysterical, hyperbolic, narcissistic, and crude. While moral outrage is sometimes necessary, much of genuine goodness derives from the virtues of caution, responsibility, and accountability. In other words, it does no good to a community if everyone praises MLK and Mandela to high heaven but doesn’t have the sense to be neighborly, polite, honest, and mindful of others. Indeed, consider all the louts at Ferguson who rioted and looted but howled moralistically about how they be so ‘oppressed’. So much hysterical hollering about moral righteousness but so little moral self-governance in their daily lives. A viable moral society is built of small virtues practiced daily by the largest possible number of people. But too many blacks listen to rap, act like loutish thugs, and commit all sorts of crimes, BUT they think they are morally superior because they make the loudest and most obnoxious noises about how morally outraged they are. Moral hysteria is the last refuge of scoundrels. It’s like the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in China made a lot of noise of moral outrage, but none of them knew how to be good decent people as individuals. Instead, they ran around pillaging and destroying stuff as if moral hysteria is the same thing as moral responsibility. People who are morally most hysterical are generally morally most lacking. They’ve turned morality into a noise since they lack a sense of morality as everyday behavior. Twerk, steal, and invoke MLK who, by the way, was a moral degenerate in real life. That’s the Negro way of morality. It’s like Neil Degrasse Tyson is better at making noises about being a scientist than being a real scientist of any worth. His idea of science amounts to politically pressuring the scientific community to ‘believe in him’. Whoever heard of such nonsense? Imagine a student of science failing to do quality work but then bitching that his professors don’t ‘believe in him’. Anyway, because America was a nation of great potential and power — especially following World War II — , it wasn’t easy for Americans to maintain the conceit of being all about small down values, moderation, and decency. Indeed, some Jews and Negroes — as well as Italian-Americans — began to suspect that the Anglo-American ideal of moderation was just a sneaky way to keep the power in Wasp hands since Anglos were known for their ‘blandness’ and ‘colorlessness’. Besides, if extremism of meritocracy and ruthless competitiveness were to be favored over ‘community values’ and the norms of Anglo-Americanism, certain races would beat out the Anglo-Americans in certain fields. It’s like the Winklevoss Twins in SOCIAL NETWORK invoke the principle of gentlemanly virtues in their case against ‘Zuckerberg’ who has no use for such drivel in his drive to win and take it all. If Negroes were allowed to fully express their racial nature, they would run wild and win in sports and sing and dance like they wanna have sex like gorillas all the time. If Jews were allowed to fully express their ethnic nature, they might out-compete Anglos in business, take over all the media and academia, and overly sexualize America through their control of Hollywood and entertainment, even porn. If Italian-Americans were allowed to do as they please to the hilt, they might spread organized crime all over and act like a bunch of Joe Pescis in GOODFELLAS, and that’d be no good. So, there was an element of social control in Anglo-American moral-decency-ism. By insisting on the virtues of moderation and self-control, Anglo-Americans would not only control their own impulses but would also pressure other groups — especially those that might pose a challenge to Anglo-Americans in certain key areas of pride and power — who tended to be more energetic or more skilled in gaining dominance. In this sense, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though seemingly pro-Americanist, is very anti-Anglo-American-ist. Though Rand idealized the tall and handsome Anglo-American hero, the social logic of her philosophy obviously favor the over-reaching Jew with a radical personality and high IQ over the more moderate Anglo-American who was more keen on compromise and accommodation in the name of moderation and goodwill. Rand hid the ‘Nietzswicz’ Will to Power behind the mask of the Anglo-American character. Anglo-Americans were both very pragmatic/moderate and supremely ambitious in their conquest and settlement of America. Indeed, so very ambitious that they settled and built the continent with breakneck speed, and by the late 19th century, Americans were looking to gain control of the world as well and indeed easily defeated what remained of the Spanish Empire to attain Cuba and Philippines as trophies. But because America was a liberal democracy and no single ruler or dynasty hogged all the power, Americans could pretend that their empire-building wasn’t really empire-building but a generous sharing of freedom and liberty so that benighted peoples who came under American protection could learn to be like good decent Americans. In contrast, as European empires generally had a king or emperor behind them, they had an air of overweening grandeur and pomposity lacking in the American mythology of global expansion. If Europeans justified their empire in terms of glorifying God, King, and Country, Americans marketed their imperial ambitions as one of spreading liberty and chewing gum. But American goals couldn’t be achieved by moderation and temperance alone. They needed men of great ambition and overreaching vision in politics, diplomacy, economics, and culture. It’s just that Americans, by invoking the rights of the common man, were better at masking their ‘ethnomania’ with abstract principles and consumer goods. Take the recent fiascos in the Middle East and Ukraine. They were essentially engineered by radically ‘ethnomaniacal’ Jewish-American Supremacists, but they’ve been sold in the media — also owned by Jews — as sterling examples of good ole decent Americans spreading ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to ordinary folks around the world aspiring for rights that Americans enjoy. Recent American bad behavior has made me question some of American tactics during the Cold War. While there’s no question that communism was a tyrannical system that had to be countered and destroyed if possible, it’s now becoming clearer that the Cold War was far from a simple struggle between freedom and tyranny or between good and evil. And this truth has become starker as Jewish-Americans ever since Jewish-Americans gained elite. If Wasps had some sense of honor and higher principles, Jews only have ethnocentrism as their agenda despite all their highfalutin yammering otherwise. Also, as America has become the home to many races and nationalities, we are seeing a great divergence between the moderate peoples and extreme peoples. Most Northern European types tend to be moderate peoples. It also goes for Asian-Americans, though one could argue Asian-Americans can be extreme in their mania for test scores. Mexican-Americans are a mediocre people who are generally happy with tacos and tequila. Mexican drug gangs are vicious, but oddly enough, they’ve gained great power precisely because most Mexicans are so mediocre and not extreme. Because most Mexicans are rather timid and prefer to mind their own business — instead of socially organizing for reforms and progress — , the bad guys in Mexico can brazenly do as they please. In Western movies where outlaws come terrorizing a community, white folks band together to do something about it. They either fight with their own guns or hire a sheriff to clean up the town. But if a bunch of criminals terrorize a town in Mexico, most Mexican men just keep their heads low and do nada. And the women act like Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH and go off with the hoodlums. [We are told that honor killing is bad, but maybe Angel’s killing of Teresa was halfway justified. Damn hussy whore.] The two most extreme peoples in America are Jews and Negroes. Homos are the third. Negroes are extreme in their ass-shaking, fist-swinging, dong-swagging, trash-talking, and acting apelike. Jews are extreme in their hyper-intelligence, ultra-ambition, cunning and ruthlessness, deviousness and nastiness. Too many Jews are like Jordan Belfort, Stephen Glass, Victoria Nuland, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, or Alan Dershowitz. Good or bad, brilliant or crazy, some of the most extreme American personalities of the 20th century have been Jewish: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Norman Mailer, Lillian Hellman, Susan Sontag, Philip Roth, David Mamet, Stanley Kubrick, Norman Podhoretz, Howard Stern, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, etc. Jews certainly got personality, which goes to show that intelligence and ability aren’t enough for the drive to fight and win, especially to win everything. But even before Jews became prominent in American life, there were two sides to Anglo-America. One side naively believed that the entire American enterprise was one of moderation. Sure, the founding and settling of America was an epic adventure and experiment, but the final goal of Americanism was to create nice little communities with small-town values. Or so the narrative liked to believe. But there were plenty of Anglo-Americans who became intoxicated with visions of greater wealth and power, not just in America but around the world. Jews who eventually gained elite power didn’t so much create the New American template as radicalize what had been laid down by Wasps. But if even ambitious and imaginative Wasps felt some measure of connection to the America of small town ‘community’ values, Jews saw all of it as ‘volkish’ form of reactionary ‘antisemitism’. Jews hated any notion of a cohesive and orderly white community since such would prioritize white interests and values, thus leading to the exclusion or excoriation of Jewish ways and power. This is why it’s so important for the Jew in THE HEARTBREAK KID to penetrate into the heart of wasp goy society. Jews saw this process in sexual as well as socio-economic terms since many Jewish men preferred the ‘shikse’ over the Jewish American Princess who couldn’t eat an egg salad sandwich without getting it smeared on her face. Anyway, the most disingenuous conceit of a film like THE ROPE or THE STRANGER was it projected American nihilism entirely on the Germans as if Germans monopolized irrational will-to-power whereas Americanism was all about goodness and decency. So, the two guys in THE ROPE committed a murder-for-play because they fell under the sway of evil ideas from abroad. Of course, the irony is that Germans during the Nazi era did the same by projecting their own power madness and deviousness on the Jews. Especially Hitler, despite all his railing against Jews for their lack of scruples, was one of the most unscrupulous, devious, and snake-like major politicians of the 20th century. Every person and every people like to see themselves favorably and therefore tend to repress and/or suppress their own dark thoughts & actions and project them entirely on another people. It’s like United States, in the aftermath of World War II, pretended that America was a nation of equality that defeated Germany and Japan that were nations committed to the evil of racial/cultural prejudice when, in fact, Americans also had their own history of racial discrimination and exclusion. And Jews bitch and whine about how this or that people are diseased with irrational paranoia and hatred of Jews when, in fact, Jews are among the most paranoid and hateful people on Earth who have little respect for most other races and peoples. Given the defeat of Germany and its horrible crimes against humanity, it was all-too-convenient to just BLAME IT ALL ON GERMANY. We can see this in the atrocious Stanley Kramer movie JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG where Spencer Tracy, in a rather smug role, passes easy judgement on the Germans as if it was a simple case of dark irrational Germans versus good decent Americans. Of course, Jews were patiently playing a dirty game. First, Jews had to convince white Americans that they were good whereas Germans were bad. If Jews at the outset had argued that white Americans are just as bad as Nazi Germans, white Americans would have been infuriated and told the Jews to go bugger off. So, Jewish-Americans in the immediate postwar era stressed how decent white Americans had stood up to evil Nazi Germany. But once Americans came to accept this narrative, Jews began to hint that, wait a minute, white Americans weren’t really all that much better than the Nazi Germans since America had been conquered through ‘genocide’ of the native Indians and had been built on slave labor of blacks. Jews first made white Americans feel proud and special for having fought and defeated the evil Nazi Germans. Thus, white Americans arrived at the conviction that there is nothing worse than racial prejudice since its radical form led to the Holocaust. But once this conviction became the core of the New American Morality, Jews could hold up the mirror to white Americans and accuse them of having been like Nazis too. This is how Jews play the game.) VERTIGO’s hypnotic power derives from the ways in which the madness and obsession go both ways, even triple or quadruple ways, among Scottie, Madeleine, Judy, and ‘Madeleine’. One could also argue that even though Scottie doesn’t change his name and identity, he also develops separate personality, one of obsession apart from his rational self. He doesn’t go completely nuts like Norman Bates of PSYCHO(though it could be argued that Norman Bates was born mentally sick/evil to begin with) and take on someone else’s identity, but he come to lead something like a double life(in a multi-dimensional universe as he’s fallen under the spell of power of ‘ghosts’; he doesn’t literally believe in ghosts but nevertheless feels their presence around him). On the one hand, he’s Scottie, the former San Francisco detective, but on the other, he becomes an intensely secretive individual with a mad hobby of recreating a dead woman by masking her over a living one who resembles like her. He has secrets in his own dark cellar — or bell tower, which is, in some ways, creepier than in PSYCHO because it’s part of a church. This vertiginous sensation created by the swirling two-way obsession between the male and female is what makes VERTIGO especially mesmerizing and spellbinding of the films of Hitchcock. Rather than a case of light/logic/reason wrestling against darkness/illogic/madness, it becomes a fever-dream of darkness stalking darkness, illogic merging with illogic, madness romancing madness. Scottie, who begins as a force of light and reason, becomes as or even madder than Madeleine because, after all, Madeleine was just an act pulled by Judy as a hireling of the evil husband. But Judy-as-Madeleine becomes possessed by the madness too because she falls in love with Scottie’s love for the role she is playing, and part of her allure as Madeleine is the aura of ghostly tragedy. And this madness returns to Judy when she meets Scottie again. Her rational self tells her to write him a letter of confession and leave town, but her dream-self wants to play along with the hope of gaining his love once again. In the first half of the film, Scottie tried to save Madeleine who seemed to be possessed by a ghost of Carlotta. In the second part of the movie, Judy tries to ‘save’ Scottie who is possessed by the ghost of Madeleine. Even when Scottie discovers in the final scene the truth of what really happened and emerges from his phobia of heights, he’s still locked within his fever dream. His rational self has reawakened, but his emotional self still craves for the myth and isn’t ready to set himself free. He’s fallen in love with the cage of obsession for Madeleine. (But then, even his rational awakening to the truth has an element of craziness. The facts as they emerge drive him into a frenzy of rage and fury. It’s difficult to be calmly and coolly rational when one’s privacy and pride are involved. In discovering the truth, he feels not only moral outrage over the murder plot but how his privacy had been violated all along. What he’d held as his most precious and deeply guarded secret had been implanted there all along by the evil husband and Judy Barton — it’s like the son of late tycoon in INCEPTION was implanted or incepted with a private/secret emotion via a conspiracy; what he guards as his deepest secret isn’t of his own making. The evil husband wanted Scottie to fall in love with Madeleine and become overwhelmed with guilt and remorse. And Judy-as-Madeleine pushed all the right buttons in Scottie’s heart to make him fall under the spell. There was much Scottie didn’t or couldn’t confess to the evil husband — he kept his romance with Madeleine a secret — and to Judy Barton, but both players knew all along what was eating away at Scottie. So, when he discovers what really happened, he’s not only angry but feels humiliated. He also feels betrayed, but Judy-as-Madeleine’s involvement in the evil husband’s plot was and wasn’t an act of betrayal. As Judy has been hired to trick Scottie, her role was simply to keep her end of the bargain, and she did. As she didn’t know Scottie personally and made no promises to him, she fooled and tricked him but didn’t betray him. And yet, in a way she did betray him because she really did fall in love with him. Therefore, her fulfillment of the contract did sort of become an act of betrayal of Scottie’s love and of her own love for him.
[It’s like the undercover cop played by Tim Roth didn’t mean to betray anyone in RESERVOIR DOGS but ends up betraying both sides because he’s both helpless to stop the criminals from killing cops/civilians and becomes the reason why the gangster who put his life on the line for him dies at the end.] It is for this reason that Scottie does feel a sense of betrayal when he discovers what had really happened. And yet, his love for ‘Madeleine’ is also a kind of betrayal because he fallen in love with a copy of Madeleine. After Madeleine died, Scottie was lost in despair because he couldn’t love another and could never retrieve the only woman he ever truly loved. And yet, he all-too-easily recreated and fell in love with ‘Madeleine’ and found his own peace... or piece. If his tragedy could so easily be assuaged with a copy/double, what was the true nature of his love for the ‘real’ Madeleine? In a way, he could be especially distressed at the end because Judy knows that Scottie betrayed Madeleine by falling in love with ‘Madeleine’. When Scottie fell in love with Madeleine, it was really Judy. And when ‘Madeleine’ was created, it was again Judy. So, Scottie spiritually cheated on Madeleine to go with ‘Madeleine’, but both women are the same woman who is Judy. And yet, Scottie can’t help but notice that, even though Judy/Madeleine/‘Madeleine’ betrayed him, she also feels great sympathy for him and truly loves him. After all, why did Judy decide not to flee and instead allowed herself to be remade by Scottie? It was because she had herself fallen into the spiral of his spell of having falling under the spell of Madeleine. Finally, the death of Judy seems both accidental and fateful. In the simplest sense, she freaked out and fell off the tower. Purely an accident. And yet, there’s also an element of fate, as if Scottie and Judy were indeed star-crossed lovers in a world haunted by ghosts who have the final say. Their love was doomed from the beginning. The final image of Scottie standing tall atop the tower shows him both cured and cursed. He’s no longer deathly afraid of heights, but he stares into the abyss of despair. Yet, his curse is also a kind of dark blessing because the myth of Madeleine/Judy/‘Madeleine’ shall live on through this second tragedy. There’s also an perverse element of dark justice. Judy, who’d taken part in a murder plot, finally gets her comeuppance. She is ‘punished’ by ‘fate’ for her part in the crime. And yet, this justice seems somewhat unjust because her love for Scottie had redemptive value. As stories of Eurydice & Orpheus and Romeo & Juliet demonstrate, love and death are a marriage made in hell. Death both intensifies love to the nth degree and turns it into a never-ending torment. Nothing is more certain and irreversible than death. So, when someone is lost, he or she is lost forever and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Only Superman was able to reverse time and save Margot-Kidder-as-Lois-Lane in the 1978 movie. Otherwise, when he or she is gone, he or she is really gone. It’s like in LOVE STORY and HAROLD AND MAUDE. Or, it could the love between friends, as in MIDNIGHT COWBOY, DUCK YOU SUCKER, and ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. When death is associated with guilt, the emotions of course grow even more powerful. Noodles was always close to Max, but it’s upon realizing that his action led to Max’s death that he sinks into chronic depression and his remembrance of friendship takes on mythic shadings. Max transforms from a dear friend to a sacred brother. In PSYCHO, Norman Bates’ macabre love for his dead mother cannot be disassociated from his guilt over having killed her. Same feelings pervade the character of Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR. It’s the death of Camilla — killed by an assassin hired by Diane in a fit of jealousy and resentment — that overwhelms Diane with a sense of loss and guilt and makes her love Camilla even more. When they’d been lesbian lovers, Diane lusted after Camilla. After Camilla is gone, Diane ‘sacralizes’ her into a fallen goddess.) Scottie becomes as drenched in obsession as the object of his fantasy is, indeed more so as Madeleine(who is really Judy) was only faking her obsession with the ghost of Carlotta. In contrast, MARNIE is about a man who remains dry as he goes about treating a woman drowning in her neurosis. Thus, though Sean Connery is very good in the film and very attractive, he more an observer than participant. He isn’t a partner-in-crime. To the very end, he never loses his head and is fully cognizant even of his powerful desire for Marnie, to whom he’s attracted largely because of her problem.
Of course, there’s no final solution to the very complex problem of sexuality. MARNIE all-too-neatly reveals that Marnie’s neurosis was the repressed product of some sexually trauma in her childhood. In having repressed her sexuality — as something dirty and disgusting — all her life, Marnie found outlets for her sexual energies in thievery, deception, and attraction to well-hung horses. MARNIE uses a good deal of animal metaphors to suggest at Marnie’s problems. She’s like an animal that not only need to be tamed but humped. In some ways, she’s like a wild cat but not quite; she’s really like a puritanical wild cat, and it can’t get any more perversely contradictory than that. On the other hand, consider Hitchcock’s ultimate animal-metaphor movie THE BIRDS.
 |
| THE BIRDS - Feather as Vaginal Slit |
One of the uglier aspects of morality is that the moralizer or sermonizer is often hardly more moral than the people whom he judges or preaches to. We know this of many Christian preachers, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, Catholic priests, black reverends, Buddhist monks, Brahmin scoundrels, and etc. We also know this from the disingenuous yammering of many political pundits, columnists, intellectuals, professors, and etc. So many of them are full of it, preaching us endless sermons about right and wrong when, in fact, they are creeps in their personal lives and without a shred of moral character. (Especially those invested in the game of power will switch their positions on the basis of what will keep them in the game. They are whore-like collaborators than true men/women of principles and values, which is why they are especially insufferable when they drone on and on about right-or-wrong. Their only sense of right-or-wrong boils down to what they must do ‘right’ to steer clear of what is deemed as ‘wrong’ by the powers-that-be. Indeed, notice how most conservative thinkers and activists dropped the topic of ‘gay marriage’ since the ruling elites — Jews and homos — have bounties out on anyone who won’t toe the New Normal party line.) Paul Johnson in INTELLECTUALS pointed out all the discrepancies between famous intellectuals and their personal lives, and indeed Paul Johnson himself was hardly any kind of saint. Thus, most forms of moralizing are hypocritical and phony since we often accuse others of the very things that we are guilty of. It’s pretty funny for anyone to call anyone a ‘liar’ since everyone is a liar to some extent and indeed have to be. For most of human history, lying was necessary in order to survive. When we insist on the truth, we almost always mean others better reveal their secrets while we keep our own hidden. After all, the advantage is to those who keep their own secrets while exposing the secrets of their enemies.(But then, there are many cases where we want everyone to shut up about secrets. In many cases, our social order makes people confess not to make them talk more but to make them talk less. If someone is accused of ‘racism’, the social order forces him to confess what he really said, but it wants him to say nothing more after the confession. It wants the confession but not the elaboration that might rationalize and even justify the article of confession. So, when James Watson was thought to have said something ‘racist’, he was forced to confess his ‘sin’ but also soon silenced so that he would be heard no more.) This is why Christianity was somewhat novel in advising people to forgive others’ trespasses as others should forgive ours. Christianity also advises its followers to look into their own wicked hearts and accuse oneself as well as accusing others. Morality is necessary but tends to highlight flaws in others while blinding us to our own failings. Indeed, highlight flaws in others becomes a convenient way to overlook our own flaws. This is largely due to our physiology. Our eyes always look at others but are blind of oneself. In a way, we own others more than ourselves. If a man and a woman are lying together in bed and staring into each other’s faces, the woman will remember the moment in terms of the man’s face and the man will remember in terms of the woman’s face. Though the man feels his own feelings, they are associated with the face of another than with his own face which he cannot see. The same with the woman. On the other hand, because women spend more time in front the mirror than men do, they are more self-conscious than men are. Of course, many people don’t want to see themselves since they look plain or even ugly. Instead, they want to see attractive people, and this leads to the neurosis of ugliness fixated upon prettiness. Ugly doesn’t want to see ugly — especially of oneself — , so it fixates on the pretty, but the pretty sess the ugly as ugly, and the ugly is then rudely reminded of its ugliness, and then it comes to hate both ugliness and prettiness. It hates ugliness because it is ‘diseased’ with it but also hates prettiness because it rejects ugliness.
Anyway, another problem of morality is its selectivity and a means as a cynical ploy of power. After all, consider how the Jewish elites have convinced so many Americans that former terrorist Nelson Mandela was a great man, a saint, and a prophet, but similar accolades have been denied to Arafat. How come we wail and rant about the Holocaust but turn a blind eye to Jewish role in communist mass killing? How come white Southern historians underplayed the extent of black suffering in the South? How come Jewish historians overplay it and make white southerners out to be among the worst people that ever lived when southern slavery, if comparisons must be drawn, was more humane than most slavery around the world? How come Liberals have no problem with US destroying Libya and Syria but have conniptions about Putin annexing Crimea after over 90% of Crimeans voted to join with Russia? How come Israel can say nasty things about black Africans and have tight immigration policies, but if a small-sized European nation tries to preserve its own race and culture, it’s denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘racist’? How come Michael King — aka Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — is hailed as some messiah-like figure when he was really a sleazy race-hustler who spent much of his free time banging prostitutes, badmouthing God — in one of his debaucherines, he howled that he was ‘fuc*ing for God’ — , and sucking up to heinous Jews who supported the black movement to undermine White America so that Jews could eventually take over — just like North Vietnam conquered South
Vietnam, a lesson that illustrates that ruthless fanatics will eventually win over the moderates.
Morality is also problematic because it is more natural, thereby easier, for some people to be ‘good’ than it is for other people. Can we blame those who were born to be less moral and more psychopathic for being ‘bad’? If they were born with ‘badness’ genes, couldn’t it be argued that they ‘naturally immoral’ in the way that some people are ‘naturally homosexual’? It’s like some dogs are born to be wild and some dogs are born to be mild. We may prefer the mild ones, but can we blame the wild ones for having been born the way they were? We like to think of morality as a conscious choice of conscience, but the fact is some people are innately more caring and mindful of others while others are not. It’s like some cats are naturally aggressive and nasty while others are naturally milder and kinder. Though I don’t care for wild-ass Negroes, there’s a limit to which we can condemn them on the moral level. They act the way they do because they are born as wild-ass Negroes. Baboons act like baboons because they are born as baboons, and Negroes act like Negroes because they are born that way. So, any attempt to find a moral solution between whites and blacks is bound to fail. The ONLY solution is separation of the races. If blacks want money, they should be given generous ‘reparations’, but they should be made to go their own way and live among themselves. Of course, even if equal numbers of whites and blacks split the land and wealth equally, whites will likely quadruple their wealth in 20 yrs whereas Negroes will be bankrupt in less than 10. They say Nigeria is now the richest nation in Africa, but most people there are as poor as they’d always been since the crooks who run the place just stuff themselves and since most ordinary black Africans lack the sense and sensibility to develop into modern peoples.
But even within a single race, some people are naturally nicer, kinder, and more considerate, and therefore, they are easier to bring into the fold of morality. We would like to think they are better for reasons of conscience, but no less is their predisposition to be more moral and fair-minded due to genetic factors. Also, what do we mean by ‘good’? What if what we deem as ‘good’ can become a kind of bad in the long run? Suppose a community genetically favors and reproduces a lot of ‘good’ people who are nice, kindly, and trusting. But wouldn’t such a society be rather dull and boring? Hasn’t much of civilization been driven forward by egomania, greed, will to power, and even madness? One thinks of Harry Lime’s remark about the Swiss and the Cuckoo Clock in THE THIRD MAN. Indeed, some of the greatest lessons of mankind have come from wars and tragedies. And some of the greatest men that ever lived were hardly driven by ‘good’ sentiments. Also, if ‘good’ people tend to be more trusting, might they not also be more conformist and subservient to the harmonious order? In this sense, Japan was a ‘good’ society, but was it really good? Didn’t such ‘goodness’ stamp out much innovation and individuality? (Also, genuine moral goodness needs the courage to offend. When faced against what is deemed evil, goodness must be willing to stand firm and tall even if it offends the social order saturated with officialdom of evil that passes for political/moral correctness. That’s the difference between true goodness and shallow goodness, aka ‘niceness’. Niceness is about wanting to be liked and approved by society. It wants to appear ‘good’ at the feet of the prevailing fashions at all times. Even much of ‘bad’ behavior is really a form of ‘niceness’. All those people who get tattoos, act lewdly, and binge-drink at night clubs may see themselves as ‘edgy’ and ‘badass’, but they simply want the attention and approval of their peers. This is why so many ‘nice’ girls go out of their to be act like sluts. Most of all, they want to be ‘liked’. In contrast, true goodness has a core sense of right and wrong, and it will not bend to social pressure or fashions. Even if society deems it outdated or offensive, it sticks to its own guns because it has true conviction in its moral principles. True goodness is about conscience and courage. Niceness is about shame and approval.) Also, if a society is too earnestly ‘good’, might it not be an easy victim of cunning tricksters who may seek to manipulate the naive psychology of ‘goodness’? Isn’t this what Jews have done with the Northern European morality? Italians and Latins maybe scummy and sleazy, but the one saving grace of their Machiavellianism has been the cynical disdain of do-gooders. After all, what if do-gooders are merely charlatans and hustlers trying to fool people with the cult of ‘goodness’ — like what the crooks do in Fellini’s IL BIDONE. It’s because a lot of white Evangelicals in the American South have a naive ‘good’ side that Jews find it so easy to manipulate them into supporting Israel(and increasingly even the homo agenda). Though many Italians were wild about Mussolini, they weren’t as earnestly trusting of him as so many Germans were of Hitler. Germans were more ‘good’, and that paradoxically made them worse in their mindless servitude as ‘good’ obedient minions of Hitler. Italians, on the other hand, cheered Il Duce when the war was going well, but the minute they realized things might go south, they were looking to squirm out of the situation. Today, Northern Europeans have become the worst because they are more ‘good’. More than any other people, they’ve earnestly swallowed all the PC crap pushed by Jews who guilt-bait white people with the Holo-cult. As foul and disgusting as the homo agenda is, it appeals to so many ‘good’ people because it’s been packaged as the ‘new normal’ with squeaky clean image of homos as respectable-and-hip middle-class folks. (No matter how spic-and-span the image, it can’t hide the fact that homosexuality is about men who like to talk like women and do fecal penetration on one another. But ‘good’ people don’t want to be disagreeable. They want to be ‘nice’, a quality as vapid as being ‘cool’, which is just an illusion. Notice that coolness wins as a form of fantasy but in reality has no value. Coolness implies effortlessness and aloofness in the mastery of the world, and it only works on the movie screen. Real world is about real talent, effort, and commitment.) To be truly good, one has to have the guts to be disagreeable, contentious, angry, and upset the situation. ‘Goodness’ too often seeks to make everyone feel good and happy, but that often means suppressing inconvenient truths because it might undermine the spirit of ‘goodness’. Too often, goodness is confused with ‘feel-goodness’. Liberals ‘feel good’ with their homo agenda because homos have been sold to them as the-most-wonderful-people. As a result, many straight people think they themselves are better for being associated with wonderful homos. It’s like so many gentiles find themselves more ‘good’ if they have Jewish friends, relatives, or something. It’s Redemption-by-Association, especially with key favored groups. Equality has nothing to do with this. After all, you get more points for saying you are friendly with Jews and homos than with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, or Russians. Jews, with their control of media-academia-entertainment, have rigged things that way. It’s like every American politician must show that he or she is one with Israel and the Jewish-American community, but his or her attachments(or lack thereof) to other communities don’t.
Another problem with morality is it often happens to be situational. Even if everyone were equal in moral nature/character, varying situations bring out different feelings and actions. This is why we need to think twice when we condemn atrocities committed in wartime. Though such abuses must be addressed and perpetrators must be brought to justice, the good-and-decent civilians who judge the soldiers might have done the same thing under similar stress in the same kind of situation. And the perpetrators, had they been civilians, might have been self-righteous in condemning soldiers who’ve committed ‘war crimes’. It was so easy for anti-war protestors to denounce Vietnam veterans of having been ‘baby killers’.
One doesn’t have to bare one’s nudity to a mental health doctor or psychiatrist or some such. But one has to bare something more private: one’s secrets, fantasies, obsessions, etc. Since one is opening much of his or her private realm to the doctor, the doctor’s own character and mental well-being do become an issue. If a physician who smokes or is fat advises a patient not to smoke or overeat, we can accept the hypocrisy. But if a mentally disturbed psychiatrist or mental health specialist is in the position to give advice to others, it’s a problem because he’s prying into and even coming to ‘own’ the patient’s soul. In MARNIE, the woman is mortified when Mark denudes her. Even so, he only peeled away the clothing to see her naked body. It’s far more disturbing for him to denude her psychologically to see what lays hidden in her mind. And indeed, it is her hidden memory that is the key to her fears of being exposed to or touched by men. As it turns out, Mark — like the George Peppard character in THE BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S — is a decent guy whom she eventually comes to rely on and trust. But gaining the key to someone’s inner-self can be used in the most unscrupulous ways. Indeed, this is why both the National Socialist Germans and the Jews have became dangerous. Nazi elites thought they had the secret to mental health. For people like Hitler, psychology was almost synonymous with physiology. If Germans were exposed to healthy images of beauty-grace-strength, if they were racially purified in blood, and if they were drummed with virtues of duty and unity, then the physical well-being and beauty would somehow take care of the mind. On the surface, some of this sounds good, and indeed, the Boy Scouts and the Young Pioneers of Communist nations had more or less the same idea: healthy look will lead to healthy outlook. But there was a dark side to Nationalist Socialist view of psychology. Hitler didn’t merely want to guide people with reason and order but with sorcery and with the irrational power of art, music, and propaganda. They wouldn’t merely learn from National Socialism through the minds but surrender to Hitler’s superior vision of the future. He would be their ‘medicine man’ with the power of magic that would remake their nation and the world. It required a leap of faith, and therein lay the danger. National Socialism was a form of National Sorcerism. Hitler would play a kind of Svengali role. (Another A.H., Alfred Hitchcock, has beguiled and fascinated film enthusiasts with instruments of veiling and unveiling strangely interwoven in his works. All art is a form of revelation through concealment, show-and-tell through hide-and-seek. After all, most fictional works use alter egos of the artists. The artist hides behind his puppet-characters who may well exhibit aspects of his or her own personal attributes or those to him. Consider the controversy as to how much of Orson Welles was invested in the character of Charles Foster Kane. Consider how Woody Allen has always insisted that the characters he plays have almost nothing to do with his real self. The most honest way for an artist to reveal his true self would be to sit in front of a camera and pontificate on-and-on about what he’s really about. But then, there goes the element of mystery, cat-and-mouse gamesmanship, and showmanship that make art entertaining. We’d rather watch a fiction film by Oliver Stone than listen to him say really dumb things about history and politics. Also, art — and even entertainment — forces the artist to work in the mode of empathy, which makes the story and characters more interesting than if they were merely spoken of as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Hearing Stone put down Nixon would be just another invective against Tricky Dick, but watching Nixon as a tragic figure destroyed by his own demons and enemies makes for powerful drama. Thus, art is less about truth than about the game of truth. It’s like the maze in THE SHINING. Removing the garden maze would allow one to see everything, but then, there would no longer be any game. Truth made obvious is banal. Thus, art is a grove of lies leading to a glimpse of the truth. It’s like Plato’s philosophy was tantalizing through the ages because the metaphor of emerging from the cave to the light emphasized the process than the product of truth-seeking. In Akira Kurosawa’s THRONE OF BLOOD, the main character cannot see the truth through the dense forest of his mind. Or perhaps, he sees too many ‘truths’ as reality is rife with possibilities, and every possibility is a truth in its own right. To be sure, there’s a difference between obfuscating obvious truths to feign complexity and exploring complex truths that require real effort to get at some kind of deeper meaning. Hitchcock was perhaps the most intelligent and imaginative figure in film history who never made a serious ‘art film’ — though one might make an exception for THE WRONG MAN, though it seems to be me more like a typical Hollywood drama. Even Spielberg made some ‘art films’ like MUNICH. Yet, for an entertainer, Hitchcock obsessed over lots of sophisticated and complex psychological theories. Yet, because he was the Master of Suspense, he could never delve into them in the manner of Alain Resnais, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bunuel, or even Carol Reed. He had to make all his films appealing to the mass audience, and that meant the psychological ideas had to be sufficiently simplified, moralized, and explained, which is why Hitchcock’s Freudianism is generally of the barbershop or, at best, Saturday Evening Post variety. Even so, if one looks past the popularization and moralization, there are visual clues to suggest that Hitchcock’s personal views were far darker and more perverse than suggested by surface conventions of his movies. This was surely true of many Hollywood movies than suspected at the time. For example, Charles Laughton’s THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER seems to end on an upbeat note, but the motif of the watch in the final scene suggests the dark evil of the Robert Mitchum character is the Mark of Cain on every child. And Anthony Mann’s WINCHESTER 73 suggests that childish jealousy and aggression are at the core of games that adults play. It prefigures DR. STRANGELOVE where grownups play war games with super big toys. [Another variation on this theme is SMALL SOLDIERS by Joe Dante.] So, it’d be simpleminded to dismiss even Hitchcock’s ludicrous movies dealing with psychological issues. They can’t be taken seriously as psychological truth, but there lurk suggestions and possibilities beneath and beyond the central one presented on the screen. [MARNIE’s dramatization of the childhood trauma theory was silly even by the outlandish standards of Freudianism of the time, but the ways in which it shuffles cold reason with spellbinding myth make for feverish cinema.] This was partly because Hitchcock mastery of form could make even the ludicrous seem hypnotic and alluring. But there were other considerations. Since Hollywood at the time was far more censorious, society far was more moralistic, and Hitchcock himself was far more ‘bourgeois’ than people and institutions of later generations, it was understood by all that certain things could not be said, or at least said outright. So, it’s possible that Hitchcock’s psychological simplicity was a kind of a put-on. He provided the ‘dumb answer’ — often in dialogue or speech or happy ending — that seemed to neatly tie all the threads and wrap everything together, but the shadows and traces that lingered in the mind suggested something far darker and more complex than was let on. It’s like the medical explanation at the end of PSYCHO seems to resolve all the issues, but as we gaze into Bates’ sunken eyes, we come face-to-face with a horror that is beyond understanding. We fear being sucked into the abyss of his soul like the woman’s car into the swamp. With some ‘serious’ film-makers, we know they really mean what they mean, but this makes their films limited or even dumb after awhile. [After all, no person or period can know everything about everything, and each era’s sense of truth is limited by its well of knowledge, social taboos, fashions, manners, and habits. Thus, a work that has lasting value generally is stronger on shades and traces of truth than in its core presentation of truth. It’s like there’s much about the social/moral assumptions in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE that no longer speak to many people, but its yearnings, anxieties, and dreams still ring true. In the end, art is more about what is suggested than what is said. What is said can be argued and refuted. If accepted, then it merely becomes banal. In contrast, certain suggestions provoke new thoughts, emotions, and possibilities through the ages. Instead of just telling us something — that we may no longer believe and accept — , it triggers something that allows old works to be approached with fresh insights.] And there are other directors who are clearly interested, even obsessed, with psychological issues, as if indeed they wear the obsessions on their sleeve, as with Bergman especially in the late 60s and early 70s. Such brazen density can sometimes be oppressive and suffocating. Hitchcock, in contrast, often played ‘dumb’ or philistine while slyly making artful films that were far more suggestive than people surmised at the time. If anything, his air of denial of ‘seriousness’ added another layer of meaning for us to ponder. The character of Cicci says in THE GODFATHER PART II that the Corleone family had a lot of buffers. Similarly, there were buffers or layers between Hitchcock and his films. He never made a film with the kind of total immersion of Peckinpah in films like PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID or BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. Despite his on-and-off drinking problems, there’s a dryness and sobriety in his presentation, with the possible exception being VERTIGO and FRENZY, a very late Hitchcock movie in which he could indulge in levels of sex and violence unthinkable in earlier movies. The public persona of Hitchcock was that of a dry, comical, funny-looking, respectable, cool-headed, and technical craftsman who made suspense movies in the manner that Swiss artisans fashioned their world-famous watches. He was regarded as a mechanic than anything else, and Hitchcock himself was willing to oblige in conveying this image of himself. It was as if he was always above the fray despite all the murders and nastiness in his movies, as if he didn’t really share in the obsessions and thrills taking place on screen and was only orchestrating them like a symphony for a good show. One could see him as sort of like a funny and harmless version of the fat female Nazi officer in SEVEN BEAUTIES who manages a death camp with total discipline and without an ounce of emotional involvement. There’s filth and mayhem everywhere in the Nazi forced-labor camp, but she remains impervious as she just goes about doing her job with total professionalism. In the public eye, Hitchcock’s role in film-making was similar. He made so many movies about torment and murder, yet his persona suggested little more than a puppet-master or a chess player moving the pieces about. And this persona as ‘master of suspense’, purportedly with no overt message/agenda, probably protected him as a more controversial public figure might have felt more compelled to justify films indulging in darkness and nastiness. But since he became famous as a kind of fat funny guy — an institution unto himself not unlike Charlie Chaplin — , the public need not take his movies and the ideas in them too seriously. Since a fat funny guy made them, they were probably done in the spirit of fun and didn’t really mean anything truly dark and disturbing. And yet, Hitchcock biographers and co-workers have since revealed things about him that have uncovered and added yet more ‘buffers’ between Hitchcock and his works, thereby further complicating the meaning of his movies. As with Hitler or Jewish psychologists, Hitchcock may have projected many of his own darkness onto his movie characters and then proceeded to ‘find’ ways to treat and cure them as a means of repressing his own sickness. We can surmise as to why Hitchcock became interested in adapting the novel MARNIE into a movie. The character of Mark, played by Sean Connery, is a fantasy stand-in for Hitchcock, and he takes it upon himself to cure Marnie of her psychological problems. Though it’s suggested that Mark himself is an eccentric of sorts, he has his obsessions under control whereas Marnie does not. It helps that he was born into a wealthy family and is a man, presuming men are made of stronger stuff than women are. Though he had to work hard to restore the fortunes of his family’s company, he was born on the right side of town. Also, it’s a man’s world, and men are expected to be strong and firm. But Marnie was born on the wrong side of town. Her only ticket to privilege was to steal. Since she has the looks, the other option would have been to marry a rich man, but her psychological malady made her want to get inside men’s safes than have men get into her panties. Marnie also lives in a time when, following the postwar boom and social changes, women are freer than ever, with options to be careerists than wives. Even so, the top jobs are held by men, and women mostly take on secretarial roles. If one was born on the wrong side of town, there isn’t much a woman can do to get the big bucks. So, like the woman in PSYCHO, she succumbs to the temptation to steal. On the other hand, the woman in PSYCHO didn’t suffer from a psychological malady and simply gave into temptation, and prior to her murder, had decided to go back and return the money. She has a dark side, and in some ways, it’s suggested that there’s a Norman Bates in each of us. When she drives in the night in the rain and imagines all the voices of other people who may be suspecting her of embezzlement, her mind begins to splinter into different proto-personalities. Though not as looney as Bates, the process of paranoid empathy occurring inside her head undermines her mental stability and balance. Initially, she hears voices of her boss and others out of fear; she’s merely wondering what others may be thinking and saying about her. She considers herself a good woman who was driven by desperation to steal the money. But in her mind, she hears other people putting her down as a wicked villainess bitch, and she’s distressed by this. But as time passes, she slips into the mind-set of a villainess and seems almost proud of it. Just like Bates’ reaction after the murder gradually goes from panicked fright to fiendish delight, we see the same transformation in the woman as she drives through the rain. She sees herself as a good girl driven to do a bad thing, and she’s worried that others may see her as a bad person. But she gradually begins to take pleasure in being the ‘bad girl’. A kind of mild split personality takes place within her between the ‘good girl’ and ‘bad girl’. We begin to notice a perverse grin on her face. Fear and shame fade and give way to confidence and pleasure. She seems to have slipped into the mind of another person; it’s like a mild case of what afflicts Norman Bates, who has a full-blown case of going from not just one personality to another but from one identity to another. So, there’s a mild case of Bates-ism in all of us, but nevertheless, the woman — Janet Leigh — comes to her senses and decides to return the money; but then, it’s too late and she is killed. In contrast, Marnie has no such remorse or conscience about what she does to men. She thinks she has every right to steal from them, like Negroes feel they are entitled to steal for whitey forever. Men are dirty, evil, filthy, foul, and disgusting. Marnie feels she has every right to go on the hunt. And yet, it’s further complicated because it’s like reverse-predation. Marnie is like a prey-turned-predator. She preys on men because she sees them as predators of women who are the prey. So, she’s not a natural predator but a revenge-predator against predators. And yet, because her childhood trauma has been repressed and blocked, she isn’t really sure why she hates men so much. She was brought up to hate men by her mother. But in order to prey upon men, she has to come close to them. Since women don’t have a physical advantage over men, she can’t go around robbing men with a stick or knife. She has to fool men. But in order to fool men, she has to make herself attractive to them, so that men will hire her and trust her. And this means she has to be sexy. But being sexy means being sexually attractive to men and bringing out their predatory sexual instincts. And yet, Marnie can’t stand men and sex. She is aware of her own beauty and sexiness — and takes pride in them — , but she can’t stand whom they attract. On the other hand, there is a hidden side of her that really wants a man, especially as one as rich, handsome, and suave as Mark. Prior to meeting him, she’d been associated with less sterling-looking ‘ugly’ men with whom she played a cat-and-mouse game. But with Mark, it was different even from the start though she was loathe to admit it. There’s something about him that makes her tolerate his presence and feel ever closer to him as time goes on. She could never have felt this way about the previous men she’d swindled since they weren’t so tall, dark, and handsome. Even if they’d been nice guys, she wouldn’t have grown to like them since they were not her equal in the looks department. Given her ‘mission’ in her life, she chooses to rob Mark as well and run away, but robbing him couldn’t have been as easy as robbing the earlier victims because something about him sparked something within her. Similarly, though the woman in VERTIGO fulfills her job of fooling Scottie and moving out of his life, she did fall in love with him — and also in love with the love he felt for her, i.e. she fell in love with the part of him that fell in love with her, thus seeing herself through his eyes, suggesting an element of narcissism, but then, given what he sees in her isn’t really her but her pretense of being ‘Madeleine’, it’s both narcissism and not narcissism; it’s like some actors play roles and grow narcissistic of their fictional personas that are not their true selves. The Mark/Marnie affair is complicated because they are opposites and reflections of one another. They are male and female, of privileged birth and of poverty-stricken birth, of legitimacy and of criminality, of truth-seeker and lie-teller. But they are both beautiful and obsessive personalities who are attracted to the obsessiveness of another. It’s not the classic tale of a man using force to tame a wild woman. Mark doesn’t want to cage Marnie and turn her into a stepford wife. Indeed, he is attracted to her for being an independent and headstrong woman, and to an extent, wants her to remain herself. But he seeks to tame her so that she will be free but not flee. Perhaps Francois Truffaut was inspired by MARNIE[as well as BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING] in part when he made THE WILD CHILD, where a savage gypsy child, once tamed, flees back to wilderness but then returns to civilization of his own volition; Truffaut was, of course, Hitchcock’s biggest fan. ‘Wild Child’ would be a fitting title for MARNIE since despite her conceit of freedom and independence, there’s a frightened little child inside her that has never grown up; this is why the Diane Baker character, who initially resents Marnie as a competitor for Mark’s affections, ultimately comes to pity her as it becomes apparent that despite Marnie’s calculating and devious exterior, her nerves are all torn up inside. A wild animal that cannot be tamed has to remain inside the cage. But a wild animal that can be tamed can be trusted with freedom once it is tamed. And that balance between freedom and domestication is what matrimony and civilization are about. It can never be a perfect equilibrium, but it’s the core of Western Civilization that has allowed both the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of social order. Such a system depends on Law & Order and hierarchy, but as the modern world has grown more democratic, libertine, and equal under the law, human behavior can no longer be predicated on external controls of social expectations and sexual taboos. People must be auto-tamed from within so that even with freedom, they will act sensibly and responsibly. And this involves psychology. Dogs can be tamed & trained and, once tamed and trained, don’t have to be constantly threatened with the whip or stick to keep them in line. But some animals are tougher to tame for whatever reason, and some can’t be tamed at all. Such must either live in the wild or be kept in the cage. This is why we can’t allow baboons and adult chimpanzees to run freely. Their violent nature remains, as with so many Negroes. As Negroes are naturally aggressive and brutal, they’d been kept under control with brutal threat of force. But as such measures came to be seen as ‘racist’, blacks have been given total freedom without proper training and taming. Also, by their nature, it’s much tougher to train and tame blacks as they have more of the warrior-hunter-thug genes. In MARNIE, though Hitchcock surely identified with Mark, he could have been under the cloud of the Mark/Marnie complex. Hitchcock saw himself as a master, a famous celebrity, and an established professional. Like Mark tames and remakes Marnie into a new person, Hitchcock saw himself as the maestro who turned nobody actresses into great stars. In return, he wanted respect and gratitude, even love. But the ladies, though turned into stars by Hitchcock, saw him as a funny-looking fat bald-headed guy who talked weird. This led to a lot of frustration. So, unlike Mark, Hitchcock didn’t have his own obsession fully under control. For all his calm public demeanor as the wry Master of Suspense, Hitchcock was very much out-of-control in his own peculiar way. Hitchcock used various story ideas novels and plays to project his own sickness onto his actresses/female characters who were relatively healthy and sane. He was playing doctor when he really should have been the patient. And he was pretending that others were sick in need of help from either himself or his alter-ego characters like Mark Rutland. This is why VERTIGO is especially revealing as the sickness comes around full-circle, enveloping Scottie as he tries to cure the woman of her ‘possession’ by Carlotta’s ghost. Little does he know that he’s fallen under the spell of Madeleine’s spirit. The ironic thing is Madeleine’s sickness is fake, a put-on. The woman is really a tart named Judy pretending to be the evil husband’s wife who is supposedly possessed by a ghost of a woman who died long ago. But Scottie really does become possessed by the tragic beauty of Madeleine. So, if anything, he’s the sick one, but he thinks he’s trying to cure Madeleine of a delusion. But even though Madeleine is fake, Judy falls under the spell of his love and becomes herself possessed by it. So, even though Judy-as-Madeleine was just playing a hired role as she ascended the stairs to pretend to kill herself, in that moment she really did feel as if she wanted to die because she would have to say goodbye to Scottie for good. So much that is significant in life occurs when people are least aware of it. This is why the kiss has special meaning in MARNIE. Consider the scene where Marnie is called to Mark’s office to do some dictation. Thunder erupts, and Marnie trembles and almost loses consciousness out of extreme fear. It is then that Mark plants a kiss on her lips, and in her dazed mind, she is almost unaware of what happened. It’s like a subliminal kiss, and it presages what will happen later when Mark employs subliminal tricks to unlock the safe within Marnie’s mind that holds a terrible secret. One might almost say Mark uses a kind of ‘date rape drug’ to penetrate into Marnie’s subconscious, but then the field of psychology has long been closely associated with sex. And consider the term ‘mind-fuc*ing’. The mind can be fuc*ed to fool someone, but it can also be fuc*ed to force it to birth the hidden secret. Psychology and cinema, like psychology and sex, are natural partners. Cinema can feel like rape, seduction, love-making, humiliation, sado-masochism, spanking, titillation, orgasm, and etc. Of the film masters, perhaps the hypnotists are the greatest and most awesome. Directors like Fellini have been great showmen. They put on an impressive display, a circus of life, from which we find much laughter and pathos. Then, there are magician directors like Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, Sergei Eisenstein, and John Frankenheimer, at least with the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. They do wonderful, even brilliant, things, but we are generally aware of the tricks and wizardry. But the hypnotists don’t merely trick or impress our senses but draw our entire being into the medium until we are entranced by its aura. Think of UGETSU by Kenji Mizoguchi, VAMPYR by Carl Dreyer, THE SHINING by Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock usually worked in the magician mode, but with VERTIGO he was one of the greatest hypnotists of cinema. To be sure, some artists at their very best — Orson Welles with MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and LADY FROM SHANGHAI and Emir Kusterica with TIME OF THE GYPSIES — seem able to juggle and blend just about every trick and spell in the book.)
Anyway, since Jews couldn’t make too much of a fuss about their beauty, their study of psychology came to focus on inner drives than outward appearances, and that sort of gave Jews an edge in psychology. The insecure Jew Freud didn’t think too much of his physical self, so he concentrated on his inner drives and his throbbing pud. Carl Jung, who was robustly built, handsome, and sturdy, was very much into the connection between the mind and the totality of the body than just the genitalia. Though never pro-Nazi in any official sense, there were certain parallels between his ideas about myth and psychology and the Nazi view of the body and soul. For Jung, the ‘Aryan’ race couldn’t be understood apart from its beauty and nobility. Therefore, psychology should look into mythic connection between the psychology(which became as much a study of the racial-collective soul as the mind and instinct) and the race. (Indeed, it makes no sense to discuss the psychology of sexuality apart from its physiology since people are attracted to physical attributes in the mating game. After all, in PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and Woody Allen movies, Jewish male sexuality cannot be understood apart from its sexual lust for ‘Aryan’-looking women. In the opening scene of STARDUST MEMORIES, Woody Allen’s character, who is stuck in a train compartment with big-nosed Jews, sees Sharon Stone in the adjacent train and wants to go there. But he’s excluded because he’s a Jew with Jewish looks. So, in a way, National Socialist sexual psychology made plenty of sense even if its means of dealing with racial-sexual issues was inhuman and crazy. Sexuality is about attraction to beauty, and if a race is more beautiful than other races[or has unique qualities of beauty lacking in other races], it will be desired by other races that may be less beautiful or different, and therefore, the beautiful/special race has a right to defend and preserve its own beauty and/or unique qualities. If indeed racial beauty doesn’t matter, why do so many Jewish men lust after ‘Aryan’ women? Why not go after black women or Bolivian Indian women if indeed all races the same and equally attractive? Anyway, if a bunch of Jewish men have children with ‘Aryan’ women, won’t the kids look less ‘Aryan’ and more Jewish? Wouldn’t that be a genetic attack on the very beauty that Jewish men crave? To be sure, some Jewish guys are real hunks, like the one Amy Chua married. It seems when it comes to love and mating, everyone is a Nazi to some extent. They are not only interested in sex as any woman can have sex with any man. Rather, they are interested in beauty and other attractive sexual qualities, and this leads to exclusion of whole bunch of men and women in the sexual marketplace in favor of the special superior man or woman of one’s desire. "Meine Muschi lehnt die Spermien von den meisten Männern als minderwertig und Untermenschen.") Though Freud was secretly just as much a race-ist as Jung — he was a Jewish supremacist — , Freud’s view of psychology was different for three reasons. (1) Though a secularist, his Jewish mind-set steeped in Hebraic tradition preferred the monomaniacal concept over any paganist pluralities. (2) As Jews were relatively scrawnier and ‘uglier’ than the ‘Aryans’, it would have been foolish for Jews to mythologize their own beauty(or lack thereof). (3) As Jews were a resented minority and as Freud was trying to win the respect of the gentile community, he had to emphasize that his psychology was NOT a Jewish science but a real science with universal implication and application. But whatever secretive agendas Freud might have harbored, his attitude did make for a more concentrated study of the human mind — though the kind of obsessions that Freud studied tended to be of a certain cultural milieu than of universal relevance. Indeed, it would be silly to suggest that Freudian psychology would make much sense if applied to wild-ass Negroes whose booties are more active than their brains.
Thus, under Jewish psychology, the study of the mind became divorced from the ideal of the body. In contrast, Carl Jung felt as one with the people around him in both body and soul.
Because Freud, being a member of the Jewish people who were physically/culturally distinct from the ‘Aryans’, couldn’t make the same claim, he went further to separate the mind from the body-as-a-whole, the race and the face. Surely, ‘Aryans’ and Jews were different sub-races of the Caucasian race, and they had different faces that could easily be distinguished from one another. But when it came to the genitalia, there was much in common between the Jew and the ‘Aryan’. Jewish puds didn’t have hooked noses, and ‘Aryan’ puds were not chiseled and angular with aquiline noses. Though different races had hardened and solidified differently when it came to facial bone structure, their genitalia remained almost primordial in their forms, though, of course, some races have bigger ones than others. Also, unlike facial bone-features, the genitalia, especially of the man, ranged from limp/flaccid to hard/firm depending on the mood and stimulation. It wasn’t molded and cast into specificity that came to mark racial differences. Purely in the realm of the genitalia, what did it matter if an ‘Aryan’ or a Jewish pud entered a pooter(or cooter as some would have it)? Because bodily forms other than the genitalia tended to differentiate the races(at least between ‘Aryans’ and Jews), Jews preferred abstract art and subversive art that undermined the specificity of forms. Not surprisingly, Lucian Freud, the grandson of Sigmund Freud, created paintings of fat, ugly, and formless people looking pretty gross. I suppose one could defend Freud’s painting as representing the full range of humanity, and indeed, why should art be only about the ‘best, brightest, noblest, and most beautiful’? If art is to wrestle with truth, then it has to come to terms with the fact that much of truth is ugly, dark, and disturbing. If all art must be about ideals of beauty and nobility, a work like CRIME AND PUNISHMENT or MULHOLLAND DR. shouldn’t be attempted. Even so, there seems to have been something willful about Lucian Freud’s wallowing in ugliness. It’s one thing to acknowledge and represent the less attractive elements of reality, but it’s something else to devote one’s entire life to exaggerating the ugly and putrid in the world. If Nazi Art couldn’t tolerate anything but the attractive, it’s as though Lucian Freud was single-mindedly fixated on the ugliest features of humanity. This is what I find off-putting about Michael Haneke as well. The problem is not his dark and pessimistic view of humanity, but his willful agenda of blocking out everything else about humanity that isn’t sordid or sociopathic, as if his vision is somehow ‘radically’ truer for its neo-puritan commitment of handling humanity as a disease.
 |
| Lucian Freud - Hippopotamus Woman |
The problem of bridging the high and low has been the stuff of religion and philosophy since mankind created civilization. Primitive folks needn’t care much about such matters because the richest savage and the poorest savage aren’t much apart in wealth and knowledge. But civilization created the privileged class and hierarchy of classes. So, the issue of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ became ever more problematic. The elites had to justify to the masses and to themselves why they should have the power. The anxiety of power/privilege — problems of the ‘high’ and ‘low’ — is reflected in the thoughts of ancient philosophers and prophets. There was Siddhartha who was born into the high world. Protected and cloistered in a bejeweled world by his father, Siddhartha thought the world was all about happiness, bliss, beauty, nobility, and even immortality. A kind of universal privilege for him and his companions in paradise. But when he walked outside the walls, he noticed all kinds of suffering of mankind, and once he ventured into nature, he noticed its chaos and cruelty of violence, death, and decay. He began to feel guilty for the beauty and bliss that he’d once known and enjoyed for himself. He came to see beauty and bliss as mere illusions. Worse, they were illusions made possible for the privileged classes isolated in their social bubble by the sweat-and-toil of the laboring masses. So, what was Siddhartha to do? His solution was profound or cowardly depending on whom you ask. He concluded that, just as his youthful paradise was just an illusion, the entire world is an illusion; indeed, even consciousness is an illusion, and therefore, the only hope of being freed of this illusion was through meditation for the attainment of Nirvana.
China had Confucius who wasn’t into religious/spiritual stuff, but he too thought long and hard about the problem of the high and low. He decided there is the good high and the good low. The good high are the scholars who are considerate, cultured, educated, knowledgeable, and imbued with fortune cookie wisdom. The good low are the peasants. They may not be educated and cultivated in manners, but they do honest work by tilling the soil and producing food. The bad high were the merchants and soldiers because merchants leeched off the peasants — or so Confucius, who never would have won a Nobel in economics, thought — and because soldiers used brute force than sage-like persuasion to impose and maintain order.
As for Jesus, the would-be God-man thought that the ‘high’ rich should give away all their wealth and be equally poor and ‘low’ with everyone else and favor spirituality over the needs of the flesh. He practiced what He preached as He was the Son of God who embraced poor people with disease and such, thereby bridging the high and the low.
Greeks took more of a logical approach to the problems of high and low. According to Plato, the state should conceive and manage a strict system of education that shall train young boys and girls from a young age toward well-rounded achievement in physical health and intellectual understanding. Unlike most philosophers around the world who remained rather vague or incomplete about what-is-to-be-done, Plato and some other Greeks detailed how the state should manage social order and its stratifications, and in that sense, their ideas served as the foundation of modern society’s emphasis on public education. Not surprisingly, it was the Greco-phile Germans of the 19th century who took such ideas closest to heart and mind. Christian education had been relatively vague about how to cultivate young people into good rulers and citizens as the knowledge of God could never be complete. In contrast, the humanist model of the Greeks didn’t hesitate to ponder what exactly must be done to make for a better order. On the matter of God, there were limits as to what could be thought, questioned, and discussed since God was ultimately unknowable and there were too many taboos around Him. But on issues pertaining to mankind, there was much greater freedom to look for solutions to problems. (It is, of course, no longer really the case since certain groups, especially Jews, Negroes, and homos, have been elevated to near deity-like status so that it’s become taboo to raise certain questions about Jewish power, homo perversion, or Negro savagery. In our so-called secular age, the suffering of certain peoples have been ‘sacralized’ to the point of holiness whereby free debate and discussion are virtually impossible in respectable or mainstream circles. In the case of the Holocaust, it’s somewhat understandable since its horror cannot be overestimated. But the fact that so much has been made of black problems when, in fact, the black experience in America hardly amounts to one of the great historical horrors suggests that the sacralization of a particular people has more to do with media hype and government/academic promotion than the tragic value of what may have happened. This fact becomes even more strikingly obvious with homosexuals. Homos got a lot of sympathy over the AIDS crisis, but, in truth, the epidemic spread in the homo community because too many fruitkins indulged in irresponsible fecal-penetrative behavior. And yet, the Jewish powers-that-be that control the academia, media, government, and courts have spread the dirty lie that homos who died of AIDS were simply hapless victims of ‘Reaganite indifference’. Isn’t it strange that homos who killed themselves by spreading HIV via excessive butt-fuc*ery have been elevated to the same pedestal with Jews and Negroes? In contrast, there’s precious little that is said or done about Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their own homeland and now eke out a living under Zionist imperialist occupation. So, ‘sacralization’ is all about politics and ‘who, whom’ than about which people really suffered nobly or more than others. The powerful decide which people are ‘sacrally’ deserving of sympathy and even worship. If powerful and rich Jews and homos say we should sympathize with eternally ‘powerless’ Jews and homos forever, many of us just grovel and do as commanded.)
There is no greater wonder in human achievement than science. Science has engaged the highest and the best of human intellect, but the paradox of science is that its highness is focused on the abject lowness of the world. Science has no use for ‘high’ concepts like God, beauty, nobility, honor, virtue, and etc. A science learns about humanity by cutting open the flesh, looking at the gooey stuff, sawing through bones, testing the bile and other chemicals, studying the tangle of veins, and studying the genitalia and other organs. There is a strict method to science but there is no ‘dignity’ to it. Even a king, a president, an aristocrat, and a bishop have to drop their pants and bend over for the finger of some doctor who wants to inspect their anuses. Even the queen has to spread her legs open for some gynecologist to examine her pooter.
Astrology is bogus but is filled with wonderful stories of gods and goddesses of the sky who shape our destinies. In contrast, science has proven that space is filled with dead rocks, dust particles, gases, and cold blackness. And there’s nothing special about ‘stars’. They are merely other suns farther away that will burn until they blow up real good or turn into a black hole. So, science brings together the high and the low. Science exists only because of the great tradition of civilization and the best of human intelligence. But in the end, science progresses not by waxing romantic and highfalutin about high ideas but by taking a cold look at the ‘low’ elements of reality. Chemistry reduces everything down to particles and atoms. Indeed, science tells us that everything is a kind of ‘low’. Even a king is just a man like you and me putting on grand airs. Even holy water is just H2O and has germs. And according to Freud and others, even so-called high-minded ideas are grounded in biological — especially sexual — instincts.
Stanley Kubrick was maybe the greatest film-maker on the relationship between the high and the low in films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and EYES WIDE SHUT. And one of the great mysteries of Vincent Van Gogh was how he managed to employ such a ‘low’ and ‘crude’ style to create works of such astounding power and, yes, beauty. THE STARRY NIGHT should be an ugly mess, and yet it is a sublime work of art. It looks both primitive/chaotic and poetic/beatific. It’s as if madness has been willed into music.
Indeed, it is interesting that perhaps the greatest and highest achievement of man — the understanding of his origins via Charles Darwin — associated mankind with ape-kind and ‘lower’ animal forms from which apes evolved. The advance of science reminds us that we are special and different from other animals that cannot think and reason like we can, and yet, the end-result of our exploration is that our DNA is 98% the same as that of chimpanzees. This is still something that troubles many people, especially on the religious right but also on the left. The Christian West used to be pro-science as the clergy was so sure that science would reveal the glory of God. Mankind would learn of God’s greatness as an architect, artist, creator, dreamer, and manager of the universe. There was a time in the West when religion, art, music, and science all seemed to be in alignment and agreement. Religion worshiped God, art celebrated His greatness, music sang hymns to His glory, and science explained the power of God that made the law and order of the universe possible. The Church even overcame the controversy about Earth revolving around the Sun, but the stuff about mankind having evolved from other life-forms was simply too much for many religious folks. But the left also has problems with the science of evolution because, if indeed mankind are animals, then they too must be affected by the forces of natural and social selection. If the elements of the religious right say that evolution never happened, many on the left say evolution ended for mankind just when all the races evolved to the point where they remained more or less same with another. This too is a problem of the high vs the low. For the left, there is no higher idea than the ‘equality of mankind’, a kind of paradox to be sure. So, when it turns out that Europeans have Neanderthal blood and that black Africans evolved toward a tendency to act like baboons, this is distressing stuff. Though the religious right is even more opposed to the full implications of evolution, the secular left poses a greater threat to the science of evolution since so many of them control the commanding heights of elite education and research.
The problem of high and low is further complicated because the more we try to clarify and purify a set of data or an idea, the less clear it becomes. It could be called the ‘murk-to-mist conundrum’. We see this in the evolution of religion. All religions began as low cults and myths. We might say Greco-Roman pagan mythology was ‘high’ whereas that of the Germanic barbarians were ‘low’, but Greek myths had once been ‘low’ before they were elevated by priests, ritualists, artists, and poets. It was over time that it developed into something worthy of high civilization. And in time, Germanic mythology might also have bloomed into something high, but the intrusion of Christianity put an end to such a possibility — though, to be sure, one could argue that German Romanticism of the 19th century revived and elevated Germanic mythology into the realm of high culture, but it was still as high art than as high religion. When we look at the genealogy of Greek mythology, the first gods were murky and primitive and stood for base lust, aggression, fear, and other crude emotions. They were like the power of nature, without particular forms, purposes, or meanings. But the early gods were overthrown by the Titans and then by the Olympians who stood for certain ideals recognizable to humans. So, Zeus wasn’t just some monstrous god but stood for patriarchy. He was the father figure. Hera was the mother figure.
 |
| Get down on your knees and worship the Perfect Jews!!! |
Jews are the masters of the Culture of Complaint and got to the top by complaining about the unjust power[of goy elites], but even as they’re perched at the top, they continue to bitch and complain about goyim who have far less power than they do; worse, they don’t allow goyim to practice the Culture of Complaint against Jews. It’s like Jews are for free speech[to attack goyim]by Jews but against free speech by goyim to challenge Jews; that’s called ‘hate speech’. Jews still bitch about how people like Richard Wagner were ‘antisemitic’ against Jews, but they refuse to realize that it always took two to tango. Sure, there were plenty of angry and even nasty antisemitic types through European history, but there were also plenty of Jews who were hateful, spiteful, nasty, and vicious. Jewish attitude toward goyim was worse than goy attitude toward Jews through most of history. Indeed, if Europe were 98% Jewish and 2% Christian, the latter would likely have been wiped out as blasphemers. Consider how Jews are only 2% of the American population, but so much of the nastiness, self-righteousness, censoriousness, viciousness, and obnoxiousness flows out of the Jewish community. Jews are both the pushiest and the touchiest. Of course, Jews still find ways to bitch about how the Koch Brothers are orchestrating some ‘fascist’ takeover of America, but really, it’s the Jews who really run this country, and it is they who should be held accountable to the rest of us since they hog most of the power. But can Jews be accountable as the Wasp elites who, at the very least, admitted that they were the elites, were confident in that position, and felt they were duty-bound to the nation as a whole? Instead, more often than not, we see elite Jews excusing and rationalizing their bad behavior and massive abuse of power by invoking how, decades ago, some Wasp golf club didn’t admit their grandfather or some such. Even as top dogs, Jews keep pointing to topper dogs that are no longer there but have been dethroned by the rise of the new toppermost Jewish elites. Can Jews rule as an elite that is honest about and accountable to their power? Or will Jewish elites continue to act like the scumbags of Goldman Sachs, Hollywood, big law firms, the movers-and-shakers behind the homo agenda, and destroyers of the Middle East via twisted US foreign policy? Will American Jews act like Russian Jews who looted nearly all of Russia in the 1990s without an ounce of remorse? Indeed, when we see American Jews passionately side with Russian-Jewish oligarches instead of thinking in terms of what is good for Russia as a whole, it’s time we realized that Jews, despite all their intelligence and talent, are unfit to rule over a gentile majority nation since they will forever cling to the self-righteous and tribally self-serving cult of powerlessness even though they’ve become the most powerful people in the world. Indeed, contrast a rich person who admits he’s rich and acts like a person of wealth WITH a rich person who, no matter how richer he becomes, still acts like he’s a poor person in need of alms and sympathy from others. No matter how rich and powerful Jews become, they will not admit to the full extent of their power nor live up to its responsibilities but instead just keep playing the vulnerable-and-wronged party eternally deserving of our sympathy and support. So, even though they use their awesome power to intimidate us into blindly obeying and serving them, they also have us fooled that WE are the powerful ones who are aiding poor helpless Jews from neo-Nazis and anti-Semites all around the world. As such, our sense of righteous pride has come to be predicated on our competition with other goyim around the world to show that we ‘serve and protect’ Jews better than any other people. Indeed, consider how American politicians, activists, and ‘thinkers’ bitch about how some other country in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Middle East is so very ‘antisemitic’ and how ‘we’ are so much better because we are over-brimming with fulsome sympathy for the Jews. The psychology of American goyim is rather like that of dogs. Dogs blindly serve their masters but are led to ‘think’ that they themselves have the power and are protecting their helpless masters — who has the power of food, shelter, and life over them — from the ‘bad guys’. When the likes of Sarah Palin and Chris Christie bark in praise of Jews, Jewish elites laugh and watch the spectacle like a dog show.)
In a way, Jesus is like both a Athena figure and reverse-Athena figure in the Jewish tradition. Like Athena was born of the mind of Zeus, Jesus was born of the heart of God. And this is why Jews couldn’t accept His divinity. According to Jews, there can only be one God, so the idea of God producing another God seems absurd(indeed an offense worthy of death penalty). Indeed, even Christians theoretically have a problem with the idea of there being more than one God, and so they say the Son of God isn’t really a separate god — like Athena is from Zeus — but part of God manifest on Earth. But theoretic rationalization aside, Jesus was like a birth of a new God from an old God. In this, He is like Athena. And yet, He is also like reverse-Athena since He was born as a Man. In the case of the Greeks, gods were ideas modeled on mankind, and then a god(Zeus) as an idea gave birth to an higher idea. Thus, Athena is removed from mankind twice-over. In contrast, though Jesus was a God born of the God, He was born as a Man to live among mankind. So, He is reversed or returned to mankind. Also, if Athena is a high concept deity who represents the highest virtues and values — though she can be vain and petty at times — , Jesus bridged the high and the low as the God who went among the wretched of the earth. Athena’s ‘low’ qualities that are most humanlike — vanity, vengefulness, spite, and ruthlessness — lend her some humanlike qualities, but they do her no favor as a goddess because her lofty status and high ideals are exposed to imperfection. In contrast, though Jesus goes among the lower masses and sometimes becomes dirty and weary, He can be said to be perfect preaches He preaches sympathy & understanding and also practices what He preaches to the very end — though the Gospels do show Him as sometimes impatient with the dimwittedness of the Disciples, but then being an arrogant Jew, He probably couldn’t tolerate anyone who disagreed with Him; neither could Marx and Freud who insisted on disciples who never contradicted their great ‘truths’. The problem with finding perfect disciples is that blind followers tend not be of the best minds, and this may explain why Paul, who was NOT a Disciple, became the most inspired theorist, visionary, and proselytizer of the new Faith. Had he met Jesus in real life, Jesus would likely have told him to get lost for having too many ideas of his own instead of just following and obeying Him. Those closest to the sun become consumed by the light; those further away make of sunlight what they wish.
Anyway, it is the figure of Jesus that secular Jews aspire to in their cult of Holocaustianity, at least in the West. In Israel itself, Jews model themselves on Moses, Samson, King David, and King Solomon. They love flexing muscles, kicking the modern day Philistines(Palestinians), and acting tough. But if Jews brazenly acted like Samson in the West, goyim would come to see Jews as very powerful and brutal. So, in order for Jews to go on guilt-baiting white folks, they must put on the Jew-sus Holochrist act, indeed as if Jews died for the sins of white gentile goyim.
 |
| Elie Wiesel the Holocaustianist Weasel |
 |
| Way of Nature |
No less problematic in regards to victim-hood is the revolution in thought that happened with Judaism and Christianity. With Judaism, there arose the concept of the eternally favored and righteous people. A kind of moral supremacism of the Jews. This was different not just in degree but in depth from pagan view of the world. Ancient Greeks were arrogant and tended to see non-Greeks as barbarians, and they gave as well as they got. But with their many gods — none of whom was perfect — , Greeks didn’t feel that they were right about everything and right all the time. And not all the spiritual forces were on their side. Recall that according to myth, Athena promised Paris to lay waste all of Greece if he presented her with the Golden Apple. She sides with the Greeks only because Paris awarded the apple to Aphrodite. Thus, the Trojan War becomes not just a war between the Greeks and Trojans but a family feud among the gods(but without Richard Dawson to kiss all the goddesses). In the Trojan War, half the great gods were on the side of Trojans. And one of the most famous plays THE TROJAN WOMEN by Euripides sympathizes with the fallen Trojans.
In contrast, Jews with their one God decided that their God was perfect and always favored the Jews. It’s like the boybot David in A.I. who’s convinced that ‘mommy’ really loves him and that he must earn her love forever and ever by becoming a ‘real boy’. Jews came to conceptualize their spirituality into a single Deity who created and ruled over everything, and this Deity’s love belonged foremost to Jews. Of course, Jews could fall out of favor and be punished, but their Deity would never favor another people over the Jews. The Deity might disfavor the Jews if they did something wrong, but Jews would be given another chance to rectify their sinfulness so that they would regain the love of the one and only God. It’s like every child wants to believe that his or her parents are his or hers alone and belong to no other kids outside the family. The Bible says Jews were often sinful and had to be taught a lesson, but as long as Jews redeemed themselves, there was the hope of God delivering the Messiah who would lead to Jews to complete victory over the goyim. (Ironically and perversely enough, the ‘messiahs’ that finally handed the world to Jews on a silver platter were not even Jews but goyim: Adolf Hitler and MLK. Hitler set out to crush and destroy the Jews, but his horrible example undermined Western Christian and neo-pagan civilization and provided tremendous moral capital to the Jews. As for MLK, he became the icon for baiting ‘white guilt’, and Jews have recently elevated his cult higher than worship of Jesus. In America, you can have a successful career by bashing and mocking Jesus, but if you dare utter a negative word about MLK, you will be destroyed immediately. Though Jesus was a Jew, His spiritual apotheosis became associated with white European power and pride, and so, Jews have mixed feelings about Him as the renegade Jew — though Jews are somewhat coming to appreciate Him because church after church in what remains of Christendom is bowing down or bending over to the neo-temple of ‘rainbow homo ass-buggery’. With Christianity homo-ized, it will belong to the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal that controls the new culture.) +David in A.I. never loses faith in ‘mommy’ and prays to the Blue Fairy forever and ever to be ‘redeemed’ into a ‘real boy’ so he can be worthy of ‘mommy’s love. In a scene where David meets another ‘David’, he grows all jealous, angry, and murderous and destroys the double. This is why Jews came to hate Christianity. Judaism said God, though the creator of everything and everyone, favored the Jews. Jews were His special and unique people, and the rest of mankind could only be blessed through Jews. But Christianity turned God into a ‘generic’ concept that could be adopted by gentiles. Gentiles could say God belonged to them as well for they too were the children of God. If anything, Christians said God belonged to them more than to the Jews because they accepted Jesus as the Messiah whereas the Jews killed Him. If Jews came up with eternal moral righteousness, Christians came up with eternal self-pitying victim-hood. If Jesus had simply been remembered as a man killed by Jews, he would have been seen as a tragic historical figure. But Christianity says He was the Son of God, which means Jews attempted to kill God Himself. Such grave sin could only be washed away by Jews repenting and converting to Christianity. Fair or unfair, such an idea was almost inevitable since Jews, in creating their one-and-only God, had killed off all the other gods. If Jews believed in many gods, and if Jesus had been seen as the son of one of the many gods, his killing wouldn’t have been so bad since there are other gods with their children. But since Jews conceptually murdered all the other gods, it meant there was only one true God left standing. Though in His manifestation-in-flesh Jesus was the Son of God and therefore separate from God, in His spiritual essence He was the one and the same with God. Thus, the idea that Jews tried to kill Jesus translates into the notion of Jews-tried-to-kill-God-Himself. Of course, from the Jewish viewpoint, this is absurd since they don’t regard Jesus as the Messiah, let alone the Son of God, but Christians live by a different theology.
But Christians, in order to be on good terms with Jews after WWII, altered the core of their faith by newly positing that God-according-to-Christianity loves Jews as much He loves Christians. But once Christianity made that concession, it opened itself to further concessions to other groups out of fear of giving offense. But a religion that is afraid of giving offense is no religion at all. After all, if Jesus had been overly sensitive about giving offense, He would have shut up lest he offend Jews and Romans, and then there would have been no Christianity. Given the horror of the Holocaust, I can understand why many Christians felt compelled to purge Christianity of its anti-Jewish tradition. But blaming Christianity for the Holocaust is misleading because, after all, neo-pagan Nazis carried it out. Also, one could also argue that communism has moral roots in Christianity’s invective against money-grubbers and the wealthy. Since communism exterminated so many people in the name of ‘equality’, should Christianity-as-moral-precursor-of-Marxism be cautious about giving offense to the rich and privileged as well? Besides, even if one could make a valid case that Christianity led to the Holocaust, didn’t Christian culture of intolerance grow out of Jewish culture of intolerance? We can go on like this forever.) From a modern-rational viewpoint, Christian anti-Jewish-ness seems offensive, but from a religious viewpoint, special Christian guilt about ‘antisemitism’ seems selective, opportunistic, and disingenuous. After all, what about the pagan victims of Christianity? Why is the notion that there is only one God(and that all the other gods are false) any less ‘offensive’ than the notion that Jews are the murderers of God? Didn’t Christian monotheism serve as the justification for destroying pagan cultures and torturing/killing pagan peoples? And how is the notion that the one and only universal God favors the Jews over all other peoples any more rational than the notion of Jews being eternally responsible for the murder of Christ? Why don’t Lutherans apologize to all the pagans who were burned as witches? Why don’t Jews apologize to the descendants of Canaanites and Philistines for using religious justification to wage wars, commit genocide, and practice Judeo-imperialism? All religions are ‘crazy’ if you think about it, and the notion that Jews are eternally tainted with the killing of Jesus is no more ‘crazy’ than the notion of the Original Sin, the notion of Ham’s tribe being condemned because Ham saw Noah’s privates, the notion that the first born of Egyptians should die for punishment for Pharoah’s mistreatment of Jews, and etc. Besides, the Holocaust could be seen as the Revenge of the Neo-Pagans.
Even if we were to argue that Christian antisemitism paved the ground for mass killings under the Nazis, we could also argue that Christian egalitarianism informed the morality of communism that destroyed tens of millions of lives. Come to think of it, even Jesus’ economic theories are totally cuckoo-bananas from a rational viewpoint. Jesus didn’t merely tell people to give some stuff to the poor but to give away everything until they themselves were equally poor and had nothing left to give away.
Anyway, the Christian revolution in thought brought forth the idea of eternal damnation and eternal victim-hood. According to Christianity, if you’re sinful and don’t find salvation through Jesus, you shall burn in Hell forever and ever. As for the righteous and redeemed, they shall bask in the holiness of God forever and ever. Though these ideas mainly applied to afterlife, they also colored the Christian outlook of the real world. So, Christians, in association with the murdered Jesus and martyred Saints, felt themselves to be holy forever. And ever replaying the story of death of their Lord at the hands of Romans & Jews and His triumph over them through Resurrection over and over every Easter — which is why Google Jewish boys hate Easter — , Christians felt themselves as the eternal victims holy forever. So, even when Christians gained the power and were bashing and oppressing others, they sanctimoniously saw themselves as the saintly agents of God and Jesus. Since Jesus was victimized — and since His victimization was central to Christianity — , even when a Christian victimized others, he felt himself to be the victim in association with the memory of Jesus. (It’s like blacks identify so much with their past victim-hood that even their present violence is seen in terms of victim-hood resisting ‘racist’ oppression.) So, if a powerful Christian punched a weak pagan/heathen in the face, he felt that his holy fist was victimized by the sinful face of the wicked pagan. Those who are so wrapped up in their own righteous victim-hood are blind to their own acts of victimization against other groups. Whenever Christians bashed the Jews, heathens, pagans, and heretics, they rationalized the violence as righteous counter-measure against pagans/heathens/Jews who’d tormented and murdered Jesus. Never mind that the killing of Jesus happened long time ago. Never mind that the pagans of the present weren’t like the pagans of the past. Never mind that the Jews of today weren’t around when Jews did play a role in the killing of Jesus. And never mind that even when Jesus was killed, there were many Jews who knew nothing about it or took no part in it. Having so closely associated themselves with Jesus as the ultimate victim, Christians became blind to their own violence against non-Christians and ‘heretical’ Christians of other sects. (Paradoxically in some ways, Jesus’s pacifism inspired His worshipers to become even bigger bullies. As Jesus refused to fight back and died at the hands of the meanies, His followers were bound to feel some degree of guilt for having failed to fight for Him and protect Him from harm. Of course, Jesus wanted it that way and preached non-violence to His followers, but subconsciously there must have been some degree of shame among His Disciples who’d done nothing to save Him. Worshipers of Jesus through the ages would have felt likewise. On the one hand, Jesus was to be revered for His non-violence, His dying for mankind, and forgiveness of His enemies. On the other hand, His helplessness before the meanies made Him an object of great pity and sympathy. His torture and death makes His worshipers wish that they’d been there to intervene and beat up Jews/Romans and save Jesus from harm, especially because Jesus refused to save His own life. It’s like the scene in WITNESS where Harrison Ford’s character looks at townies mocking the Amish and gets spitting mad. He might not have felt so angry if the Amish were meanies themselves and told the townies to go to hell and fought back. But because the Amish are so virtuous and helpless, Ford’s character is infuriated by how the townies act toward them. So, he finally bashes a townie with intense fury. He doesn’t just fend off the bully a lesson but whups his ass real good. It’s same with Christians and Jesus. On the one hand, the example of Jesus’s pacifistic virtue inspires them to love and forgive. But because Jesus died so helplessly and horribly at the hands of meanies, Christians get especially angry when people don’t respect the Son of God who sacrificed so much for the salvation of mankind. It’s bad enough that Jesus suffered for the sake of mankind, but to have people mock Jesus or reject His love even after He’d suffered and died for mankind? Nothing infuriates more than unrequited love, and rejection of Jesus’ love is seen as such by many Christians. Why that’d be like beating and killing Him all over again. So, this aspect of Christianity brings out the counter-bully in Christians, but then counter-bullying can easily become a form of bullying in its own right — worse, a form of bullying that is blinded by its own self-righteousness. We see the same kind of dynamics among Jews, Negroes, and homos. Jews feel that they died for mankind in the Holocaust, especially as so many Jews didn’t resist but just followed orders and got killed in huge numbers. As for Negroes, they feel that they marched for freedom in the name of non-violence behind MLK. And homos think they’d survived the homocaust — the AIDS epidemic that supposedly was the fault of Reaganite indifference as if all the fecal penetration among homos had nothing to do with the spread of the disease. So, when some people remain critical of Jewish power, skeptical of claims of black holiness — as so many blacks act like apelike scum — , and hostile to the radical homo agenda, they are met with virulent bullying hatred. Jewish/Negro/homo fixation on their victim-hood makes them feel so holy that anyone who won’t kneel before them in forgiveness and prayer is seen as not only wrong but totally wicked and deserving of destruction.) Since Christianity was steeped in the eternal cult of victimology, even when Christians held great power and crushed others, they conceived of themselves as struggling like Jesus and the martyred saints.
Most figures in the Bible are more multi-faceted than Jesus. Moses was sometimes wise, sometimes stupid, sometimes heroic, sometimes vain, and etc. Same could be said of Samson, Saul, David, and host of other figures. Many of them were victimized at some point, but they also victimized others and had ups and downs. When we think of David, we think of the young David, old David, good David, bad David, happy David, sad David, triumphant David, the fallen David. Though the life of Jesus was also varied to some degree, it was essentially of spiritual purity followed/tested by horrendous physical suffering. The iconic image of Jesus is overwhelmingly linked with the Crucifix(ion). And since Jesus didn’t victimize others — though money changers might disagree — , His victim-hood is seen as purely holy and absolute. And since He’s the Son of God, His suffering to redeem the soul of mankind reverberates through eternity. There are lots of positive things to be said about this aspect of Christianity, and only a churlish anti-Christianite or radical secularist would deny the role Christianity played in the moral advancement of the West and the world. But on the negative side, it created a mentality of preening self-righteous piety and sanctimoniousness, and once such attitudes were secularized, it paved the way for stuff like communism, political correctness, and people-of-color ‘eternal victimization’.
 |
| TEN COMMANDMENTS - Jew driving Egyptian crazy. |
The real reason for the rise of ‘white guilt’ was the good times that followed that made white folks softer, kinder, and more sympathetic. If World War II had been followed by great depressions in America and Europe, most white folks would have been mainly concerned with self-interest and racial/tribal unity than ‘doing the right thing’ by others. Indeed, the relatively depressed economies of the USSR and Eastern Europe didn’t lead to any kind of ‘white guilt’. Russians didn’t feel sorry for Russian imperialism. Poles didn’t hate themselves for not having done more to save Jews. It was in the US and Western Europe(where living standards improved dramatically) that came to embrace the new religion of ‘white guilt’. Of course, good times and prosperity don’t necessarily lead to compassion for others and feelings of guilt. Things are much better now in China, but how many Chinese feel sorry for the plight of Tibetans? Japan made huge progress in economic well-being — and there was a rise of the dynamic New Left in the 1960s — , but for the most part, Japanese are not into ‘yellow guilt’. So, there are other factors than economics. In the West, the Jewish domination of much of the academia and media was crucial to the rise of the cult of ‘white guilt’. Also, the Christian values of the West that had shaped the psychology of so many white folks — even secular ones — had made it easier for them to be manipulated with the notions of ‘guilt’ and ‘redemption’. After all, long before Jews gained dominance in America, white Christians had produced stuff like UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, which was considered as the greatest of all novels by Leo Tolstoy, a Russian Christian. So, the Christian-ized Western mind is more conducive to certain kinds of emotional states and manipulations. Though most peoples in both the East and West are susceptible to manipulation, the oddly paradoxical thing about the West is that its concept/cult of the individual soul can, in some cases, make Westerners even more obedient and slavish than people in the East. Eastern mentality is more passive and communal in relation to authority. Eastern concept of knowledge is much the same, which accounts for all the craze over standardized exams. Easterners are more into learning than thinking. They learn from their masters than strive to think freely as independent individuals. Confucianism stressed strict hierarchy and one’s harmonious place in the order of things, and Buddhism denied even the notion of the individual soul. There is no ‘me’ or ‘you’ in Buddhism as each life is merely just another station for the ever traveling soul that seeks escape from existence. Just like a train stops at various stations, the soul according to Buddhism uses various lives as points of departure before the re-boarding. So, the soul could stop at the ‘fox’ station, ‘spider’ station, man ‘station’, woman ‘station’, insect ‘station’, and etc. ‘Your’ soul doesn’t belong to you but only stopped in ‘you’ that serves as a station. So, the Eastern attitude to authority tends to be collective-passive than individual-active. Even in Confucianism, the emphasis on ancestor worship made one live for the continuation of the bloodline than for oneself as an independent individual. One was a mere a servant who, while alive, carried out the duties and carried on with the memory of his ancestors. In contrast, both Western paganism and Christianity posited that each person had his own soul, and that everyone was, to some extent, his or her own self with own body and mind. So, the Western mind should be more active than merely passive in its relation to authority. One possibility was being critical of authority, but the other possibility was being actively engaged WITH authority, a kind of contradiction in terms. If authority exists to be obeyed, and if obedience is, by its very nature, a form of passivity, what does it mean to be actively engaged with authority? If one is active as an individual in close association with authority, can one be truly obedient? Won’t the individual will, even as an active supporter of authority, eventually come to loggerheads with authority because the active will of individuality naturally wants to be independent and think its own thoughts? So, the active mode is more dangerous to authority than the passive mode is. And yet, there are cases when the active mode can paradoxically be more blindly supportive of authority because of the conceit of individual choice and independence. Among Easterners, there’s the understanding that one is suppressing one’s individuality for the sake of authority and/or community. But among Westerners, there’s the notion — often a self-deceiving conceit — that one’s beliefs and values are truly one’s own, and therefore, one should guard and fight for them with all of one’s might and zeal. While there are free thinkers in the West, the fact is most manifestations of so-called ‘individual’ and/or ‘independent’ thoughts, ideas, and values have been implanted by the powers-that-be that control the institutions. But since the Western cult of individuality has so many people duped that they are independent-minded agents, they are blind to the degree to which they’ve been fooled and manipulated by the elites. Take ‘gay marriage’ for instance. Most Americans who are for that nonsense truly believe that they, as free-thinking individuals, came to support it of their own accord. In fact, they’d been fooled and tricked by subliminal advertising, kitschy pageantry, mass propaganda, new taboos, economic pressure, celebrity worship, TV and Hollywood, massive Wall Street spending, and etc. If Westerners were passive-minded, they might submit to the ‘gay’ agenda but without much passion. They would be going along since the norm would be to just passively go along. Since the norm is to submit to authority, one doesn’t necessarily have to believe whatever one is acquiescing to. You just go along with the herd because that’s what’s expected of you. But as Westerners are active-minded, they tend to believe in their free will and their freedom of individual conscience. So, even when they mindlessly and blindly obey, they feel themselves to be masters of their own destiny. Of course, the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo elites who manipulate the Western masses are only too happy to oblige Westerners to feel that they themselves control their own minds, values, and destinies. So, the Jew-run media tell us that ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable since the vast majority of young people ‘demand’ it. But why did so many young people come to embrace something so patently ludicrous? Did each of them really think freely as individuals? Or were they merely duped and manipulated by the mass media and mass propaganda controlled by the Jomo Cabal? And is it merely a coincidence that the sudden rise of homo power has coincided with the rapid rise of the global oligarchy? How come the elites of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Washington D.C., London, Hollywood, Chicago, and etc. love this ‘gay’ business so very much? I’ve never seen rich oligarches so enthusiastic about any other agenda. Why not? Well, just think of what the main political and social issues would be if the homo agenda — and the transvestite agenda — were off the table. The main issues of the day would be "why are the blue city Liberal elites in places like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, London, and etc. so rich and privileged while everyone else is facing hard times?" This is why the global oligarches have used their media control and institutional power to make the homo stuff — and transvestite nonsense — into the dominant ‘moral value’ issues of the day. And most people have been duped, but because of the cult of ‘individual will’ in the West, these pathetic sheeple think the homo agenda is a moral campaign of grave importance based on their own conscience and courage. Though the homo agenda is the favorite tool of the super-rich globalist elites in the Western world, so many suckers think that their mindless support of the homo agenda is all about championing helpless victims against the powers-that-be. In fact, the homo-agenda is the favorite ‘moral cause’ of the powers-that-be since it puts issues of class and race in the back-burner. After all, the globalist elite classes, though ‘progressive’ in rhetoric, live in a world that is largely white, Jewish, haute mulatto, and Asian. In some globo-elite communities, there are so few blacks that white folks have to adopt black babies from Africa to add some ‘diversity’ to their community. And of course, it’s safer to adopt black babies than open their neighborhoods to black Americans from da ‘hoods since black African babies can be raised to be acculturated to white/Jewish/homo social norms. They will be like well-trained pet monkey Negroes. Anyway, in terms of class and race, most of the blue city Liberal oligarchs and elite classes are ultra-privileged, affluent, sneering, and snobby. They are filled with contempt for most middle class folks, most working class folks, and yes, even for most black and brown folks. If the main victim-narrative were about class, it would make blue city Liberal oligarches and elites look like total hypocrites since they are the main beneficiaries of globalism that made the top 1% richer than ever. If the main victim-narrative were about race, it would make blue city Liberal oligarches and elites look like total hypocrites since they’ve been busily gentrifying entire blocks of cities to make them whiter, more Jewish, more homo, and more yellow(as honorary whites). So, it serves the global oligarches to turn the ‘gay’ agenda into the main ‘moral’ issue, especially since so many homos love to live the luxurious lifestyle, shmooze with the upper classes, and put on fancy & hissy-snotty-bitchy airs. The homo agenda has essentially associated snotty elitist narcissism with ‘victim-hood’. It has ‘aristocratized’ the cult of victim-hood. But as too many Americans are obsessed with trash, celebrity culture, and the style of ‘radical bohemianism’, they don’t understand they’ve been hoodwinked and taken for a ride.
Indeed, the cult of ‘radicalism’ itself has had a paradoxical effect, one that actually benefits the elites. Many so-called ‘radicals’ consider themselves to be free thinkers, but the essence of radicalism is to be 100% committed to a cause, a form of mindless obedience to whatever the radical cause happens to be(which is usually fantastical and ridiculous). But, what’s especially useful to the elites is the fact that most forms of radicalism are so unrealistic and ludicrous that they will only keep the so-called ‘radicals’ hung up with silly fantasies that will never materialize and threaten the powers-that-be. The powers-that-be fear pragmatic reformers much more than radical dreamers who pontificate about abolishing capital, spreading anarchy, and other crackpot theories that won’t ever win the support of most people who know in their guts that utopianism is always bound to fail, often disastrously. Also, radicals, for all their yammering about changing the world, tend to be insular and take pride in their insularity. So, they love to spout some esoteric stuff about some 19th century Russian anarchist, some underground writer, and etc. It’s like Jean-Luc Godard was making a bunch of ‘Maoist’ films in the late 60s and early 70s that no one bothered to see — not even his fans. Of course, in his own mind, he was the true-blue revolutionary, but to the world, he was some insular solipsist who was foolish enough to take Maoism seriously and apply it to situations in the West. Libertarians who spout nonsense about Ayn Rand are also insular radicals. Though they claim to have the magic bullet that will save and remake the economy, their purist capitalist fantasies are so far-out that they will never see the light of day. So, elites need not fear most radicals who do a good job of rendering their own lives useless with mindless fantasies. And of course, to some extent, many radicals secretly love radical ideas precisely for the fact that such will never see the light of day. They can always tell themselves that their ideas are so good and pure that the stupid and idiotic world is too corrupt and compromised to adopt them. Also, since their ideas will never be tested in the real world, they can always be held up as pure and unblemished. This is the appeal of Ron Paul to many young people. As his brand of libertarianism will never see the light of day, they can hold it up as something true-and-blue.
Also, many Marxists came to be disappointed that their ideology actually saw the light of day and brought much ruination upon the world. If Marxism had never come to power in Russia and China, it would have remained as a pure idea unsoiled by reality. So, the fall of communism was something of a relief to the Left. They could use their control of media and academia to force a kind of amnesia over the entire history of communism and cook up a new brand of neo-Marxism that, of course, could never work. As for the homo-mania, it was brilliantly used by the Jewish oligarches and elites to undermine both the left and the right. A new ‘left’ that is all about privileged homos who dilly-dally with urban-globalist oligarches undermines the true left. It’s protects power, wealth, collusion, and the kind of decadence adored by the rich. A right that bends over to the homo agenda — and more and more Conservatives have decided to take the homo dick up the ass — is nothing but a slave to fashion and a servant to the elites with no deep roots in what it means to be human, to be part of a culture, to be part of a tradition, to be at one with the way of nature and true morality.
 |
| Al Sharpton. The Essence of Black Christianity. |
There was a time when the two modes of Christianity existed within whites, with righteousness being balanced with self-examination and self-criticism. But today, whites are in self-critical mode while non-whites, especially blacks, are into the righteous/judgmental mode. A people who seek atonement without fighting for survival will eventually lose. A people who judge others but don’t genuflect on their own failings will just grow stupid and corrupt, and this can be said of many black churches. The core message of Christianity is not that only the rich and powerful can be evil. It is that every soul, even that of a poor person, can be evil if devoid of divine spirit.
Though Jesus saw wealth and privilege as materialistic hindrance to salvation, it’d be a fallacy to assume that He thought a rich man was intrinsically evil or a poor man was intrinsically good. For Jesus, it wasn’t enough to be poor. What mattered was the reasons behind the poverty. A rich man who wished to abandon his wealth was better than a poor man who dreamed of becoming rich. If we were to adopt a purely ‘Marxist’ form of Christianity, Adolf Hitler would be a righteous victim if he were poor and without power. Indeed, there was a time when Hitler was poor and destitute. So, was he a good person because of his low economic status? Or was he still a rotten person because he had a venomous outlook on life and humanity? A lot of black churches seem to think poor blacks are holy and righteous because they are poor, but they don’t take into account Jesus’ teachings that poverty isn’t the same as holiness. Though Jesus felt sympathy for the poor, He understood that the human heart of a poor person could be just as rotten and foul as those of the rich and powerful. What do most poor blacks want in life? They are vain idiots who wanna be like millionaire rappers with limos and gold-plated guns and lots of ho’s who be sucking their dicks. What do most black women want? They wanna be some she-boon mama who be twerking their gorillian-horny booties and acting diva-like like Whitney Houston who done thought she be the center of the universe. Consider the character Diane Selywn in MULHOLLAND DR. She is a poor nobody who dies pitifully. But what was her great dream in the world? Success, money, fame, vanity, and etc. Just because she ended up poor and pitiful doesn’t mean she was good of soul. One could argue that she had a desire to be good, but her desire for goodness was really all about her own self-justifying ego. In her fantasy, she would be the nice caring woman who would take a lost amnesiac woman into her life and help her. She wanted to be nice and good but from the position of power that would allow her to play the role of savior. So, her ‘goodness’ really depended on her having the advantage over the other woman. Of course, in real life, the other woman had the advantage over her, and Diane, in a fit of jealousy, hired someone to have her killed. So, the desire to be good isn’t the same thing as being good. Many people who desire to be good wanna be ‘good’ in their own terms, but it is a kind of fantasy, and fantasies are really about vanity. The goodness their aim for is just another form of narcissism. It’s not the goodness of giving oneself to others but of incorporating the plight of others into a narrative where one plays the role of noble-hearted savior. In the fantasy in MULHOLLAND DR., Diane-as-Betty seems to offer her services to ‘Rita’ out of goodwill, but it soon turns out Betty really wants possession of ‘Rita’. She wants ‘Rita’ to love her and belong to her.
Though white Christians have, more or less, adopted and accepted the apology-atonement-guilt mode of Christianity, human nature also craves for pride, righteousness, and confidence. So, while one part of white Christianity is into ‘white guilt’ mode and accepting of the criticism from non-white churches and folks who yammer and pontificate about ‘white guilt’, there’s another part of white Christianity that seeks to regain some of the old pride and righteousness; and this may explain, at least in part, the sudden popularity of the homo cause in the white mainline — and even some Evangelical — churches. Since the homo agenda is essentially a ‘white thing’, it has a way of re-whitening the church, handing the leadership to whites than to non-whites who generally tend to look upon the homo agenda as something wicked, hostile, decadent, and pooey. Also, by pontificating about ‘homophobia’ among non-whites, white Christians finally have something to judge and condemn the non-white world with. So, if some black church says, "white folks done enslave us and must give us reparations like Jesus done say", a white church can say, "so-and-so black church deserves condemnation for its opposition to ‘gay marriage’." Indeed, many white Christians can’t seem to get enough righteous joy by condemning the persecution of homosexuals in the blackest churches of Africa.
Anyway, the White Right must rethink its position on victimology. Just because victimology has been associated with non-whites and the Left doesn’t mean that it solely belongs to them or is essentially ‘non-white’ and ‘leftist’ in nature. If anything, ‘victimology’ is an emotion in all advanced animals. Though animals aren’t capable of forming concepts, their emotions do revolve around resentment. Elephants, hippos, dogs, wolves, bears, lions, tigers, apes, and hyenas maintain clear memories of who ‘did them wrong’. Though their main objective is fight-or-flight than complaining about grievances, they do store ‘hurt feelings’ in their brains and perceive the world accordingly. This is why, once an animal has been badly treated by a certain person or animal, it has a very hostile and/or anxious reaction if it were to come in close proximity with that person or animal again. Animals store their memories as emotions of fear, hate, anxiety, and even revenge. Prior to the rise of victimology, the dominant emotional mode of many peoples/cultures was avoidism or revanchism. Avoidism seeks to avoid reencounters with fearsome/frightful elements as much as possible. Even today, many Americans seek to move out of black areas and remain away from blacks because they remember blacks as tougher, meaner, more aggressive, and more troublesome. But there also exist powerful feelings of revenge that seeks to ‘return the favor’. Many action/violent movies work on the theme of revenge. Consider ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST where Charles Bronson’s character spent much of his adulthood tracking down Frank — Henry Fonda — who’d killed his brotherlong ago. And THE SEARCHERS, possibly the most famous of all adventure movies, is about an angry white man’s revenge against the Indian savages who murdered his kind and ran off with a white girl who will be raised to serve as a sex slave to the Red man. There’s an element of righteous victimology in all forms of revanchism and revenge-fantasies. Revenge is about righting previous wrongs.
There is rightness in the objective sense of fairness(issues of right vs wrong), but there is also rightness in the sense of one may feel wronged even when one was clearly in the wrong. So, even if someone attacked and humiliated you for justifiable reasons — and even though the facts and the moral advantage are on his side — , you may still ‘feel wronged’ because your ego and vanity have been hurt. (Of course, sense of grievance could also be a matter of style. You could have done something wrong and therefore duly punished for it. But the manner of punishment could have been excessive or needlessly humiliating. After all, there’s the proper way of administering justice and a cruel and sadistic way. When the wrong in substance is wronged in style, does he deserve to feel righteous in his anger?) It’s like in CAPE FEAR. The thug feels he’s been wronged by the lawyer. But then, even generally good people have an ego/vanity problem, and when they’ve been proven wrong, they feel humiliated and feel ‘wronged’ and want to get revenge against the person who exposed him. This is why so much of politics is so crooked and ugly. Too often, it’s less about right vs wrong but about bruised egos and clash of vanities. Even if a politician could be persuaded with all the facts and evidence that he was in the wrong, he resents the fact that he was made to seem like a fool. Even though he has been proven wrong, he still feels wronged. Therefore, a lot of righteous indignation has little or nothing to do with actual right-or-wrong but with feelings of righteousness that accompanies from the feelings of being wronged.
Given everyone is wrong so often about so many things, one may ask why the powers-that-be are so much more committed to exposing the wrongs of some individuals/groups than of others? Why do we hear over and over and over that David Duke was once a member of the KKK, but we hear little or nothing of how so many Neo-Cons had been former communists who cheered on the communists when they were killing millions of people? Also, many people expose wrongs in other people less out of general interest of right-vs-wrong than in the vain narcissism of being holier-than-thou. This is why some people can’t warm up to the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. While many people acknowledge Snowden and Greenwald’s roles in exposing government abuses, they wonder what the true motives were. Justice or holier-than-thou vanity?
Feelings of revenge are natural and still the prevalent form of justice in the world. We use the government institutions to take revenge on those who do us harm. So, if someone cheats you, you take him to court and you leave it up to the judge to punish him and redress wrongs. When Muslim radicals attacked NY and Washington DC on 9/11, US launched massive military strikes on Afghanistan — and even extended the war to Iraq in the name of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and WMD. When Gazans shot some homemade rockets in Israel and killed one person, Israel flattened large areas of Gaza, killing scores of Palestinian women and children. So, one way or another, through the military hammer or the courtroom gavel, various sides seek revenge/redress. Despite the billion-plus Christians around the world, only a tiny number live by Jesus’ creed of "turn the other cheek" and "forgive others for their trespasses". Beside, the few who do live by such creed generally can afford to be saintly because the social order in which they dwell are well-protected and well-maintained by secular forces of the military and government. Amish and Quakers are committed to pacifism, but why are they able to practice such virtues without being harmed? Because America is protected from foreign nations with its massive military and because every American community has its police force and judiciary. And Amish can maintain pretty good lifestyles by doing business with the non-Amish community that is pretty materialistic and ‘greedy’. But if all of America were run according to pacifism, it would be conquered and taken over by others in no time. It’s like the community of peaceful Christian-folks in THEY CALL ME TRINITY is saved by tough guys who are good with fists and guns.
Victimology wouldn’t be so troublesome IF Jews and non-whites truly appreciated the full implications of victim-hood. But paradoxically, those who place their own victim-hood on highest pedestal are most eager for victory and domination over others. Self-Righteousness leads to self-Mighteousness: "Because we’ve been especially wronged, everything is ‘rightfully’ and ‘mightfully’ ours." Such cult of victim-hood conceals an hidden agenda that is essentially supremacist, and that’s all the more reason why the victim-hood mentalities of Jews, blacks, Muslims, and Chinese are most dangerous. They are not only bitching that they’d been victimized but bitching that they, as the superior people, had been victimized by inferior peoples. If indeed a people are committed to victim-hood as a genuine ideal, they would not seek revenge and domination. After all, if it’s so holy and righteous to be victims, why not remain victims forever? Indeed, this was Jesus’ message for mankind. Choose victim-hood and seek no revenge. Turn the other cheek. (If there’s to be revenge in Christianity, it’s in the afterlife where God will punish the wicked for all eternity. As the Good Book says, "Vengeance is mine". The modern state says the vengeance should be handled by the State. According to the New Testament, it’s up to God to decide who will get what punishment for what transgressions. Since ultimate justice will be sorted out in the afterlife, there’s no need for victims to seek revenge in their lifetime. They should just be meek and choose the life of victim-hood and be rewarded in the afterlife for all eternity.) But it was nearly impossible for most people to feel, let alone live, like that. It went against human nature. So, even Christian societies, while preaching the virtue of meek victim-hood, gained power and got revenge through violence, aggression, and ass-whupping. We often hear Conservative Americans say about American wars where tons of bombs were dumped on other nations: "Let God sort it out." So, instead of leaving the right of revenge up to God, Americans prefer to blow nations up and let ‘God’ decide who will live and die in the mayhem. Most people don’t want to be victims, therefore, their cult of victim-hood is more a crutch, a tool, and weapon than an ideal. Negroes don’t want to be eternal victims. (They just want to hog the cult of eternal victim-hood.) Neither do Jews or Chinese or anyone else want to be eternal victims. (Jews want to be eternal victors over us all.) Now, if they want revenge and victory, why don’t they embrace the cult of revenge and victor-hood? Well, it would give the game away, and white folks would wake up to what’s really happening. So, Jews and non-white groups bitch endlessly about how they are victims and deserving of endless sympathy. They are really motivated by revenge, power, and privilege than by any genuine adherence to victim-hood. When Jews yammer about their victim-hood, they are really saying, "Because of the Holocaust, we deserve to rule the world, control all the banks, hump all the shikses, cheat the dumb goyim, dominate all the media, destroy any people or nation that we don’t like, and etc." When blacks bitch about their victim-hood, they are really saying, "Because of slavery under whites, we deserve to kick white ass, take white women, sing violent rap songs, act like thugs and punks, milk white folks for freebies endlessly, taunt and humiliate the ‘faggoty-ass’ white boy, invade all of Europe through massive immigration, and etc." It’s all a Trojan Horse ruse. And Jews and Negroes, like Chinese and Muslims, are dangerous because they harbor supremacist tendencies. It is also true of hissy, bitchy, and snotty homos who make poor egalitarians due to their naturally finicky and narcissistic nature.
 |
| Robert Crumb - WHEN GODDAMN JEWS TAKE OVER AMERICA. |
 |
| ROBERT CRUMB - WHEN NIGGERS TAKE OVER. |
Indeed, this was why National Socialism, Japanese militarism, and communism were so dangerous. All played on victim-hood and grievances, some of which were legitimate. Germany did get a raw deal after World War I — despite what some historians say — , and National Socialism was a victim-ideology that sought to redress those problems. If that had been Hitler’s only goal, National Socialism would have been workable for Germany and acceptable to the world. But he didn’t merely go after bad Jews but all Jews. He didn’t merely reclaim the Rhineland and merge with Germanic regions but swallowed up the Czech region and then invaded Poland. He then even waged war on Russia. Hitler used righteous victim-hood-ism, but at the core of his world-view was the supremacist ideology of ‘Aryanism’. Similarly, the Japanese militarists went far beyond protecting Asian from Western Imperialism, a rationale that was mainly used as a ruse to further Japan’s supremacist ambitions all across Asia. As for communism, it didn’t merely address the problems of the working classes who had it tough in the early stages of capitalism but was absolutely sure of the correctness of Marxism’s understanding of the past, present, and future, and thus, it sough to impose its ideological and moral supremacism over all mankind, in the process destroying countless lives, banishing property rights and freedoms, and instigating useless wars all over that led to all sorts of horrors — by both the far left and far right in counter-revolutionary mode. Some like to believe that Russians are dangerous for the same reason — Great Russian chauvinism — , but Russians today aren’t into world domination. Most of the problems with Russia aren’t the result of Russian aggression but of Jewish aggravation of Russia by bribing and encouraging neighboring nations to provoke crises with Russia, thereby giving Jews-who-run-the-media fresh opportunities to smear Russia as the ‘aggressor’ — as happened when Zionists encouraged Georgia to attack South Ossetia.
Though Putin’s Russia is very nice to Jews, the imposition of mainstream Russian culture and values means that Russian government stands for Russian rule over Russia, Russia dominance in Russia. It means that even though Jews are treated well, they are seen as a minority than as the rightful rulers of Russia. Jews aren’t content to be well-treated minorities. They want to play the role of Jewish Fuhrers or Jewhrers all over the world. Jews want Putin to bow down before the likes of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros just like the whore gentile politicians of the US groveling before Jewish masters at AIPAC conferences. Jews use the homo agenda to loosen, weaken, and subvert the majoritarian agenda of the Russian government. And Jews can smell the blood since, even with Putin at the helm, so many Russians are drunken idiots with little self-control who rely on Jews and other non-Russians to make things run in Russia. Also, even under a nationalist government, much of Russian entertainment and institutions are steeped in homo perversion, Jewish agitation, and other filth concocted by globalist Jews who, with their many billions, fund all sorts of movements, think-tanks, and institutes all over the world that claim to be for ‘human rights’ and ‘social justice’ but are really Trojan Horse instruments of globalist Jewish supremacism. The dirty homo-Jew James Kirchick is one such Jew, and his foul tricks on RT — and his chummy relations with the Jew-run US media and think-tanks — should wake Americans up to the true nature of the Jew. Of course, Jews don’t call their agenda ‘Jewish-supremacist’ and hide behind institutions with name like ‘Foreign Policy Institute’ — just like Jordan Belfort hid behind Wasp respectability by calling his fraudulent company ‘Stratton-Oakmont’, though to be sure, the irony is that Belfort the Jew ‘hid’ behind the non-Jewish screen presence of Leonardo DiCaprio in the film — , but all their agenda is about nothing but ‘Jewish-Global Domination’. (Is there any substantive difference between Belfortism and Saul-Alinsky-ism or homo 'new normal'-ism for that matter? Belfort tells his co-conspirators to first sell blue chip stocks like Disney and ATT to win the trust of the public. Be respectable and ‘conservative’. But once Stratton-Oakmont has been established as a trustworthy 'normal' brokerage firm, then unload the penny stocks on the all the trusting suckers. What was the gist of Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS? He advises radicals to dress up in suits and ties. He urged them to be respectable and come across as American-as-apple pie. Wrap themselves in the American Flag at every opportune moment. Pretend to respect Christianity and the white middle class. But once you've hoodwinked the nation that you activists are mainstream and respectable, sneak in all the radical ideas as the 'new normal'. It's just like winning the trust of the public with blue chips stocks and then dumping worthless penny stocks. Same with the homo agenda. First take over the media and advertising. Pretend to be mainstream and normal. And then sneak in more homo stuff into movies and prime time TV fare until homomania has been sold as the 'new normal' even though only 2% of the Americans are homo.) There are good decent Jews and there are bad vile Jews, but never trust a Jew since so many bad vile Jews shamelessly pretend to be good decent Jews.
 |
| Foul Dirty Jew James Kirchick & Shikse Running Dog Whore Liz Wahl |
And in the case of blacks, does it make sense to trace all black problems to slavery and Jim Crow — especially when so many people in other parts of the world had suffered far worse and subsequently did much better than blacks? Also, considering that blacks had been primitive savages in Africa, wasn’t even slavery under whites a kind of social/civilizational progress for blacks? After all, Germanic barbarians weren’t only enslaved by but also civilized by Roman rulers. In the US, there’s a tendency to pretend that black problems are the product of slavery and past discrimination. Though we need to look to the past for answers to the present, how much of today’s black pathologies are the result of few centuries of slavery and racial discrimination under whites and, and how much are they the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in the hot, violent, and crazy areas of sub-Saharan Africa? After all, it’s not like black Africans had high civilization before contact with the rest of the world. Most black Africans lived in mud huts, and even relatively advanced African kingdoms were far behind the civilizations outside Africa. Also, it was the more advanced African kingdoms who captured the savage Africans and sold them to Arabs and Europeans. There’s no doubt that the oppression of blacks in the United States led to retardation of black history, culture, and progress, especially among the black elites. As even the dumbest free white person could own the smartest black slave, there’s no question that slavery did hold back blacks. Imagine if Crackhead Bob had the power of slave-master over Arthur Ashe. Of course, that would have been unfair and unjust. But on the other hand, the orderly progress and development of America also owed to white domination over blacks because too many blacks are naturally overly aggressive and crazy, and indeed would have run riot and crazy if they’d been granted freedom and equality at the founding of the Republic. If blacks had been bestowed freedom fresh off the boat in the New Land, many of them would have acted like the wild-ass lunatics who run around in Africa with machetes and bongo drums. Or they would have turned all of the South into a giant Liberia or Detroit since savagery was all they knew. And even attempts to educate blacks would have been difficult because blacks generally have lower IQ, higher aggression that makes them rude and unruly, and are physically stronger than whites, thus likely to feel contempt for whites as ‘faggoty ass pussy boys’. What was the cause of the fall of Zimbabwe? Black rule. Since the end of Apartheid, a new black elite has risen, for sure. But all the new freedoms have allowed lots of crazy blacks to run amok and destroy entire parts of cities and towns. And despite all the yammering by black elites about ‘justice’, once they grab the power, they are likely to be even less conscientious than white oppressors. White folks have some sense of duty and obligation to others, whereas blacks, with their self-centered and uninhibited egos, be thinking they is the greatest thing since sliced watermelons. Surely, white rulers under apartheid had more of a conscience — even toward blacks — than do the likes of Jacob Zuma and other ANC freaks who only care about looting the entire nation for their own benefit. Also, if South Africa had switched to black rule in the 1945, would it even have developed a first-rank economy? Of course not. Nigeria now has a bigger GDP than South Africa, but the black elites hog everything while the rest of the nation is a foul morass of jiggerishness. Of course, it’d be wrong to scapegoat the black elites since blacks are corrupt and venal at all levels of society. Everyone from the big bosses to punks on the street, Detroit is a hell-hole of black dysfunction and idiocy. Though blacks yammer about solidarity against whites, among themselves there is no solidarity but only a return to tribalist gansterism as blacks are emotionally, morally, and intellectually lacking in qualities that think beyond ‘myself’ and ‘my tribe’.
So, when blacks bitch about their victim-hood in the US, how much of black problems are their own? I would say 80% of black problems are of their own making, and it owes to black DNA being more violent, childish, snaky, jive-ass, and punkass. Of course, the black African DNA is suited for the environment in which it was created. It’s like wolves are perfect in the nature where they must live like wolves. It’s like baboons are perfectly fine as red-assed big monkey-like creatures that prowl the jungles and savannahs of Africa. But wolves and baboons aren’t fit to live near humans, and blacks are generally not amenable to civilization. Of course, this could change if we were to mate only nice Negroes to produce nicer Negroes and weed out the bad Negroes. Over time, if we only chose and mated people like Arthur Ashe, Negroes might end up like Asian-Indians who can build and co-exist in a civilizational setting. It’s like pitbulls could be made gentler if we just make the nicer ones mate with one another over the generations. But as white folks no longer have control over the wild-ass Negroes and as Negroes take too much pride in their badass-ness — and as the violent Negro males tend to have the most kids with wild-ass black bitchass ho’s — , the future isn’t looking too good for the black race or the white race that has to live with them. Some white Liberals and even Conservatives hope for a massive race-mixing so that a form of dilute-o-cide will turn the black race blander and nicer, but given how Brazil turned out, I wouldn’t place any hope on such pipedream. Besides, the black males who be impregnating the white women will also go off and impregnate black ho’s too. Race-mixing with blacks is just racial suicide. If blacks were only 2% of the US population, it would be worth it and could be done. But there are too many of them, and US will just turn into something like Brazil or Morocco, and who the hell wants that? If such nations should be the ideal, I suggest that all white Liberals and Jews move to Morocco and Brazil and live over there and leave the rest of us ‘racists’ alone who prefer more homogeneity of the European genes in the West.
 |
| If White Liberals must have Brazil-style Diversity right away, I suggest they pack up things and move to Brazil right this moment and live with non-whites in favelas. Don't wait for the West to become darker. Get your darkness right away. |
Given the nature of Jewish consciousness and ideology, white rightists need to respond in kind by promoting the legend of white victim-hood under the Jews. If Jews mention the pogroms and the Holocaust, white rightists need to invoke the history of how Jews had played a major role in European slave trade — where many whites were sold by Jewish slavers to the Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa — , invoke the history of how Spanish Jews had collaborated with Moorish invaders in the humiliation, rape, and oppression of Christian Spaniards, invoke the history of how Jews had collaborated with the European elites to tax the goy population toiling from sunup to sundown, invoke the history of how Jewish financiers had rigged markets to steal massive fortunes from the gentile population often driven to hunger and desperation, invoke the history of how Jews had played a key role in communism and killed millions of Christian Slavs, invoke the history of how Jews ran much of Stalinist Eastern Europe after World War II, invoke the history of how Zionists carried out the Nakba against the Palestinians and still continue to oppress those people, invoke the history of how Jewish agents in the US spied for the USSR and sent top secrets to mass-killer Stalin, invoke the history of how Jews agitated for black rule in South Africa — thus paving the way for mass killings and rapes of whites by blacks over there — , invoke the history of how Jews on Wall Street fleeced the economy but bought up all the whore politicians who do nothing but serve as running dogs to Jewish tycoons, invoke the history of how Jews were the main pushers of porn that uses white women as sex meat for Negroes, invoke the history of how Jews have been the main instigators of the homo agenda — thereby equating fecal penetration among homo men as the moral and biological equivalent of real sex between men and women — , invoke the history of how Jews manipulated the media and government to spread wars in the Middle East for the interests of Israel — in the process, destroying 100,000s or even millions of lives in that region since the 1990s — , invoke the history of how Jews have been the main proponents of massive immigration to the West, thereby pushing what is effectively a form of democide of the original inhabitants and/or settlers of lands associated with Western Civilization, invoke the history of how Jews have been prominent in gangsterism, white slavery, and in the gambling industry that is really just legalized theft of untold billions of gentile wealth into the coffers of degenerate thugs like Sheldon Adelson, and etc.
If victimology is specific and limited in its complaint and redress, it should be no problem. If you do something wrong to another person, of course you should to redress the problem. But if the descendants of your victim take on his mantle of victim-hood for all eternity, victimology turns chronic and aggressive. It is not about "you did me wrong" but about "I get to do you and your descendants wrong for all eternity". It means, "since you victimized ‘my people’ in the past, I get to victimize your people forever." This kind of victimology is poisonous, but if a people use it against your people, you must use the same kind of victimology against them. As all peoples have violent histories, it’s not difficult to find some reason or excuse to denounce a people. Japanese have complained about American overkill in Japan during World War II, and perhaps a case can be made that Americans unnecessarily killed a lot of civilians in lopsided fashion. But as Japanese are not a very scrupulous people(on matters of morality), Americans have pointed out that Japanese victimized lots of Asians in China and Southeast Asia. So, even though Japanese brutalized and killed many more non-Americans than Americans, Americans have found Japanese brutality in Asia useful to counter the victimology of Japan.
If blacks talk about slavery and Jim Crow, whites can talk about 10,000 yrs of slavery in Africa where nasty blacks brutalized other blacks — just like Japanese brutalized other Asians. Whites can talk about millions of whites who’d been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by black thugs since the 1950s. If blacks bitch about Emmett Till, whites can talk about Willie Horton and other ghastly black thugs. If bitching about Emmett Till isn’t race-baiting, then bitching about Willie Horton is fair-game too. Of course, whites will be unduly attacked for being insensitive, but if more and more whites stand up and shout back, the rising tide will be unstoppable. This is exactly what John Derbyshire did with ‘the talk’. It’s a kind of a ritual among black parents to tell their kids that America is a ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ society in which black kids, especially black males, have to be extra-careful and on the lookout for KKK white southerners like George Zimmerman since there are so many bigots out there who are just itching to lynch Negroes and hang them from trees. Or, there are all these ‘racist’ cops who’d just to drag any number of black youths into stations and beat them to a pulp. But, in fact, racial lynchings were, in fact, very rare in American history even before the Civil Rights Movement. A few thousand in the 100 yrs from 1860s to 1960s. In contrast, many more whites before and since the Civil Rights Movement were beaten, raped, or murdered by stronger and more aggressive blacks. All the histories of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee focus on white hostility against blacks, but they never ask why whites felt as they did. Sure, there were some whites who were just plainly bigoted against anyone non-white. But much of the hostility stemmed from the fact that blacks, even before the rise of black rage politics of the 1960s, tended to be more aggressive, thug-like, dangerous, and psychopathic. Though the sight of white folks getting together and yelling ‘nigger’ at MLK in places like Chicago makes the whites look hostile, aggressive, and nasty, the fact is, more often than not, whites were acting in self-defense as they feared integration with bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and nastier blacks. Indeed, even white liberals discovered the truth about Negroes, and even though they were loathe to discuss the problems — especially in the media — , their residential habits were hardly different from those of ‘white racist bigots’. It’s like even white ‘leftists’ like Dave Marsh — the rock critic — bolted for whiter areas when Negroes in Detroit began to whup white ass and riot and commit crime all over the place. Sure, these progots — ‘progressive’ bigots — like to pontificate theoretically about how blacks are filled with righteous rage because of the history of inequality and that all that can change IF our society were to ‘radically’ commit itself creating a genuinely equal society, but this is just a lot of bogus hokum, and despite self-serving white Liberal self-delusions, they too know it’s BS in their hearts. Theorizing is just a crutch against reality that won’t yield to nonsense. It’s like Jean-Luc Godard pretending to be some Maoist. If all the evil corporations and evil ‘white racists’ were to vanish from the face of this earth, the problems caused by Negroes will remain just the same. Indeed, suppose we divide US in half. Since white Liberals and progots are always blaming white ‘conservatives’ and ‘racist’ — and ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’, and ‘xenophobes’ — for all the problems, suppose we create two separate Americas. All the white conservative and their non-white allies — 3% of blacks, 30% of Hispanics, 30% of Asians, 10% of Jews, and etc — go over to one side. Meanwhile the other side would be populated only with ‘wonderful progressives’. All the Liberal whites, 90% of Jews, 97% of blacks, 70% of Asians, 70% of Hispanics, most homos, and etc go and settle there. And since they love open borders, they welcome endless number of immigrants, even illegals who are deemed to be "God’s Children". So, would the problems of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and etc. vanish from Liberalandia? Will billionaire Liberal Jews convincingly persuade underclass blacks and browns that there will be perfect equality some time in the future since their nation is now totally absent of people like John Derbyshire and Jason Richwine? Will effete homos and drone-like yellows and nasty blacks and tacoheaded browns all get along perfectly? Will there be perfect sexual parity between men and women? Will Liberalandia grow richer and ‘more beautiful, intelligent, and wise’ as tons of new immigrants, illegal and legal, pour in from the Third World and racially mix with Jews and whites? Will blacks stop singing violent rap songs about how great it’s to be a thug whupping white boys and conquering white women to be used as sex meat? Will Jews and Muslims come to any kind of understanding? Of course, no sane Liberal really believes this, and this is why even Liberal whites need the ‘bigots’ as scapegoats that are preventing ‘progress’. While all systems try to root out the Problem, they also fear facing the problem of no more Problem. Without ‘the Problem’, on whom do you fix the blame for all the problems of society. In the US, the Liberals can blame it all on ‘racist conservatives’ who are deemed to be the Problem. But in a society without ‘racist conservatives’, there will still be lots of problems. Now, why would such problems linger when Liberalism promised that society will be so wonderful if everything comes under the rubric of Political Correctness? Every system needs the Problem in order to explain the problems, the myriad real problems. This is why even communist societies always raised alarms about ‘bourgeois elements’ and ‘bourgeois tendencies’. So, if anything went wrong in communist societies, it was never blamed on the countless problems of communism — a system deemed to be perfect — but instead on ‘bourgeois elements’ and ‘bourgeois tendencies’ that still supposedly subverted the system psychologically, habitually, economically, or politically. But then, libertarian looneys are no different. Everything is the problem of ‘too much government’ even when the reason is clearly too-little-government in some cases. (Neo-fascists need to move away from strict ideological thinking. The problem of society isn’t always ‘too much government’ or ‘too little government’. If a society is too socialist, then the problem is obviously ‘too much government’, and the solution is lesser government. But if a society is overly capitalist, then the problem is obviously ‘too little government, and the solution is more government. But an ideologue will always say the problem is either ‘too little government’ even in a totalitarian system or ‘too much government’ even in a laissez-faire system. An ideologue is someone who says a dehydrated person wearing a winter coat under the hot sun needs another coat. Or he’s someone who says a freezing person in the cold needs to take off another layer of clothing. Neo-fascism teaches us to wear a coat in winter and take off the coat in summer. What is right is dependent on the situation. In DEAD POETS SOCIETY, the teachers inspires the students to loosen up, and in STAND AND DELIVER, the teacher instructs students to shape up. Both are valid situationally. In the New England Boarding School, there’s too much discipline and tradition, so it’s refreshing to encourage individual self-expression among the students — though Robin Williams’ character’s way is too cutesy. In the Latino-dominant school, more discipline and focus are what the students need. In a way, though Jews rail against ‘fascism’, they are expert neo-fascists. They are pro-majority in Israel because it serves Jewish power, and they are pro-minority in goy nations because it serves Jewish power. Jews think neo-fascistically than ideologically.) For Jewish anti-Europites, the problem is always with Europeans or whites. So, if blacks fail in school in Europe and America, it’s whites’ fault. If blacks fail in Africa, it’s whites’ fault. If Mexicans fail in Mexico, it’s whites’ fault. If Mexicans trail behind in America, it’s whites’ fault. White gentiles are forever ‘the problem’.
This is why John Derbyshire turned the tables and came up with his own ‘talk’ where he spelledo out the truth. Black males have most to fear from other black males. And males and females of all races have most to fear from black males who are, due to genetic factors, far more likely to be thugs, lunatics, punks, louts, and scumbags. Of course, Derbyshire’s piece was a shot in the dark, and Derbyshire was attacked all around — even by cowardly and craven Conservatives at the Neocon-dominated National Review — , but Derbyshire stood his ground and refuse to apologize like so many white pansy boys. Now, suppose more and more whites talk back with such attitude? It can turn into a political tsunami. Imagine every white parent giving the ‘talk’ about the nature of Jewish power, privilege, hate, subversion, contempt, and arrogance. Imagine every white parent giving the ‘talk’ about how Jews are working with homos to undermine and degrade our moral traditions and culture. Imagine white parents giving the ‘talk’ about how stronger and more aggressive blacks are going around whupping, humiliating, robbing, raping, and murdering white folks all around the Western World. Imagine white parents warning their kids that the reason why some white women go with black men isn’t to overcome ‘racism’ but because white race traitor whores find black men to be racially-sexually superior to white men; they are interracist mudsharks.
Imagine white folks talking back to Jews and blacks, spelling out so many cases of Jewish or black attacks on gentiles and whites. This is why Jews use all their might to crush people like John Derbyshire. They figure they must nip it in the bud before it blooms and spreads its seeds all around.
 |
| John Derbyshire the Owl Man who refused to budge. |
Victimology is selective. Though it invokes some degree of facts, it picks and chooses and cuts and edits according to its preferred agenda. It’s like how the Chinese Communist Party suppresses the facts about the Great Leap Forward(where Mao’s policies led to death of 25-40 million people) and the Cultural Revolution(where much of Chinese arts and cultures destroyed forever), but makes a huge deal of the Opium Wars and Japanese invasion of China. What Chinese do with history is no different from what Jews do with history.
Recently, even though it was Jews who instigated the coup in Ukraine, they made Russians out to be the aggressors by playing on old Cold War tropes. Though homos in Russia are free to be homo and do their fruitkin-ish things, the Jew-run Western media would have us believe that a kind of homo-caust is happening Russia because... Russia doesn’t allow homo poo-ride parades and won’t teach homo propaganda in school. It’s all very ludicrous — and during the Cold War years, never would I have imagined a day when more than a few Americans(including Conservatives) would be arguing for another Cold War on the basis of such ridiculous charges. Let’s have another ‘cold war’ because Russia doesn’t have ‘gay marriage’? Are we living in a crazy world or what?
We are living in confused times because it’s supposed to be the End of History. Though Francis Fukuyama is a (mildly)controversial figure, most Liberals and most Conservatives are agreed that the Western way is the best, and it is up to the rest to emulate and catch up to the West — or even be forced in that direction by military and/or economic pressure, thus explaining why so many on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are in agreement with US and EU policies against Iran and Russia. Iran is to be destroyed for being independent of Jewish influence — direct or indirect via the US — , and Russia is to be destroyed for resisting homo supremacist influence(which is really just a proxy for Jewish power). Jews hate the Chinese too, but for the time being, Jews figure they need the yellows as allies in their undermining of white gentile power in America. After all, it was globalism that undermined the white middle and working classes. Globalism allowed Jewish finance to grow bigger and richer, whereas the US manufacturing class made up mostly of white middle and working classes saw their power shrink in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Also, cheap cost of Chinese labor relieves inflationary worries, and that means the Jewish-controlled Fed can print a lot more money. Of course, once white power is utterly destroyed in America(along with Russia and Iran), Jews will fixate on China as the main enemy and villain in the world. And whatever problems are ailing America, the blame can easily be affixed on the Chinese by the Jewish-controlled media and government.
Anyway, given Russia is now less powerful than China — except in some military hardware — and more Liberal and freer than China, why are Jews tougher on Russia than on China? Because the Russian model of white majority power is far more threatening to Jews as it may inspire similar political mind-shifts in other European nations and even in the Anglo-sphere world.
After all, white Europeans and even white Americans are more likely to identify with white Russians than with yellow Chinese or even with yellow Japanese. Race does matter in racial comity and identification. If UK were to become a great power again, most white Americans will not be alarmed. But if Japan were to become #1 even as a liberal democracy, white Americans will be alarmed. Also, as Jews have deep roots in Russia, they have a personal stake in what happens there. Jews also came close to owning Russia twice in the 20th century. In the 1920s and early 1930s before the rise of Stalinism and in the 1990s when Jewish oligarches came within inches to gaining total control of Russian economy and government. Even most Liberal and Leftist Jews will side with Jewish oligarches against the Russian peoples. For all their yammering about principles of ‘equality’, it all comes down to Jewish power, privilege, and influence. But in the future, Russia might also fall to the Jews. After Putin, what? Putin himself isn’t anti-Jewish at all even though Jews are out to get him. Though Putin has key allies on the Russian Right, most Russian conservatives are as dumb and untalented as their American counterparts. So, once Putin passes from the scene, future Russian rulers could easily hand their nation to Jews just like American Conservatives and American white Liberals handed over the keys of control to the Jews.
As for Iran, it will never amount to any kind of significant world player. So, that leaves China as the big bogeyman for Jews to use as scapegoat once white power is totally destroyed and broken in America. Then, Jews will try to start a new cold war framed as ‘wonderful democratic diversity of America’ vs ‘oppressive tyrannical monolith of China’. Liberals will go with that since they don’t like the idea of the ‘people of color’ rising over them. White Liberals prefer compassion than competition with the ‘people of color’. As Chinese yellows are in heated competitive mode, white Liberals will sign onto seeing yellows as the main bad guys. As for white Conservatives, they’ll be relieved to be allowed to hate and badmouth at least one non-white group. As lots of white Conservatives are awfully frustrated because they are no longer allowed to badmouth Jews, blacks, and homos — and even illegal aliens from south of the border — , they’ll be grateful to be allowed to rag on and on about yellow peril. White Conservatives loved hating the Muslims after 9/11 — and relished the permission to hurl abuse at the ‘ragheads’ and ‘Islamo-fascists’ — , but the War on Terror became rather sour after the debacle of the Iraq War. Also, Jews got nervous as all this talk about ‘evil Mooslims’ began to sound like the kind of hatred that had once been heaped on Jews in Europe in the early 20th century. It was all the more ironic since white Conservatives were being ‘antisemitic’ against Muslims in the name of defending Jews and fighting antisemitism. Jews worry, "what if the white Conservative hatred of Arab Semites eventually morphs into hatred for Jewish Semites?" Anyway, as China is a vile and cruel place(especially to dogs and cats), it won’t be easy to persuade Americans of all stripes to see it as the land of Ming the Merciless. For the time being, the Jewish-controlled US media go easy since they still need an alliance with China in order to dismantle the power of the white middle and working classes and Russia. But eventually, Jews will turn on China. What about the Asian-American population that will be much bigger in the future? Won’t it protest Jewish power? This is unlikely. For one thing, there will also be many non-Chinese Asians, and they have no love for China as a nation. Why would Vietnamese-Americans and Indian-Americans care about China? Also, even though many Asians will become successful, most will be stuck at middle-management and won’t rise to the levels to challenge the power of Jewish oligarches who will continue to command the heights of American power. Also, yellows tend to be timid and, unless they are the great majority in power — like Chinese protesting in the streets in China — , they will just hunker down even when they’re wronged or scapegoated. Consider the docility of the Japanese-American population during the ‘Internment’. Also, there won’t be much in the way of non-Asian sympathy for Chinese-Americans since the yellow-victim narrative in American history has been comparatively suppressed. And as Chinese-Americans are seen as gawky geeks and dorks, there’s no admiration and sympathy for them as a whole. Notice that neither Sarah Silverman or Stephen Colbert got in any trouble for their jokes about the Chinese. Also, as most Chinese-Americans will be yellow dogs and drones who will suck up the teachings of the Jews, they will prefer to serve their Jewish masters against their brethren back home. Besides, there’s hardly any Chinese-male and Chinese-female solidarity, what with so many Chinese females marrying Jews or whites. Thus, Chinese-America will essentially just be a vagina for Jewish power. It will not stand up for China against Jewish power, and even if it did, Jews will outgun them in the top institutions, and furthermore, Chinese America won’t have any allies among whites, browns, and blacks who will just despise them as geeks & dorks and resent them as geeks & dorks who make more money.
Given the sexual divergence between Chinese-American males and Chinese-American females, I wonder if true leftism is ever possible as long as sexual freedom exists. In some ways, the mixing of the races seem like the triumph of leftism, a universalist blending of all peoples. But if sexual pairings don’t happen evenly or equally, what we’ll have is a form of sexual-racial hierarchy whereupon some races come to be associated with superiority/domination and some with inferiority/submission. Despite all the feminist brainwashing, there is still the natural sense that the male principle is superior since it is more dominant. When man and woman get it on, the man wants to dominate and conquer the woman, and the woman wants to be dominate and conquered by the man. Even a woman who wants total legal and political equality in society wants a man to dominate her in bed. After all, sex is about the man sticking it into her and ramming it in and out. If a lot of attractive Asian chicks go with white or Jewish men, but most white and Jewish women — except the ugly ones — won’t even look at yellow men, then a certain cultural image of racial-sexual differences arise. Whites and Jews will be associated with masculinity/domination and the yellows will be associated with ‘me so horny’ femininity/submission. Since the best yellow girls will go white/Jewish whereas a lot of yellow guys will be left with nothing, the worth of yellow-ness in America will essentially be feminine. Of course, this is the dynamics between whites and blacks as well. As white-black sexual pairing is mostly black male and white female, blackness has become associated with maleness and domination whereas whiteness has become associated with femaleness and submission. It’s no wonder that Ramzpaul the white dork rightist watches yellow porn. The sight of all them big Negroes doing white chicks probably has deflated his whanker whenever he looks at a naked white woman. But when he sees a small yellow guy doing a yellow chick in some Japanese porn, he can fantasize interjecting himself into the picture as the ‘white stud’ with the big pud.
Because the races are different, sexual choice and freedom have a way of undermining leftism. If all races were equal and having sex on equal terms, they might become mixed into universal mestizo-hood on equal terms. But the men of some races feel they’re unequally losing out to other races. So, there are some yellow guys fuming about white and Jewish guys taking their girls. There are Mexicans who get angry when some Negro takes some Mexican chick. And there are lots of white guys who are bitching about big strong Negroes taking white women — but they’re too ashamed to admit their defeat in this arena, so they prefer to discuss IQ differences where whites have an advantage. Perhaps, the only truly leftist way to mix the races into universal mogrel-hood is to use sexual collectivism where each man and each woman is assigned whom to have sex with and marry. And no one should complain since leftism teaches that all people are equally attractive and should be equally loved. So, if a guy is angry that the woman assigned to him is ugly and gross, he could be accused of aesthetic ‘sexism-racism-capitalism’. Same goes for a gal who is angry that the man assigned to her is not ‘man enough’. If all people are equal and should be loved equally, then any man would be good for any woman. But in the real world, things don’t turn out that way. Rich black guys only prefer to marry blonde women. Rich Jewish guys prefer to marry some Chinese chick than some Bolivian Indian chick. With so many white women marrying big strong Negroes or rich Jews — or deciding to forgo marriage altogether — , lots of white men(especially Conservatives) are having to marry yellow or brown. As this continues, the white race will grow weaker and feebler. Why? The kind of white women who go for Jewish men and black men tend to be bolder and more ambitious. A white woman who goes for a rich Jewish guy obviously wants the best in life. A white woman who goes for a Negro obviously is a bold and passionate ho. They are white women with the aggressive and passionate genes. As such traits will pass to Jews and Negroes, it means that white men will be left with more passive white women who lack boldness and initiative. The white alpha females will go with Jews and Negroes, and white males will be mating with beta-white-females. Thus, the white race will become less edgy and less passionate — as white women who tend to be bolder and more ambitious marry and have children outside the race. Also, semi-white kids produced by white men who marry Asians or Mexicans will be lacking in passion and boldness since Asian and indigenous Mexican genes — which is essentially Asiatic — tend to be more passive and submissive. So, the white race will be losing more of its edgy and passionate genes to Jews and Negroes while absorbing more passive and submissive genes from Asians and Mexicans. Just look at George P. Bush — aka Pee Wee Bushez — , and he’s even dorkier than George W. Bush. White race is so badly ‘fuc*ed’, but most white folks are too dumb to see the dirty trick pulled on them by the wily Jews.
Though higher morality is something we should aspire to, it’s like the saying, "it takes two to tango". If the other side doesn’t aim for higher morality, neither should your side. If the other side goes for low blows, then your side must grab the other side’s balls and moosh them real good. Also, your side must be careful to see if the other side is acting venally or in good faith. Consider the thing with the Trojan Horse. The Greeks pulled a dirty one on the Trojans, and the Trojans sure fell for it real good. In American history, the white elites and the white majority forgot the nature of the games of power. (Considering that white folks pulled all sorts of ‘dirty tricks’ to take land from Indians, Mexicans, Spanish Empire, and other folks, why did they think others might not pull the same trick on them? If it was foolish for Indians and Mexicans to trust Anglo-Americans, why would it be smart for white gentiles to trust devious and fiendish Jews?) Jews and blacks have no interest in higher morality. Jewish leftists, after all, didn’t shed a single tear for the millions killed by Stalin and Jewish communists in the Soviet Union. They didn’t care that Eastern Europe fell under communism during World War II and thereafter. And Jewish leftists, for all their ideological noise, had no qualms about working for common tribal interests with the Jewish capitalists, and vice versa. Armand Hammer, the Jewish billionaire tycoon, made his fortune by doing business with the Bolsheviks when Lenin and Stalin were killing millions of Christian Slavs. And Negroes never had any kind of higher morality. The image of the Noble Negro or Magic Negro was always a white invention. Blacks didn’t write stuff like UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. Such were merely white fantasies of the Noble Negro whose souls had supposedly been ennobled by suffering and oppression. But suffering and oppression had been the norm throughout 100,000s of yrs of black existence in Africa, and they’d only made blacks more savage and aggressive. And there was no indication that black existence in America made them any nobler. All that happened was that blacks came to realize that they must act ‘nice’ if they wanted to be in good graces with the white massuh. It was all just an act. But then, non-white peoples of all color all over the world learned to act in similarly slavish manners toward their white imperialist bosses — and of course, they had training in the art of subservience even before white imperialists/colonialists arrived since their own societies had been highly oppressive and tyrannical; if anything, the white imperialists were, in many cases, more lenient and kinder than the native elites and tyrants. Consider the lot of Chinese under British imperialists in Singapore and Hong Kong in contrast to the lot of Chinese who lived under the vile Mao. Consider the conditions of blacks under British rule in Uganda and Zimbabwe in contrast to conditions under black rule. There was nothing inherently noble about blacks, and ‘nice’ Negroes were only faking it to fool the massuhs and other whites. And if Negroes under slavery sometimes used their powerful voices to sing some nice spiritual songs, it was only because they weren’t allowed to revert to their savage ways and sing ugabuga music. So, it was really just a put-on. But white folks thought all that Negro spiritual-singing and ‘nice Negro’ act were in earnest, and they created the image of the Magic Negro. But it was all just a fantasy. Of course, some clever and shameless blacks — like MLK, Oprah, Obama, and etc. — studied white psychology and learned how to push the buttons to manipulate ‘white guilt’ and ‘white hope’. And they also got great advice from Jews who’d been studying the white mind for over a century via the new theory of psychology. But even before the rise of psychology, Jews had been skilled mind-readers since finance, middleman marketing, and such endeavors require a high degree of mental manipulation — like the one practiced by the Jew in Veit Harlan’s JEW SUSS. And as Judaism had essentially been about psycho-analyzing God for deeper profundities — instead of just earnestly obeying Him as Christians did — , Jews had a long history of mind-reading. If you can probe the mind of God, you can probe the mind of man. Jewish mind-reading rooted in merchant enterprises and finance was a form of empathy but not to be confused with sympathy. A businessmen accesses and reads the minds of others not out of good-will but to sell stuff and gain profit. It’s like how the salesmen and con-men in David Mamet’s plays are into reading the minds of others but never for their benefit. It is to manipulate others for one’s own advantage and profit. In HOUSE OF GAMES, the psychoanalyst in the beginning of the film tries to read and understand her patients for their benefit. She sees herself as a doctor helping and serving others. But the con-men whom she mingles with later are into reading minds of others for their own advantage. It’s how the game of power is played, and only suckers try to understand others to help others. Those who know the game of power try to understand others to help oneself. And this is how Jews and Negroes play the game. They try to understand whites to defeat and fool the whites. To fuc* up the whites. But whites try to learn about others to help others. Worse, what whites learn about others — or are allowed to learn about others — are closely supervised and dictated by political correctness, so whites are thus duped into thinking that all Jews are wonderful and all Negroes be all spiritual, holy, and shit. So, even though South African blacks are the scum of the earth, a lot of white dummies think they ‘understand’ the noble hearts of Negroes who be inspired by Nelson Mandela. Though Jews in Israel are tribal, self-centered, and arrogant, most American whites think they ‘understand’ Zionist Jews as wonderful, honest, and noble survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the film SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. The Negro played by Will Smith seeks to read and understand the white Liberal couple to manipulate and fool them, but the latter are merely content to ‘understand’ the Negro guy as some wonderful Magic Negro. For all their ‘rationalism’ and ‘skepticism’, white Liberals are only capable of seeing the Negro as a noble figure. Reason and irony melt before powerful sacro-taboos combined with sensual-worship. Americans paradoxically worship power and powerlessness. America is the most powerful nation founded upon the myth of heroic powerless rebels defeating the all-powerful British Empire. Americans love champions in sports and the loudest singers, but Americans are also holier-than-thou about victim-hood. This makes Negroes especially appealing to Americans. Negroes are champions of sports and loud music-making. But they also claim the nobility of suffering as the oppressed powerless. Jewish King-makers used the cult of MLK to fashion a cult around these contradictory emotions.
Since so many Negroes in reality are awful, privileged Liberal whites live in a world of their own away from Negroes. But this causes unease since it means they’ve racially segregated themselves from lots of blacks, implying a certain degree of ‘racism’. So, the Negro guys understands this dilemma and plays the kind of ideal Negro that the white couple would love to be associated with. He acts like John McWhorter or Obama, and the white suckers fall for it all the time. Furthermore, the Negro guys enters into their lives as a playacting ‘victim of a crime’, presumably of other blacks. This flatters the white couple even more. They’d be loathe to admit that they’re afraid of black criminality, but this ‘Nice Negro’ admits to being a victim of street crime committed by blacks. So, this ‘good’ Negro presumably understands and shares the anxieties of white Liberals. Of course, such a Negro is too-good-to-be-true, just like Obama was too-good-to-be-true for anyone with sense and eyes. But white Liberalism, despite or precisely due to its elitist education, is blind because privilege is addicted to intellectual and moral narcissism; and in the post-WWII order, the greatest moral sin is said to be ‘racism’ — though we may be moving toward a day when ‘homophobia’ is considered even worse; after all, if ‘racism’ is the worst, it makes Zionists look bad for oppressing Palestinians. But since homos are so closely allied with Jews, no one could use ‘homophobia’ to get at the Jews — unless ultra-religious folks take over Israel and go after homo power. Charges of ‘homophobia’ are routinely made against Muslims and Arabs even by Western Conservatives, especially those who seek to win favors of super-rich and super-powerful Jews.
In order for white folks to understand the real Jew(rather than the ‘wonderful Jew’) and the real Negro(instead of the ‘Nice Negro’), they must think and speak with courage and honesty under a system of free speech. We must speak of the Jew that is real than of the fantasy Jew propped up by the Jew-run media. We must speak of the Negro that is real than of the Magic Negro that is a creation of the Jew-run media and sly black jive-ass bullshit. Once the real Jew and real Negro are seen for what they are, white folks will finally begin to realize that higher morality is impossible with them since Jews and Negroes only insist on ‘higher morality’ for the other side while going for low blows for themselves. Jew aim low but ask you for a blow.
Where Conservatives have really messed up is in universalizing particular realities. While universal truths are valid in a general way, they cannot be universally applied to the reality we must deal with. (Even when we worship a universal God, we must find our special meaning in relation to Him. The idea of a universal God, universal Truth, or universal power is valid and even necessary. After all, higher/highest truth cannot belong to any single people. To say that ‘our tribal interest’ is the highest truth would be akin to saying our people are gods. That’s just hubris and megalomania. In this sense, Christianity did much good for Europe. It reminded Europeans that there’s a higher truth/power than the interests of Europeans or any people. There is God who is the master of all things. It’s like gravity is beyond any people or nation. There is no German gravity, no Russian gravity, no Chinese gravity, no Muslim gravity, and etc. The laws of gravity constitute a power that is universal and same everywhere on Earth and across the universe. No people can own this truth/power of gravity, just like no people can own God. But each people must develop and form their own special relation to God. Judaism doesn’t say Jews own God, but it does say Jews have a special relationship to God, and the Torah records the history and philosophy of this special relationship. Then, every people should develop and write of their special relationship with God. It’s like, even though the force of gravity works the same all over the world, how different peoples use gravity depends their places in the world. If one people live up high and another people live down low, and if they must battle one another, those up high will use gravity differently than those down below. Those up high can throw stuff down, and those down below will have to build catapults to hurl things high. The two peoples have a special and contrasting relationship with the power of gravity. Jews have a sense of special relationship with God, but Europeans lack a comparable consciousness in relationship to God. The Catholic Church today is trying to embrace all of humanity. Even the Mormon Church has fallen into this one-size-fits-all mode. If white Christians admire Jews so much, then white folks should approach Christianity in a more Judaic way. They should conceive of and formulate a special relationship between the white race and God. Surely, that relationship is different than the relationship between God and Negroes or God and Muslims.) All forms of reality are particular to a certain degree, and it’d be foolish to enforce universal moral absolutism on them. For example, it’s a universal truth that it’s evil to kill an innocent baby. Surely, all cultures — except for the most pathological — would agree on that principle. But what about in war where a bomb must be dropped, and it’s almost certain that some children will be killed. Though the universal truth still holds that it’s wrong to kill babies, situations in war call and demand their own particular necessities.
Or suppose a farming family just had a baby but barely has enough food for the existing family members to survive. While infanticide is evil in the general-universal sense, we can surely understand why a family feels compelled to kill a newborn child since there isn’t enough food.
In a general sense, it’s true that blacks had been enslaved in America. It’s true that they’d been denied the rights enjoyed by whites, and that they had to suffer indignities that whites didn’t have to worry about. So, in a general historical sense, one could say that whites owe something to blacks and that it’s wrong for whites to continue to harbor ill will toward blacks. If this was the only thing we need to be concerned about, it’d be correct to sympathize with blacks. But there are certain particular factors that make such general narrative close to meaningless. After all, it’s also true — for any honest person with eyes and integrity — that blacks are physically stronger, more aggressive, and more psychopathic and that these problems are the products of 100,000s of evolution in sub-Saharan Africa and not the result of black experience in the New World. So, if the only difference between whites and blacks were skin color, we should be more sympathetic toward blacks. But since there are other crucial differences rooted in biology and evolution, it’s crazy for whites to believe that it’s wrong to feel hostility and fear in relation to the Negro. Though white folks should sympathize with the wrongs done to blacks in the past, there is more to race relations than that single consideration. It’s like if a circus trainer has mistreated lions and bears, he needs to feel a degree of guilt for what he’d done to the beasts. But that doesn’t mean he should reject and suppress all fearful or hostile feelings about lions and bears. After all, lions and bears are naturally bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than him. And it wasn’t his cruelty toward them that made them so strong, aggressive, and dangerous. Evolution over millions of years made them the way they are. He should feel guilty for what he did wrong to them, but he has every right to feel fearful of what might be done to him if he were to just set them free. He should come up with a plan where the animals are no longer abused but also one where they won’t be able to harm him or other humans. It’s like many decent Britons were right to feel sorry for what had happened to Germany after World War I when the entire nation was collectively punished and made to suffer. But the Britons made a mistake in generalizing their guilt about Germany. Many failed to see the true nature of Hitler and the Nazi regime, i.e. that the Nazis were beastly and were on the prowl for something more than national renewal and revival. The same goes for Negroes. Yes, Negroes had been done wrong in the past, and there should be efforts to redress the racial problems. If Negroes need some kind of wealth-sharing, that could be arranged — despite all the welfare and benefits they’ve received already through the yrs. But we also need to consider the fact that Negroes, due to 100,000s of years of evolution, are stronger, tougher, rougher, and more aggressive and a danger to other races. So, the proper solution would be REPARATION AND SEPARATION, which is what Abraham Lincoln wanted in the first place. He said something like, "Free the Negroes, give them some stuff, and send them away as they’re too tough and rough to live amongst us." A truly great man, Honest Abe was. Of course, there are plenty of white, Jewish, and Asian Liberals who’d deride what I say and insist that race is just a ‘social construct’. In that case, how about sending all the Negroes to white, Jewish, and yellow Liberal areas? Send all the Negroes in the South to places like Rhode Island and Vermont and Maine. And the rich parts of Manhattan. And Chinatown in San Francisco. Maybe the love and compassion of wonderful white, yellow, and Jewish Liberals will finally uplift the tragic hearts of Negroes who will then all become like John McWhorter or Malcolm Gladwell.
Though there are universal moral truths we uphold and rely on for guidance, reality is never so simple and straight for any person to grasp and control through universal values. How long would anyone last if he tried to live the life of a perfect Christian? And we know that pure libertarianism and pure socialism won’t work either. So, universal values must be handled as general truths, not as the absolute truth for everything at every place at every time. If one attempts such foolishness, he will end up like the character of the Luis Bunuel’s film NAZARIN.
But even more dangerous than applying universal values to reality(with all its particularities) is to universalize a particular reality. The notion of the Noble Negro is a prime example. A Negro is a complex creature. There are good Negroes, bad Negroes. There are Negroes who are a mix of good and bad. Also, what is good and normal for Negroes may not be good and normal for non-Negroes as different societies and cultures have different social norms and expectations. Historically, Negroes have been wronged at certain times in American history, but plenty of Negroes have done horrible things to other peoples. Many victims of Negroes violence are not descendants of white slave owners but whites of immigrants who arrived after the Civil War. Many victims of Negroes are Mexican-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and etc. Also, what makes many Negroes so difficult in the classroom is that they’re naturally more aggressive and wilder than other races. So, Negroes and their problems comprise for a complex set of issues. The Negro race has its many particularities that pose many problems — or may be the stimulant of certain ingenious expressions of creativity that are uniquely Negro-ish. But the Liberal and even the Conservative concept of the Negro has been universalized into the Noble Negro ideal. So, we are supposed to close our eyes to the real MLK — a foul apelike punk — and just pay attention to his bloated pompous speeches. We are supposed to wax reverential about the mythic Oprah but not supposed to think about the real Oprah who’s just a fat, vain, and greedy pig. We are supposed to sympathize with and love the Negro despite the fact that there are so many aspects of the Negro that is so ugly and hateful. Sure, there are things of black culture to love and appreciate. One would have to be deaf and jaded not to be moved by Marvin Gaye’s WHAT’S GOING ON or Diana Ross and the Supremes’ many great hits. And only a moron would deny the greatness of a musical artist like Jimi Hendrix. And some Negro recipes for fried chicken are damn good, especially with some of that hot sauce that they be concocting. But there are other sides to the Negro that are ghastly, foul, disgusting, and dangerous. So, it’s ridiculous to universalize the good side of the Negro as something noble and soulful. As with all races and peoples, there are elements of nobility among Negroes, but there are also other things about Negroes that are downright dangerous to the survival of the white race.
 |
| Fred G. Sanford - Not a Noble Negro |
Of course, another way to pass the buck is to characterize bad Jews as ‘bad whites’(thus creating the impression that white gentiles are the ones who are stealing and robbing on Wall Street and in Las Vegas) and to characterize black thugs as ‘youths’ and ‘teens’. Though there are so many foul Jews and blacks, the idealized essence of Jewishness and blackness is made to apply universally to every Jew or black. So, even a foul billionaire Jew is shrouded in the holy light of Holocaust victim-hood, and even scumbag Negro thugs act like they’re noble souls who’ve just been freed from the bondage of slavery — indeed, as if slavery hadn’t existed in Africa to begin with. Of late, of course, homos get the same treatment. Never mind all the sick particularities of the homo community with its narcissism, bitchiness, ‘sexual’ perversion, close ties with the pedophile community, snotty neo-aristocratism, and etc. Instead, just tell yourself that the radiant essence of homosexuality is rainbow colors, happy vanilla faces, clean-cut laws ala ‘homo fathers know best’, and the ‘new normal’. And this idealized and unrealistic image of homosexuals as the perfect saints and noble victims(as well as the whitest/cleanest narcissists) of our age is applied universally to all homos, even scumbags like Harvey Milk who had affairs with underage boys. Never mind all the hypocrisies, corruptions, deceptions, perversions, and transgressions of Jews, Negroes, and homos. Just think of the Holy Jew, Noble Negro, and homo saint, and then apply the perfect image to every Jew, every Negro, and every homo no matter how vile, ugly, and/or stupid he is. But if you still can’t help noticing something bad about Jews, Negroes, or homos, just blame the straight white gentile community. Just tell yourself that some Jews are nasty only because they were drive to desperation by antisemitic whites. And some Negroes are driven to rage because of ‘racist’ whites, though ironically enough, blacks seem to be as upset with Liberal whites as with Conservative whites in everyday reality. And if a whole bunch of homos died during the AIDS crisis, it wasn’t because they acted like disgusting monkeys but because straight society just didn’t care enough. Homo attitude is: "Leave us alone to boof each other in the ass all we want, but YOU(especially white Conservatives) are to blame for not caring that we contracted HIV by boofing one another." How more bratty, spoiled, bitchy, and asinine(or assinine) can you get?
We don’t say Christian history, culture, and identity is only about the positive image that Christians have of themselves and the perfect ideals expressed in the New Testament. No, Christian history, culture, and identity are also about everything the Christians did: the wars, the witch-burnings, the crusades, and etc.
Same goes for communism. Communism isn’t just what’s in the books of Marx. It is what communists really did with those ideas. It’s about the horrors as well.
US isn’t just about what’s in the Declaration of Independence but what Americans really did, like slavery.
A person isn’t to be judged only by his stated goals, self-image, or self-justification but what he really did.
Then, the same should apply to Jews and blacks. But Jews employ a proposition tactic when it comes to Jewishness. Never mind what Jews really did. We should just embrace the ideal image that Jews propose for themselves unto us. They say, "We are great, we are wonderful", so we must all agree that they are great and wonderful.
As for blacks, it’s as if their moral image ends in the early 60s. Stephen Jay Gould said no human evolution took place in last 10,000 yrs, and PC says no black evolution in black morality took place in past 50 yrs. Black morality has been frozen in the holy image of the Civil Rights Movement. True, blacks were once wronged, and they had a compelling moral case during the Civil Rights Era. But was there a ‘End of History’ in black moral development(or degeneration) since then? Since blacks were righteous at one point in history, should we judge them to be righteous for all of history? What about all the crimes, violence, and corruption blacks have committed since then. Once we start considering the dark side of black moral behavior since the early 1960s, there is no End of History of black morality. If anything, it’s been sinking lower and lower, what with black culture now consisting of Rap and ‘twerking’. But Jews and Negroes insist that our moral view of blacks must end with the Civil Rights era and not continue beyond that. We must keep returning to a time when blacks were on the ‘right side of history’. It’s as if the moral evolution of the relationship between whites and blacks are forever fixed in that time frame. So, no matter what terrible things blacks do, we must pretend that the moral dynamics is as it was 50 yrs ago. Nothing has changed. We must make believe that whites are still doing a grave wrong to blacks, and whites must find some way to apologize and redress the problem over and over and over. (Jews want the same thing with the homo debate. Just as Francis Fukuyama argued that the End of History came down on the side of liberal democracy, Jews and homos say that the ‘culture war’ has been won on the side of ‘gay marriage’, and there’s nothing more to be said about it, and that’s that. It’s over and finished so shut up. Of course, Fukuyama was wrong as the ‘end of history’ seems to be globalist oligarchy and libertine gluttony than liberal democracy. As for ‘gay marriage’, most of the world still opposes it, and in the West it’s been crammed down people’s throats through the force of laws and massive propaganda spewed by the Jew-run media. At the very least, Fukuyama wasn’t calling for an End of Debate. He was just positing a theory that some agreed with, some disagreed with. But Jewish supremacists really want an End of Debate on many issues. They want to play god and preach to us that if they say something is correct, it is and there’s more to be said about it.)
If there’s a key difference between secular white victimology and Jewish & People-of-Color victimology, the former tends to be situational whereas the latter tends to be eternalist. For example, white Americans, religious and secular, used victimological narratives from the beginning. Religious dissidents who fled the Old World for religious freedom — though they were quick to deny it to others in the new social order established by themselves — spun a victimological narrative about religious persecution. The American Revolutionaries who agitated against the British King were hyperbolic, demagogic, and even hysterical peddlers of victimology that was almost completely overblown. In no shape or form was the Mother Country of Britain exploitative of or oppressive toward the colonialists, which explains why only barely one third of the colonialists were persuaded to join the rebellion. Also, had the Revolutionaries not won the support of the French(then ruled by an absolutist Monarch), they would have never won against the combined forces of the British and the loyalist colonialists. The Revolutionaries won through a combination of dedication, inspired leadership, brilliant propaganda, and masterly use of alliances, mainly with the French but also with the Spanish and Prussia. But then, let’s recall it only took 1/3 of the German electorate to bring the National Socialists to power. Though the Declaration of Independence was written in lofty terms, it was a giant pile of BS. Indeed, the reason why there’s so much abstract vague-sounding rhetoric about ‘man’ and ‘rights’ was because when it came down to specificity of issues, the rebels didn’t have much of a compelling case against the King who’d been, if anything, very indulgent and supportive of the colonials. The lesson to be learned here is that the well-treated are often more likely to rebel than the harshly repressed. Indeed, consider how well the Wasps treated the Jews — especially in consideration of how Jews had been treated in other parts of the world — , yet, in many ways, Jewish invective and rage against Wasps — in both UK and US — have been more rabid and virulent than in other parts of the world with Jews. Why would this be? It’s just a fact of human psychology. We all find frustrations from so many areas of life, but at most times, we can’t express our anger because we’d get in trouble with the powers-that-be. So, if a worker has problems with his boss and others who have power over him(or gang up against him), he will have to hold in his anger. But suppose the angry guy’s father is a very nice guy man far from perfect. One day, suppose the father irritates the guy, and the guy blows up at his father with anger that goes far beyond what is justified in the situation. Indeed, suppose the guy blows up at his father like his father committed the worst crime in the entire world. Why would this be? Why get so angry at someone who’s most caring toward him while remaining better behaved toward others who are more hostile to him and don’t care about him at all? It’s because all the rage and frustration that’s built up inside him has one easy outlet in the father, an imperfect man but far from the worst. Same goes for the Jews and Wasps. Sure, there have been Wasps who were nasty toward Jews, but in the past 200 yrs, no people have been nicer to Jews than Wasps in UK and US. And yet, some of the most hostile Jewish resentment and rage have been aimed toward Wasps and waspized whites. Wasps may feel confused as to why, but it’s not difficult to understand the nature of Jewish behavior. In most parts of the world, the gentiles didn’t pretend to be fair and good. When Jews acted nastily, they clobbered the Jews and taught them a lesson they would never forget. Most Christian and Muslim nations kicked the Jew’s ass when Jews got out of line, which wasn’t uncommon since Jews had a tendency to look upon dimwit goyim as cattle to exploit. In contrast to such ‘boorish’ peoples, Wasps had better manners and loftier ideals. So, despite their snobbery toward Jews, at the very least they felt it was uncouth and unworthy for a civilized people to express brutal hostility toward Jews. (Also, as Wasp pride, honor, and hierarchy depended on superior wit, Wasps were loathe to upset Jews since Jews could counter verbally to greater effect: Witzkrieg. It wasn’t just chutzpah that made Jews so formidable. After all, Gypsies, Greeks, and Italians have something similar to chutzpah. Chutzpah without wit just seems stupid and hysterical. It couldn’t stand up to the razor-sharp dry with of smart Wasps. If Jews were mostly witless and just got angry and fumed, they would come across as flustered and desperate, especially as they aren’t physically up to the task of beating Wasps[like Negroes can]. But Jews had chutzpah and superior wit, so Wasps, whose pride centered so much on witty banter and repartee, became afraid of tangling with Jews. So, when push came to shove, Wasps tried to appease Jews so Jews wouldn’t snap too hard.) Wasps weren’t keen on having Jews enter into the innermost corridors of Wasp power, but they also didn’t feel like spelling their feelings[ranging from anxious to hostile]about Jews in bold letters. It simply wasn’t good form for Wasps to be so brazen in their hostility. A kind of ‘moral victorianism’ pervaded the Anglo and Anglo-American community that frowned upon people expressing their views too forcefully. Why, only unmannered Italian mama’s boys and Teutonic Huns into Viking helmets and breast plates in Wagner’s operas acted like that. The refined English Gentleman and common-sensed American gentleman always kept their poise. As with their sexuality, they checked all strong emotions, even hostile feelings. So, if certain cruder cultures blatantly told the Jews to get lost or step back, the Wasps allowed Jews to have the freedom and enjoy rights to a far greater extent than anywhere else. And even when Jews weren’t wanted in certain institutions or inner-circles, the antisemitic signals were subtle than ‘vulgar’ and blatant, e.g. ‘NO JEWS ALLOWED’. Even among a group of English ‘anti-Semites’ in high society, it simply would have been thought of as gauche for someone to say, ‘the bloody fuc*ing JOOS are taking over everything!’ Such breach of manners would have been enough to have him shunned even by his antisemitic colleagues. It’s like the university deans in THE CHARIOTS OF FIRE who make snide remarks about the Jew in diguised-dignified manner. As the discrimination wasn’t so blatant in the Anglo world, the crafty Jews could find ever more clever ways to inch their way into the corridors of power. As Anglos didn’t erect strict barriers but kept Jews out through a series of signals, unwritten rules, and manners, Jews figured out a way to master them and rework them to their own benefit. And as British relied so much on witty banter, Jews were at an advantage since no people were as good at verbal acrobatics and witty comebacks as the Jews. In America with much greater egalitarian ethos and hostility toward class hierarchy — at least in cultural outlook if not in reality — , Jews found even more freedom and opportunity. And with so many immigrants swelling the ranks of the new Americans, Jews could find many more allies. Of course, the funny thing was that the ethnic whites all came from nations with far more hostile attitudes towards Jews than held by Wasps. And even in America, ethnic Americans — especially Catholics — were far more likely to say nasty things about Jews, even openly. Indeed, if America has been founded and dominated by any group other than the Anglos, Jews would never have risen so high. It was the Wasps who, despite all their hypocrisies and manipulations, were most idealistic, principled, rule-of-law oriented, conscientious, reform-minded, self-critical, and sensitive toward others. Though there were plenty of Wasps with racial attitudes not much different from those of the Nazis, there were many more Wasps who, despite their snobbery and arrogance, found overt prejudice to be ugly and unworthy of White Civilization. This is why the white racialists of the early part of the 20th century didn’t get very far. It wasn’t mainly because non-Wasps and non-whites united against them but because most Wasps didn’t want any part of it, at least not directly. When the Great Depression hit America, Wasps Americans could have played the anti-Jewish card as well — and indeed some white Americans did — , but the Wasp establishment in both the Democratic Party and Republican Party had no stomach for overtly hostile Jew-bashing. They weren’t crazy about Jews but they’re weren’t crazily hateful toward them either. (To be sure, even most Germans disdained the kind of antisemitism peddled by the National Socialists, which is why the Nazis did poorly in elections until the second depression devastated Germany once again in the early 1930s. And even in 1933, the Nazis won just 1/3 of the vote, and even those who voted for the Nazis didn’t do so mainly out of antisemitism — which the party underplayed precisely to win over mainstream voters — but for order, stability, and jobs. It was really after the Nazis came to power and gained monopoly of government, media, and education that antisemitism began to spread all over as a national ideology due to Nazi monopolization of media, academia, government, and secret police. It was impressive successes of the National Socialist program with the economy and national renewal that persuaded many Germans to think that maybe Hitler had been right from the beginning: Jews had been the main cause of German suffering, therefore ridding Germany of Jewish influence was the primary reason for German revival.) When Jews complained to most other peoples, they told the Jew to just shut up and get lost. But when Jews complained to Wasps, they would at least get a hearing and enough Wasps were willing to admit that Jews did have a point about Wasp hypocrisy and privilege. So, all the frustrations that had built up in the Jewish soul all over the world and all through the centuries came to be directed at the Wasps. Not because Wasps were the worst toward the Jews but precisely because Wasps were the only ones willing to hear out the Jews without overt hostility. Also, Wasp were the only ones who were capable of genuine self-criticism and conscience. Following the example of Jews, we now have Hispanics, blacks, and Asians putting on the same show before the white audience. (If Jews got a lot of mileage by acting the way they did, why shouldn’t other groups?) In truth, blacks, browns, and yellows feel more hostility toward one another and eye one another with greater distrust, hostility, and prejudice than whites do toward them. But each group gripes most about whites and against whites. Why? Because whites are the only ones who will listen to them and take their criticism to heart.
Of course, there are other factors as well. As whites are perceived to be the most powerful and most privileged, they have the most to concede to those making the complaint. It’s like it’s better to sue a rich man who did you little wrong than a poor man who did you more wrong. Suing a poor man won’t get you anything whereas suing a rich man can get you a lot of money. Also, some of the more clever ‘progressives’ will argue that white niceness and compassion are, in and of themselves, proof of white oppression and privilege. The logic goes, because whites stole so much from other peoples, they can afford to live well and entertain naive notions of being ‘good’ whereas non-whites, having had to struggle in the world of poverty, prejudice, and oppression, never had the means to develop good attitudes and fine values. It’s like good table manners are for those with money, nice things, and no lack of food. In contrast, the poor are too hungry and desperate to have manners when they’re wrestling with one another over a single bean or a leftover bone with a bit of meat. So, even if whites are the most ‘progressive’ and ‘nice’, it’s only because they’ve hogged and enjoyed the privilege that allowed them the luxury of having compassion for others than just caring about themselves. In contrast, non-whites have led such a precarious and desperate existence that they only have survival on their minds, which means that they tend to be more tribal and distrustful of others. (For some reason, such perception doesn’t apply to ‘poor white trash’, whose prejudice against blacks and others might be rationalized on grounds that they never had no fancy learning to be ‘good and proper’ like gentlemen folks because they had no time for anything but picking cotton, working in coal mines, or toiling in factories. If anything, rich ‘progressive’ whites love to snub their noses at ‘white trash’ or ‘trailer trash’ who are demeaned as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’. But this is more a recent development as the ‘poor whites’ — ethnic factory workers, white southern farmers, and etc. — had been the center of focus of the American leftism, indeed even if the interests of non-whites had to be sacrificed. But more recently, American ‘progressivism’ underwent a sea-change whereupon issues of class have been mostly replaced by issues of identity based on race, religion, or ethnicity. And indeed, the new ‘left’ much prefers the mania for ‘gay rights’ over issues of class inequality. Wall Street and the mainstream media had no use for the Occupy Wall Street Movement pitting the 99% vs the 1%. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Ivy League universities, the courts, and the federal government gave no support to the Occupy Movement. If anything, they did everything to discredit it, and even most ‘progressive’ news outlets hardly mention it or the issues of class. Tom Piketty the French neo-Marxist has been in the news lately, but the elites have warmed up to him since his solution for class inequities is the creation of a giant new bureaucracy that can easily be appropriated and controlled by the super-global-elites. Instead of class politics, the favorite cause of the super-rich and super-powerful is the ‘gay movement’. Wall Street backed it with big money. If the homo agenda is the most central issue of ‘progressivism’ and if Wall Street and homos are the best of friends, then it would be bad form for ‘progressives’ to attack Wall Street since it’s been so supportive of the ‘saintly’ homos. And with the top 1% — or the top 0.01% of San Francisco and Hollywood — also behind the homo movement, how could the urban super-rich folks be the ‘bad guys’ when they are so friendly with and so loved by homo activists. Homo activists love Steve Bezos and Tim Cook, so never mind that Amazon works its workers to the bone, never mind that Apple uses cheap Chinese labor that sometimes resemblers slavery, never mind that globalist policies that fattened blue cities have hurt the middle class and working class in small towns, and furthermore, never mind that most Americans share few common interests with the 2% of the US population that is Jewish and 2% of US population that is homo. By having 98% of straight people bow down before homos, the current ‘progressive’ mentality that embraces the ‘new normal’ basically mentally trains 98% of gentiles to bow down before Jews. Is it any surprise that the 99% of Americans so docilely bow down before the 1%? It used to be leftism embraced minority rights on the basis that minorities are deserving of the same freedoms and rights enjoyed by the majority. This sort of made sense since there was a time when minority populations in America had less freedom, rights, and wealth than the majority population of whites, especially Wasp whites. But today’s form of minority politics isn’t about minority gaining equal freedom and equal rights but about minority privilege and minority supremacism. Blacks are not struggling for legal equality anymore. Black men are vying for supremacist position to take white women from white men. Black men and mudshark white women are saying black men are racially-sexually SUPERIOR to white men who should accept their defeat in the Cuckold War and just accept their inferior lot as pansies and wussies. Jews are not fighting for equality but their entitlement to eternal supremacy over the majority. Jews are saying that it’s wrong for anyone to criticize or challenge Jewish power even though Jewish power is the most powerful power in America and the world. When Wasp elites had the power, Jews were all for pointing the finger of blame at Wasps, but now that they have the power, Jews say they don’t deserve to be criticized and scrutinized since they are an eternally helpless minority. But are Jews in America like Jews who once dwelled in the ghettos of Europe? Or, are they more like British imperialist minority elites that ruled over the vast majority of Asian-Indians? American Jews today are, of course, more like British imperialist minority elites during the Age of Empire. And homos aren’t content to be free to do their homo thing; they are saying they should have the power and privilege to change the meaning of marriage to serve the ‘sexual’ perversion of homos whose idea of ‘sex’ is two guys indulging in fecal penetration. Homos have hogged all the colors of the spectrum and made the ‘rainbow’ their symbol. Homo propaganda spread by Jewish media is so unrelenting that idiotic Americans think 25% of Americans are homo. If you go by the racial/ethnic composition of punditry, one might even believe that Jews comprise 50% of the US population. It’s Jews, Jews, and Jews on TV and News. It’s actually worse as 50% of pundits who are Jewish speak for Jewish power, and 50% of pundits who are gentile speak for, well, Jewish power. So, 100% of MSM is pro-Jewish though the majority of Jewish pundits and even their running-dog-gentile-colleagues are virulently anti-white. American media are made up of Jews and shabbos goyim. ‘Gay marriage’ is not about ‘marriage equality’ since it only privileges homos to change marriage laws. The push for ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t allow ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy. Also, incest-sexuals are not allowed to adopt. That privilege has been extended only to homos. It’s funny, ain’t it? Homos say they should have the freedom to lead homo lives, and they’ve been given that freedom. But no matter how much they bugger one another or grind vagina with vagina, they can’t produce a single human life. So, they demand that they be allowed to adopt children that were produced by real sexuality. Homos wanna grab orphaned kids who should be raised in a family that resembles and upholds the ideal of fatherhood and motherhood. If you have a father and mother, surely you know that what your father provided in masculinity, your mother couldn’t provide in her femininity, and vice versa. So, ideal parenting is a balance of yin and yang. Indeed, imagine if your father came home one day and told you that he and your mother are separating and that they’ve agreed that you will be raised by your father... and his homo lover who buggers your father in the ass. Would you want to be without your mother and be raised by your homo father whose idea of ‘sex’ is having some other guy stick his sexual organ into his fecal hole? Suppose your father and his lover — your ‘other father’ — are nice people and smile a lot and provide you with plenty of material goods. So, would that be okay? You might be told that it’s no big deal that your mother walked out of your life, because only a ‘reactionary’ opinion would uphold the ideal family as being composed of a father figure and mother figure. Or, suppose your mother says she’s a lesbian and leaves your father, and you must now live with her and her lesbian lover. So, you have ‘another mommy’ and you’re denied a father. Is that okay? As our society is increasingly okay with such socio-sexual perversion due to the media influence of the Jewish elites who are hellbent on pushing the ‘new normal’, we are truly living in a sick and demented age. It’s true that some people are born homo and should be free to be homo. Homosexuality is a natural abnormality. But where do homos get the idea that they have the right to associate their ridiculous ‘sexual’ behavior with the meaning of marriage that has deep roots in biology, culture, morality, and history? If homos want the freedom to reject the kind of sexuality that produces life, who are they to demand the right to adopt kids produced by real sexuality? And why should orphans be denied the right to be raised by the yin-and-yang of a father figure and mother figure? Why must they be put in a situation where they’re raised by two ‘fathers’ who indulge in fecal penetration or two lesbians whose idea of ‘sex’ is screwing a hole with a hole? What is this nonsense? But such nonsense has become the ‘new soul’ of American, indeed Western, ‘progressivism’ made possible by the total domination of the media and government by Jews.)
Anyway, because Anglo/American Wasps have been nicest to Jews, Jews use Wasps as an outlet and sounding-board not only for their grievances concerning Wasps but with everyone else. So, all the anger that Jews have about Russians, the Nazis, the Muslims, and etc.— and even blacks as many Jewish small businessmen had to deal with Negro customers — get dumped on sensitive Wasps who lend an ear. Similarly, Negroes dump all their anger about everything on Wasps since Wasps are the only ones who really care. If Negroes bitched about the Arab-Muslim conquest of African territories, Arab slave trade of blacks, and Muslim ‘cultural genocide’ over black Africans, Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa will just tell Negroes to go to hell. We saw how Libyan Arabs and Muslims treated blacks who’d migrated to Libya under the regime of Gaddaffi. The Arab majority forces of Libya rounded up a whole bunch of blacks and put them in cages like animals and then executed/lynched a whole bunch of them. If blacks complained to such people, nothing would come of it. Besides, Wasps got something that blacks want whereas Libyans don’t. Lots of money. Similarly, Wasps had — and, in part, still have — what the Jews always wanted more of. Jews wanted Wasp money, Wasp status, Wasp privilege, and Wasp power, and so Jews fixated on the Wasps as the main object of their complaints. Wasps probably wondered why Jews were so hostile to them when they were the least hostile people toward Jews on Earth. It’s because Jews had been kicked around by so many uncaring peoples who told them to go to hell and thus were brimming with all sorts of rages and resentments. No one paid them much heed, so when Jews finally found a sympathetic ear with the Wasps, they demanded that Wasps pay for the ‘sins’ of all that had been done wrong to Jews. This is why, for Jews, the mere fact that some Wasp golf clubs didn’t accept Jews is tantamount to another holocaust, or golfocaust. Jews arelike the actor-family in the TV series CENTENNIAL who exploit the sympathy of the local preacher against him to take his house and money. This is why showing kindness Jews is a fatal mistake. One may learn by studying the Jews, one may admire the talents and skills of Jews, one may appreciate the Jewish contribution to science, math, and literature, but one must never ever trust or sympathize with Jews. Jews will regard your sympathy as a sign of weakness, constantly bait for hypocrisies to exploit — who isn’t a hypocrite to some degree? — , and blame you for everything. Jews will say you and your people are evil and will propose a plan whereby you and your people can finally redeem yourself by submitting to the Jews. This is what the ‘proposition nation’ is all about. It’s about Jews defaming and erasing the pride and glory of the nation founded by Wasps and declaiming that white Americans can only be redeemed into ‘true Americans’ if and only if they submit to the new proposition or covenant handed to them by Jews. Jews are playing the role of God. Just as God made a covenant with Abram and promised the Jews their place in the sun if and only if they obeyed Him, Jews offer a propositional covenant with white Americans whereby white gentiles shall be redeemed and blessed (by holy Jews) if and only if they submit to the future as envisioned by Jews. If God required Abraham to circumcise his pud, Jews require all white males to castrate their balls, wave the homo flag, and surrender their prettiest women to Jewish Portnoys and Negro Mandingos.
Of course, Jews are correct to point out that white Americans hadn’t adhered to Constitutional principles in their crystalline perfection through American history, but then, which people ever practiced their principles to the letter? (Old Wasp America contradicted itself by emphasizing melting-pot assimilation-ism but then also enforcing racial segregation. The New Jew America contradicts itself by promoting anti-assimilationist multi-culturalism that says each cultural group should maintain its own identity/heritage but then by pushing for increased interracism among the races. How can each group maintain its own culture and identity if they’re mixing with other races and producing mulatto, mestizo, and Eurasian babies?) Have Christians ever followed everything Jesus said? Have Muslims always been faithful to the Koran? Have Jews been true to the Torah? Have Chinese followed Confucian texts to the letter? Have communists followed everything Marx said? Have Zionists remained faithful to their secular and socialist principles? Have leftist American Jews remained faithful to the working class — or are they too busy promoting all this homo stuff lately? How do Liberal Jews square the fact that while they were berating white rule in South Africa as an absolute evil, they’ve looked the other way and apologized time and time again for the much crueler and more ruthless Zionist oppression of Palestinians? After all, at the very least, white Afrikaners didn’t ethnically cleanse the blacks and, if anything, allowed blacks to grow into a huge majority. In contrast, Jews not only expelled 80% of the original Palestinian population of Palestine(and what became ‘Israel’) but continue to occupy and terrorize the West Bank areas where Palestinians are helpless to stop the ceaseless encroachment of Jewish ‘settlers’ — more like illegal imperialist invaders — on their territory. No people have ever been faithful to their foundational tenets for reasons that range from practicality to corruption to hypocrisy to whatever. Jews ought to know this since they’ve been experts at changing the rules of the game all the time. During the so-called McCarthy Era when Jewish leftists came under suspicion, the Jewish community invoked the Constitution to champion total freedom of speech. Jews were also for freedom-of-speech absolutism when it came to porn, an industry they controlled. But now that Jews control all the top institutions, the Jewish community is now changing its tune and saying that total free speech is bad idea since, well, some ideas — especially those that are critical of Jewish power and supremacism — are ‘hateful’, ‘toxic’, ‘noxious’, and ‘odious’. During the early years of the Civil Rights Era, Jews argued for ending racial segregation on the basis that the law must be equal to all. But then, a bunch of Jews began to argue for ‘affirmative action’ on the basis that we need institutionalized discrimination against more talented and skilled whites — usually white gentiles as Jews never have a problem with Jewish over-representation, especially in high places — in order to redress past wrongs. And if some of the things that Jews champion today are clearly against Constitutional principles, Jews sneer at the Constitution as a ‘dead document’ that has little validity in our so-very-complex world. So, all this stuff about ‘proposition nation’ is just a lot of baloney. If Jews are indeed sincere about fulfilling what’s written in the founding documents of America, why are they for illegal immigration and amnesty of illegals? Where in the Constitution does it say US should undermine its own borders and give amnesty to invaders? And where do Jews get the crazy idea that the Founding Fathers — and even Jesus 2,000 yrs ago — would have been for ‘gay marriage’? Jews tirelessly remind whites that even though the white Founding Fathers laid down beautiful laws and principles, neither the Founders nor their successors truly lived up to them... that is until the Jews arrived and gained control of America and began to enforce all those rules for the good of all. In truth, a lot of things that Jews have been pushing have no basis in the founding principles, declarations, or documents. Jews are just pulling things out of their ass to serve their own Jewish supremacist interests. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government should forgo its legal responsibilities, encourage people from all over the world to enter the nation illegally, and then offer then amnesty? Where in the Constitution does it say that homos should remake and reshape laws to serve the interests of decadent ‘gay’ privilege? Jews act like they’re on a mission to finally fulfill the noble propositions in the founding documents, but their propositions are made up by themselves. The Jewish proposition is a pure heresy of the founding principles of this nation, and it keeps changing depending on ‘what is good for the Jews’. Consider how Jews attack and denounce Wasp elites of the past for favoring immigration and close diplomacy with Northern European stock, and yet, these Jews are all in favor of US foreign policy especially serving the interests of American Jews and Israel over the interests of all other ethnic groups and their nations of origin. If indeed the new and better America should be a nation of immigrants that shouldn’t favor a single racial or ethnic group, why does American foreign policy favor a Jewish state over the rights and interests of dispossessed Palestinians? Surely, America has both Jewish-Americans and Palestinian-Americans. So, why is America so servile to the biases of Jewish-Americans but stone-cold-hearted to the interests of Palestinian-Americans? Why is US foreign policy silent about the overt repression of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia but so virulent about Russia’s refusal to allow ‘gay pride’ parades? Why do Jews bitch and whine about how whites are over-privileged and over-represented vis-a-vis blacks and browns but don’t say a peep about how Jews are way over-represented vis-a-vis white gentiles — and blacks and browns — in Hollywood, elite universities, top law firms, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc.? So, all this ‘proposition nation’ stuff is just a lot of crap. It’s just a ‘creative’ conning by Jews of the white population that is too dumb to see what’s being done to them. (Indeed, the notion of ‘American interest’ or ‘national interest’ was, is, and always be something of a myth since the ‘interests’ of any nation, America included — past, present, and future — , will be determined by the governing elites. In the past, ‘American interests’ were determined by the Wasp elites. Indeed, not even most Wasps got to decide what was in the interest of America. Rather, it was the Wasp elites that decided what was best for all Wasps. And today, it’s the Jewish elites that decide what is ‘in the interest’ of America. These interests are really for Jewish-American, Jewish-global, and Jewish-Israeli interests, but Jewish elites that rule this nation try their best to convince us that it’s in all our interest. Jews say that America was ‘racist’ and ‘unequal’ in the past because its national interests and foreign policy were shaped and determined by the white, especially Wasp, gentile elites. Jews say this is why American immigration policy had been geared to favor certain types of whites — and then whites in general — over other racial groups. There is, of course, much truth in this, but if Jews really feel that American national and foreign policy should serve all Americans equally regardless of race, creed, or color, then how come everything America does both domestically and internationally tend to favor, indeed by a huge margin, the interests mainly of Jews and homos? If US policy should be equal for all groups of Americans, then shouldn’t American foreign policy favor Palestinians as much as Israelis? After all, Palestinian-Americans surely side with Palestinians than with Zionists. And shouldn’t concerns be raised in the US government about the mistreatment — and even mass killings — of Christian Arabs in the Middle East as the result of US meddling there in wars stretching from Iraq to Libya? But the US government is almost silent about all the violence against Arab Christians while making so much noise about homo ‘rights’ in Russia and Africa. And if US is indeed the defender of freedom and justice all over the world, why does it focus so much on eradicating ‘tyrants’ in the Middle East but not in Africa and Asia? Isn’t it because Israel wants US to do the dirty work in ridding the regions of regimes Israel doesn’t like? And how come America is so silent about Chinese occupation of Tibet but used Gaddafi’s ‘violence against his own people’ as pretext for aiding the rebels there and toppling the regime? And even the change in immigration policy wasn’t really about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ but about serving Jewish interests as increased diversity is useful to Jews as a divide-and-rule strategy against an increasing diverse goy population. After all, if Jews are indeed for equality of immigration for all nations on Earth, they should be calling foul on Mexicans for cutting in line and taking a lion’s share of new immigration into the US. Since Mexicans have cheated spectacularly, Jews should be reprimanding them for acting against the spirit of equal access for all peoples around the world. But Jews don’t care since they simply want more Mexicans to swamp the Southwest territories so that Conservative Anglo power will be destroyed there permanently. Furthermore, if the vast bulk of immigrants to the US were Jew-hating Muslims and antisemitic right-wing Europeans, would Jews be for more immigration or call for curbing immigration? Indeed, notice that European Jews are beginning to have second thoughts about open immigration since too many Muslims have been arriving in places like France and kicking Jewish ass. While it’s true that Wasps in the past used their power for their own interests, it’s the same new song with the Jews. At least when Wasps ruled the roost, they represented a vast population who were either like them or wanted to be like them through assimilation. But with Jews ruling the commanding heights of American power, what is ‘good for the Jews’ is definitely not what is good for white Americans. Indeed, it’s not even good for non-white Americans in the long run as an America that increasingly becomes less white will become more like Africa, Mexico, China, and India. Who wants to live in a Third-World-ized America? After all, why are non-whites leaving their non-white lands to come to places like US and Australia? Because whites, especially Northern European whites, have done a much better job of maintaining healthy and productive civil societies. These ‘people of color’ don’t want to be ruled by their own kind. Lots of yellows would rather be ruled by Australian Anglos than by Fu Manchu elites back home. But as America and the West become filled up with non-whites — and as non-whites are taught in school to hate and blame everything on whites — , what will become of America and Western Civilization? One thing for sure, if Jews had founded America and if they comprised the solid majority of Americans, no way would they have instituted new laws to bring in tons of gentiles to displace Jews as the majority. And no way the Jews would have allowed gentiles to gain control of the media, law, academia, courts, government, and elite institutions. Jews know what the game is really about, but white folks don’t seem to have a clue. White folks need to watch David Mamet’s films carefully to understand the extreme power-hungry soul of the Jew. So, beware of the conceit of ‘American national interests’ as such are really shaped and determined by the ruling elites of Americans than by all Americans. There is no equality of interests in ‘American interests’. Rather, the ones with the most power get to use American power to serve their own interests over the interests of everyone else. Do ‘American interests’ better serve the Jewish agenda & homo agenda OR the Polish/American or Turkish/American agenda? The most that Polish-Americans can hope for is that ‘American interests’ will throw some crumbs to the hapless ‘Polacks’. While each of the 300 million Americans has his or her sense of personal or ethnic interest, ‘American interests’ as a political reality is determined by those with the power in government, media, academia, and law; and only a darned fool would think that Jews who dominate those institutions are principled and color-blind in shaping and serving American power. Just ask yourself why US got involved in Ukraine. Which Americans gave a crap about the problems there? Greek-Americans? Chinese-Americans? Arab-Americans? Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Vietnamese-Americans? Italian-Americans? Scotch-Irish-Americans? No, it was entirely in the interest of Jewish-Americans, many of whom have ancestry in the Pale of Settlement and are hellbent on taking over Russia just like they took over US and EU. Of course, all the craven gentile Americans who want to win favors from Jews and be promoted up the echelons of privilege will spout the standard Jewish-approved line about the evil of Putin’s Russia — while waving the ‘gay flag’ — , but such cowards are neither serving their own ethnic interests nor genuine American interests that are good for all Americans. No, they, as greedy careerists, are merely serving a form of ‘American interests’ that have been totally hijacked by Jews who merely see gentile Americans as their cattle and America as their aircraft carrier of Jewish supremacy around the world.) And besides, who are Jews to pass judgement on the Wasps? What were Jews doing in the time period from 1776 to the early 20th century? Look at Jewish history and you find countless instances of exploitation, fraud, manipulation, robbery, scandal, and tons of dirty dealings. Besides, Jewish bankers financed many of the imperialist and colonialist expansions, and Jews did their share and more in the slave trade in both the Old and New World, so who are Jews to be acting holier-than-thou vis-a-vis white gentiles? In the 20th century, Jews played a key role in communism and killed millions of Christian Slavs. Zionist imperialists stole Palestinian lands. Jewish businessmen exploited black athletes and entertainers. Jewish Hollywood made a lot of movies that spread racial stereotypes. Jews controlled porn that used white women as sex meat and cum-buckets. Jewish leftist spies sent secrets to Stalin, the mass killer of Christian Slavs. Many Jews were followers of Trotsky, a dirty Jew who did his share of killing and repression when he was one of the big bosses of the Soviet Union. So, who the hell are Jews to be lecturing to everyone else? Oh, of course, Jews would have us believe that the Holocaust somehow washed away all their sins. Oh yes, the Holocaust was so veddy veddy tewwible that not only were the Jews washed of all their sins but we must make believe that Jews have been sin-free all through the ages; yes, we must make believe that in all the troublesome relations between Jews and goyim, it was always the fault of ‘rabid and virulent antisemitic goyim’ who set upon poor, helpless, innocent, and saintly Jews.
Given the mind-set of the Jewish community, when Jews heap abuse on your kind, never try to respond in good faith for the Jew operates only on bad faith where he or she is eternally morally superior to your kind. According to the Jewish way of thinking, you must prove yourself a ‘credit-to-your-race’ in terms of how worthy your kind is in the eyes of Jews. Jews look at us with the eyes of god, indeed as if they are god. Secularization of the Jews expunged God from the cosmos but planted Him inside the minds of Jews, indeed to the point where so many Jews think they are the ultimate arbiters of what is true and false.
For white folks, victim-hood is situational than eternalist. Though Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Americans don’t believe Japan is the forever-victimizer of Americans. Though 9/11 was horrible enough, most Americans don’t see America as the eternal-victims of the Muslims. Americans don’t use the Alamo as the basis for feeling as the forever-victims of Mexicans. And despite the hyperbolic rhetoric of the American Revolutionaries about King George III’s tyranny, America and Britain became good friends again, and Americans soon put aside bad feelings about the whole war. And though there was much white victimology about the ‘red savages’ attacking white pioneers, once the dust cleared and Indians were defeated, white folks sought peace with Indians and even felt a contrite for bashing the Indians so badly. Though the Western genre revived the Indians as aggressive savages, the Indians weren’t generally dehumanized as evil folks but just wild folks who happened to be in the way of the whites. The Indians weren’t generally vilified. They were presented as a threat than a force of evil.
Thus, once the wars were over and the dust cleared, white folks didn’t carry on forever with the victim-narrative. If anything, whites sometimes wondered if they’d gone a bit overboard in whupping the Indians too hard and dropping the two big ones on Japan.
This is in contrast to the eternalist bitterness and self-righteousness that marks the victimology of Jews and Negroes. To be sure, there’s been a huge divergence in the magnitude of tragedy between white victim-hood and non-white victim-hood in the Age of Empire. Though whites suffered setbacks in their wars against American Indians and Mexicans, they triumphed rather quickly and totally. Since the victory was so overwhelming, it would have been unbecoming of whites to make too big a fuss of their setbacks and victim-hood at the hands of the vanquished enemies. Anglo-white victories over the Mexicans, Indians, and the Spanish Empire were swift, certain, and total. The setbacks and victim-hoods could only be seen as situational as the general outcome was absolute triumph and victory. So, the narrative of victimology took a backseat to the pride of victory. But consider the case where Anglo-whites did lose a big one. Though the American South lost to another white power — Northern Anglos — , its defeat became almost the stuff of tragic myth-making. Even well into the 20th century, many white Southerners saw themselves as the victims of the Northern whites who’d not only denied their constitutional right to secede but had racially betrayed them by setting the dangerous Negroes free. And this rage bubbled over during the Civil Rights Era when federal laws that ended segregation seemed to be yet another Northern assault on Southern "states’ rights". Though the Civil Rights activists had the better constitutional argument in that the US constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed, and color, southern whites also had a compelling argument for segregation since blacks were too numerous, too powerfully built, too aggressive, and too horny for white women. But as white males in the South were too proud to admit to their fear of the stronger Negro, they just acted nastily in front of the cameras by yelling ‘nigger’, and this gave the false image of racial reality in the south that was peddled by the Liberal Media controlled by Jews: that poor helpless peace-loving blacks were terribly afeared of whites when, in fact, segregation was protection of helpless whites against the bigger, stronger, and fiercer Negroes. The smarter thing for the white race to do back then was to elevate someone like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X to the black pantheon and broker a deal with them for a wholesale racial separation between whites and blacks. If such had been done, Detroit would be a wonderfully productive and safe white city. If such had been done, white guys wouldn’t be a bunch of pussy-whipped ‘faggots’ who can only watch as Negro men walk swagger around publicly with white women who’ve lost respect for white men and who are turned on Negroes due to black domination of sports and funky music. Of course, the separate nation of Negro-America would have turned into another cesspool like Jamaica or some African country, but it’s just the nature of the Negro to mess everything up regardless of whether their ancestors sold slaves to whites or were sold to whites as slaves.
At any rate, though Jews bitched and whined about racial injustice, the fact is they themselves had no interest in integrating with blacks. With all their money, they moved to white neighborhoods and sent their children to white/Jewish schools. Also, Jews were never troubled by all the segregationist and discriminatory policies that Zionists forced on Palestinians. Of course, from a purely practical viewpoint, Zionists were no less justified than southern whites or white Afrikaners in South Africa in their harsh treatment of their enemies. When there’s a significant minority — or majority in the case of South Africa — that is potentially hostile to the ruling group, extra-legal ways will be necessary to keep them in line. As Israel proper has a large number of Arabs and as West Bank has far more Palestinians than Jews — even despite the flood of recent invasions and settlements — , Jews have used extra-legal and extra-constitutional rules to maintain their dominance. White folks in the South did the same thing for the same reason, but when they did it, it was supposedly evil, but when Jews do it, it’s just necessary and can’t be helped. And today, Jews use extra-legal means to take away our rights. The Constitution says no one shall be discriminated on the basis of his race, color, or creed — notice there’s nothing about sexual orientation — , but Jews now enforce laws at the federal and local level that deny people the right to have government jobs or do business in big cities IF their creed, conviction, and conscience deem that homosexuality is gross, naturally abnormal, foul, and whoopie-puh-poop. Even if such people are willing to work on a professional basis with homos, they can be fired and blacklisted simply because their creed, be it religious or secular, maintains that homosexuality isn’t something as wonderful as a ‘rainbow’. And of course, California and other states have passed laws forbidding the hiring of people who are hostile to Zionism. So, your creed better be for Israel and the Jews. If you, you are still forced to pay taxes but you cannot work for or do business with the government. And of course, AIPAC defacto weeds out any politician who may be in disagreement with Israeli policy. Though technically legal, the Jewish matrix of power in finance, media, and government makes it nearly impossible for anyone who is critical of Jewish power to get any traction. AIPAC sends questionnaires to all political candidates to fill out on the matter of Jews and Israel. If the politician refuses to answer the questionnaire or answers ‘incorrectly’, then the Jewish power machine in media, finance, courts, academia, think-tanks, and government will conspire to oust the candidate in favor of his opponent who can be bought. Jews do stuff like this in order to ensure that the 2%(of Americans who are Jewish) will control this nation as their own fiefdom, yet they have the gall to sing rosy songs about the ‘proposition nation’. What a shameless bunch of a-holes who are over-brimming with chutzpah and shitzpooh.
Anyway, because the American South suffered an epic defeat in the Civil War, its attendant myth of victim-hood were made near-eternal, so that even long after the war, many Southerners harbored self-pitying and self-righteous hostility toward the North. Jared Taylor writes of how his southern mother hardly felt any kind sentiment for the memorials to the fallen soldiers of the North. As a person with southern roots, her identity was entwined with the martyrdom of the South in the Civil War... despite her progressive politics and socialist leanings. So, even whites, when they lose in a big way, can fall into the dampened mood of eternal victim-hood, as if they’d suffered something so horrible that their victim-hood shall scar their souls and identities forever. There is something like this in the Russian remembrance of the Mongol invasion, which accounts for the power of yellow peril mythology among many Russians even today. It doesn’t help that Siberia is so thinly populated and just above China, a nation teeming with over a billion people who are hungry for more land and natural resources. Though the Mongol invasion happened long ago, Russians have never forgotten their sense of victim-hood vis-a-vis the Asiatic Horde. Some Greeks have similar feelings about Turks who’d ruled over Greece for three centuries. In both cases, the nature of the defeat was total, tragic, and devastating, indeed so much that it became the stuff of national/racial myth. Still, Russians and Greeks don’t respectively bitch about the Mongols and Turks as Jews and Negroes do about Christians, Europeans, and white Americans.
 |
| Time to Bury the Tomahawk. Indians have less animus against whites despite greater tragedy of losing their sacred ancestral lands. In contrast, Jews still seethe about being denied admission to Golf Clubs. But then, as Jews have great talent and ambition, they are touchier about being slighted by others. Jews have both superiority complex and inferiority complex vis-a-vis Wasps. When Wasps excluded Jews, Jews felt the bitterness of being thwarted by a classier and better-looking people. They felt the resentment of snubbed inferiority. But Jews also felt they were smarter than Wasps and therefore were being kept down by inferior dumb Wasps. They felt the resentment of repressed superiority. |
For revenge, whites should encourage blacks & browns to view Jews as over-privileged elites who exploit blacks and browns — often in divide-and-rule manner. Whites should also encourage Muslims and Palestinians to view Jews as a bunch of hate-filled Zio-Nazis whose policies have brought devastation all across the Middle East. Given what the Jewish people have done to the white race, all sensible white people should be willing to make any alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. It’s righteous revenge.) Part of the reason why Jews and Negroes keep bitching about the past is due to three main factors: (1) they didn’t gain total victories against their ‘oppressors’. (2) their former ‘oppressors’ admit their guilt and beat themselves on the head. (3) They remain as minorities in what has become their permanent homeland. Though Jews are now the masters over US(and EU), they are still a tiny minority who, if the winds of history were to turn, could end up losing much, even everything. Jews have immense power but not demographic power, and demography is often destiny. Since Jews can never be the majority of US and EU, they seek to reinforce their power via ‘diversity’, thereby ensuring that various goyim could be played against one another in ever-shifting alliances. It’s like globalist Jews will even side with ‘neo-Nazi’ Right Sector in Ukraine to undermine Russian power in the region.
Today, Jews goad most non-whites to side against whites, but in the future, Jews might use white against yellow, yellow against brown, brown against black. Indeed, increasing number of Jews in France have been shifting rightward in fear of the rising Muslim tide.
Since Jews will command the elite institutions and media, they will be the ones calling the shots. And as Jews control the elite academia, their views will trickle down even to grade schools, and everyone will be taught primarily to worship Jews and homos. So, even though Jews have won, it’s far from a total victory. Jews can never take it easy like Japanese can in Japan, which was, is, and will be Japan. Jews, in contrast, must always think ahead of everyone else and must command the social and political trends since if others who are hostile to Jews take control of the narrative, they could call on all gentiles to unite primarily against the Jews. Indeed, Jews are especially pushing this homo nonsense just when inequalities between Jews and gentiles are growing larger than ever. By homo-izing the political debate, Jews seek to deflate the issue of race and class, especially since the Democratic Party — controlled by Jews — is supposed to stand for class and racial equality, at least far more than the Republican Party that is a defacto white party. But as things are going, urban Jews get richer and richer while so many white working class, blacks, and browns are falling deeper into debt and having fewer prospects for success. So, Jews have invested heavily in pushing the homo agenda so that the main goal of ‘progress’ is to teach all children that fecal penetration is biologically and morally equivalent to real sex between men and women and that a man having his penis cut off and being fitted with a fake vagina has something to do with the ‘rainbow’. And since white Russia poses a counter-example of how a white majority can stand up for its identity and interests, Jews in the media have been working overtime to vilify Putin’s Russia as an evil nation because it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades. With the ‘gay rainbow’ as the new red, white, and blue, so many dumb and/or childish Americans — of both political persuasions — have fallen for the bait and welcome a ‘new cold war’ based on the narcissism of homos backed by billionaire Jews and their foul agents like Masha Gessen whose stated purpose is to destroy the family altogether. Jews are truly a foul and hideous people. And a powerful people. But they can never be totally powerful in the West due to their small numbers, and so, they must constantly control, shame, and humiliate the white race into feeling guilty so that white folks won’t even think of standing up to Jewish power. As allies against white Americans, Jews have encouraged blacks, browns(and even white Hispanics who are allowed to be ‘honorary people of color’ as supposed ‘victims’ of ‘yanqui imperialismo’), yellows, and Arabs/Muslims to promote their own victim-hood(mostly in relation to whites, of course). But Jews are worried that all this anti-white-privilege mentality among non-whites might, one day, morph into anti-Jewish rage because, after all, Jews are the wealthiest, most powerful, and most privileged people in the West. And besides, aren’t white Zionists oppressing all those people-of-color Palestinians? To suppress such feelings, Jews have made the Holocaustianity the new religion so that Jews shall be forever regarded as the main victims of ‘white evil’ for all time. So, even though Jews are now richer and more powerful than whites, they act like the eternal victims of whites; Jews act like they’re filled with the goodness of heart to be helping blacks, browns, yellows, and Muslims/Arabs rise up to challenge ‘white privilege’. This is somewhat problematic since yellows in places like California are outperforming whites in college admissions and Silicon Valley jobs, but of course, Jews will come up with new ways to make even yellows feel like victims through stuff like ‘micro-aggressions’(which actually sounds like failed sexual ventures of Asian men), the germ-freak idea behind which is that just about anything a white person says or does in the presence of a non-white person could be a form of racial animus. But then, there are Neocon Jews who manipulate white conservatives to feel that their well-being are threatened by yellow peril(via increased China-bashing) and Muslim terror(all the hysteria about the coming of Sharia Law in America). American Conservative cowards who don’t have the guts to stand up to Jews, Negroes, homos, and even illegal invaders from Mexico are pretending to be tough by badmouthing the insignificant presence of Muslims in the US even though most problems with Muslims/Arabs in both the Middle East and the West are the results of Jewish-controlled foreign and immigration policy.
Liberal Jews nakedly encourage non-whites to hate whites, and Neocon Jews make subtly suggest that white folks need to forge a stronger bond with Jews as both groups are threatened by the rise of color. So, Liberal Jews keep scare-mongering non-whites into fearing, loathing, and hating whites, and Neocon Jews keep wink-winking to whites that whites and Jews must form a stronger bond against the ‘rise of color’. While Neocons officially use the language of ‘anti-racism’, they use all sorts of subtle ways to imply that ‘Muzzies’ are the enemy of the white West. Regardless of the nature of relationships between whites and non-whites, whites need to wake up to the fact that Jews are the main enemy pulling the puppet-and-purse strings to ensure their own supremacy over all other groups. Anyway, because Jews will forever remain a demographic minority in the West, they can never feel as total victors, and so, their sense of victim-hood as self-righteous justification and as tool of control over the gentiles will continue unabated as long as Jews remain in the West. Though Jews are currently mainly fixated on bashing whites, they will attack other groups in new alliances if deemed to be threatening to Jews. After all, Jews not only accuse whites of being closet-Nazis but accuse swarthy Muslims, Arabs, and Persians as well. Since Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians aren’t happy with the state of affairs in the Middle East dominated by US-backed Israel, Jews have defamed Arab Semites as the ‘new Nazis’. Jews would like us to believe that the virus of ‘antisemitism’ traveled from Europe to the Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East. So, even non-whites can be accused of harboring ‘white evil’. Today, we are told that Muslims are infected with ‘white evil’ of hating Jews. Of course, Arabs and Muslims see things differently. They see Jewish Zionists acting like the new European imperialists and Nazis who are oppressing a poor and helpless non-white people, especially the Palestinians. And of course, the Jewish-led sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s killed up to 300,000 Iraqi women and children, suggesting that the mentality of American Jews isn’t much different from the mentality of Lazar Kaganovich who didn’t shed a single teardrop over the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians, many of whom were women and children. Jews often refer to Palestinians and Arabs as ‘savages’ , ‘barbarians’, and ‘subhuman’, and yet, Jews dare condemn Muslims and Arabs as a bunch of haters.
Of course, there are plenty of Arabs and Muslims who are indeed the scum of the Earth. And heaven knows dumb Arabs and stupid Muslims don’t need outside interference to find ever new excuses to oppress, kill, and maim one another. Just watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Saddam Hussein was a scumbag who oppressed his fellow Iraqis. Indeed, if Arabs and Muslims learned something from Jews in Israel, they would be in a much better position to gain strength in the Middle East. Jews from diverse backgrounds in Israel all get along together and feel a sense of solidarity; this has something to do with most Israeli Jews sharing in the identity of exile. The European Jews who built modern Israel were intelligent men and women with excellent leadership and organizational skills. It’s like you can’t form a fist with only one finger or two fingers. All five fingers must clasp into a fist. People must organize into a unified force behind a powerful idea. It’s like the Founders of America constituted a powerful fist.
 |
| Founding Fathers as a Fist. What a Power! This is why Jews have sought to open up the White Fist and keep each finger apart from others. Break apart white intellectuals, white masses, white soldiers, white working class, white creative class, and etc. If different white groups came together and formed a fist, Jews would get a big fat lip. |
Even so, Palestinians are a tragic people who were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists with the full backing of the two major superpowers. And even if Arabs and Muslims are tards, US(under rule of Jews) have no business interfering in the region to make things even worse. After all, just because there’s so much awful shit in Africa, Asia, and Latin America doesn’t mean that American government should be funding various groups to foment new wars and new crises. If things in some part of the world are bad, just leave it at ‘bad’. Don’t cynically interfere to make things even worse, as US and EU have done with Libya and Syria. Both those crises would have ended long ago if the West — under the rule of Jews — hadn’t stuck its nose into the region time and time again.
Anyway, another reason why Jews never got the satisfaction of full victory over goyim is because WWII was won by gentile-ruled Russia, UK, and US. Also, Germany, despite what it did to Jews, was allowed to survive and even prosper. Also, Jews feel that, right after the war, the US government went too easy on a lot of German war criminals — even using them as scientists in the US military and space project — while clamping down on Jews who were accused of communist sympathies. So, Jews still feel very wronged and slighted.
As for Negroes, despite their great victory with Civil Rights and in sports and pop culture, many blacks are still poorer than non-black Americans, and many felt betrayed and left behind even by the Democratic Party. So, they continue to feel oppressed, and being uneducated and not-too-bright, they have a very limited understanding of history; ‘Afrocentric’ history says the Egyptians were black, white Greeks stole everything from the ‘black Egyptians’, black slavery was the worst thing that ever happened, gazillions of blacks were lynched in America, and black males are still hunted by white ‘racists’, which is why black parents feel a need to have the ‘talk’ with their sons — even though, it’s their black sons who are actually causing most of the social violence and doing the bullying in schools and in the streets.
Victimology gains added traction if the side accused of past-or-current oppression is oh-so-sensitive — and even supportive — of the charges OR if the ‘victim group’ has the backing of a great power. For example, Palestinian victimological complaints don’t go very far since (1) Jews and Israel don’t much care or are downright hostile to Palestinians (2) America and other great powers don’t give a crap about Palestinians as they prefer doing business with Jews and (3) even fellow Arabs and Muslims haven’t really done much for the Palestinians. Saudi Arabians, for instance, give lip-service to the plight of Palestinians but work under the table with the US and Israel.
Another factor that helps boost the victimology of a particular people if they’re perceived as a talented people. As Jews produced so many great scientists, thinkers, writers, comedians, and composers, the admiration of — even reverence for — Jewish talent makes them a more sympathetic/revered figure to many people. Admirers of Bob Dylan, Woody Allen, J. Hoberman, Pauline Kael, Ayn Rand, Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, and Philip Roth feel compelled to root for Israel and Jewishness. Indeed, if a people produce a lot of talent, they may be admired and sympathized with even if they’re ‘oppressors’. Because of the great achievements of the British, many Asian-Indians accepted Anglo rule with a measure of awe. It was when smart Indians who studied in Great Britain realized that they could be just as intelligent and talented as the British that the spell of British invincibility was broken. If Palestinians had produced many more people like Edward Said, there would have been far greater sympathy for Palestinians. But for most Americans — even ‘progressives’ — , Jewishness is associated with talent and genius whereas Palestinians are associated with funny-looking women making sounds with their tongues fliggering sideways and with poorly dressed kids throwing rocks. It’s like American Indians suffered a far greater tragedy than the Negroes, but Negroes get more sympathy/reverence since they are good at sports, funky music, and putting on the stud act. We feel a greater sense of tragedy when a genius is killed than when an average person is killed. The same dynamics apply to entire groups — and even ‘progressives’ officially committed to ‘equality’ feel likewise.
So, the effectiveness of victimology has much less to do with actual suffering or the volume of complaints than with the dynamics and factors that shape how the victim-narrative is perceived and understood by others. After all, why do we care so much about the victim in the German film THE LIVES OF OTHERS? He’s an artist-intellectual-bohemian, the kind of people that yuppies and hipsters admire. Suppose the film had been about some ordinary worker in East Germany. Who’d give a damn?
If white nationalists held power in the US and if they showed no sympathy toward Negroes and battered down any Negro complaints, there would hardly have been much of a Negro victimology in the US. Negroes would have thought, "Dang, the white man be badass. Bettuh do like he say and earn some favors." But naive white liberals and Jews took over the elite institutions, changed the laws, vilified white American history, defamed the white race for all the sins of the world, scapegoated whites for everything wrong with blacks, and encouraged blacks to bitch, whine, and threaten 24/7. Why don’t blacks in Castro’s Cuba complain even though they have no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to organize along racial lines, no right to promote black consciousness, no right to attack Hispanic-American history as a story of enslavement and etc? Only the Cuban government decides what the Negroes can think and say. So, the government will say, yes, there was racial discrimination against blacks by the Spanish long ago, BUT all white Cubanos, black Cubanos, and mixed-race Cubanos became as one people as victims of Yanqui Americanos, and with the triumph of Castro’s revolution, all traces of social injustice have been wiped out and that no one has any right to complain about anything in communist Cuba anymore. And most Negroes in Cuba just go along with this since it’s the only reality they know — also, the Cuban police(made up of whites, blacks, or mulattos)will ruthlessly crack any black head that says otherwise, and there is no media coverage of ‘police brutality’ and no independent lawyer to represent the ‘victim’. So, even though blacks in Cuba have much less freedom, rights, and property than blacks in the US, the latter complain and bitch a lot more.
 |
| Cuban Blacks in 'Paradise' |
Not all victimologies are given the consideration, and the hierarchy of victim-hood generally has less to do with the magnitude of what happened than with the Leninist ‘who, whom’ equation. While it’s true that the Jewish Holocaust must count as one of the most horribly tragic events in human history and deservedly belongs near the top, all the other victimologies really depend on who has the power. Indeed, even the importance/significance of the Holocaust varies from place to place depending on the prevailing narratives, values, and perspectives of the elites and peoples. Arab nations, being so angry with Zionists, don’t much care about the Holocaust. The Iranians and Syrians even question certain aspects of the Holocaust narrative. There’s less Holocaust-mania among Eastern Europeans than among Western Europeans. Chinese and Mexicans care less about it than Americans do. Among Americans, whites care about it more than blacks and browns do. Black Africans don’t much care, and indeed, there are many black Africans who never heard of Hitler and the Holocaust. In parts of Asia, even those who know of the evils of Hitler don’t associate him with a kind of all-pervasive diabolicalism that shrouds the Fuhrer in the West. Many Asians regard Hitler as most Americans regard Stalin and Mao — monstrous figures but not devil incarnate; also Americans feel free to use their images in pop iconography. Americans rationally know of Stalin and Mao’s evils but aren’t haunted by them emotionally. Similarly, for many Asians, Hitler was a bad guy but a thing of a past, something that can be made fun and Andy-Warhol-ized. They don’t have taboos against Hitler/Nazis whereas Western nations enforce laws(as in the EU) and employ socio-economic pressures(as in the US) to keep everyone very sober and sacramental about Jews and the Holocaust.
Furthermore, there are some parts of the world where people feel that even though Hitler wasn’t a good guy, he rebuilt his nation and lashed out against an exploitative alien elite. Many Indonesians who resent the success of the Chinese minority might sympathize with the German National Socialists than with the Jews who, like the Chinese minority in Southeast Asian, own and control ‘too much’. As for all other tragedies, their rankings in the West are purely a matter of ‘who, whom’ controlled by Jews. So, even though less than 2,000 blacks were lynched in the America in the 100 yrs from the 1860s to the 1960s, those horrors are considered a far greater tragedy than the Jewish Bolshevik killing of millions of Christian Slavs in a few yrs in the 1930s, mass deaths of tens of millions in China under Mao during the Great Leap Forward, the rubbing of American Indians in the West, the nuking of Japan, the ruthless sacking of Georgia by Sherman’s army, or the mass bloodshed in Philippines by American troops. Though Israelis killed many more Palestinian youths, the Jewish-controlled US media give far more coverage to relatively rare instances of Jewish deaths at the hands of Palestinians. Though bigger, stronger, and more aggressive black thugs have been going on a rampage all across America against all races, the Jew-controlled media suppress the victim-hood of non-black victims — unless they happen to be Jewish — while hyping even false stories of black victim-hood such as the Duke LaCrosse case and the fantasy KKK at Oberlin College. We are reminded year after year of the murder of the sexual harasser Emmet Till, but the Jew-run media have suppressed the story of the Knoxville Massacre where a bunch of foul Negroes abducted, raped, and horrifically murdered a white couple. Instances such as this should leave no doubt in the minds of white folks that Jews really hate and despise them and don’t feel an iota of sympathy for them, no more than Jews do for Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians — or the possibly up to 300,000 Iraqi women and children who were forced to starve or die of disease as the result of Zionist-controlled American sanctions against Iraq, a policy defended by the Jewish Madeline Albright as ‘worth it’. And don’t expect American Conservatives to call foul on this since they are even bigger ass-kissers of Jewish power than American Liberals are. Indeed, cowardly and craven American Conservatives are the first to scream loudest about instances of Jewish victim-hood EVEN THOUGH Jews are the ones most responsible for the suppression of white victim-hood at the hands of blacks, illegal invaders, and, of course, Jewish oligarches who rob this nation blind. Mainstream American Conservatism — and even some on the ‘alternative right’ sphere — still think that maybe Jews can be won over if they bleat on and on about how much they care about Jews. Jared Taylor is especially a sniveling coward in this regard. The lowlife weasel has the all the ‘courage’ in the world to bleat about Muslims but remains silent about Jews who’ve led the movement to suppress people like himself and Peter Brimelow. He defames Muhammad a psychopath while overlooking the fact that Jewish ‘heroes’ in the Torah would also be considered ‘genocidal’ freaks by modern standards. As for Taki the Greek Tycoon(who drinks and parties too much), he’s so admiring of the Japanese during World War II but so butt-hurt about all those nasty ‘Muzzies’. He reviles Muslims as barbaric but overlooks the fact that Japanese during World War II often acted like psychotic lunatics. Japanese killed more Southeast Asians in a few yrs during World War II than Europeans killed in their centuries of colonization in the region. Mention the Dutch to Indonesians, and they are full of smiles. Mention the Japanese to Indonesians, and they still wanna run and hide.
Some Alt Right idiots think the rise of the Right in Israel means that American Jews will likewise turn more to the Right and join with whites. They are too dumb to realize that both Jewish Conservatism in Israel and Jewish Liberalism in the US are part of the same game, two sides of the same coin. They are both Jewish-centric since it’s to Jewish advantage to be right-wing where they are the majority and to be left-wing where they are the minority. Why would Jews support the rise of majority right-wing in America and the West when it will mean the domination of white gentiles? So, despite all the superficial bickering between Liberal American Jews and Conservative Zionist Israelis, they are both on the same boat trying to harpoon the same whale: the big white whale. Though there are Liberal Jews — like Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss — who are genuinely critical of Israel’s rightward drift, they are no friends of white Americans. Though they denounce Israel’s history of ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians, they look forward to the day when the white populations in the US and EU will be ethnically overshadowed — and even cleansed of entire regions — by Africans, Muslims, Asians, and Meso-Americans.
Every nation or people has its own central victimology. For Russians, there’s the history of the Mongol invasion. There’s also the more recent history of the German invasion. Indeed, the Great Patriotic War narrative is doubly useful to Russians for it combines great victim-hood narrative with great victor-hood narrative. If Russians merely succumbed to the Mongol invasion and lived under the Tatar yoke for over two centuries, Russians in WWII faced near total destruction but came from behind to win what was perhaps the greatest military victory in world history. It was like a national Crucifixion and Resurrection narrative, and it may have been why Stalin, possibly in superstitious/spiritual mode, brought back the Orthodox Church(at least in part) to inspire the Russians to rise up and fight for the Motherland. As the Nazis were surrounding Leningrad and attacking Moscow and Stalingrad, not only many Russians but the world thought it was Game Over for the USSR. But if any people clutched victory from the jaws of defeat, it was the Russians/Soviets, and it seemed a miracle to many at the time. So, even though Russians no longer celebrate the Revolution of 1917 and all that, they still honor the Great Patriotic War in a grand, almost religious, way. (This is why Jews and homos want to desecrate Russia with homo ‘pride’ parades.) Though most of Russian history in the 20th century was defined by communist rule, the event that most Russians identify with most today is what happened in the few years from 1941 to 1945. Of course, some Jews bitch and whine that this is a return to Stalinism; Jews complain that, under Putin, Russians haven’t been as soul-searching about their dark communist past as they’d been during the Yeltsin era — it’s rich coming from Jews who never took a honest look at their own involvement in communism. But Putin understood what the Jews were really after. Jews were trying to fill Russians with self-loathing and historical ‘guilt’ about the Soviet era just like they did with white Americans who were loaded with ‘white guilt’ about slavery and racial discrimination. Now, being critical of one’s history is a good thing, and necessary reforms are difficult without a courageous and honest reassessment of with the problems of one’s history. But Jews act in bad faith since they themselves are not only reluctant to approach their own history honestly but scream and rant when others do. Of course, Jews understand that it’s much more difficult for them to guilt-bait the Russian bear than it was to guilt-bait white Americans. After all, Wasps had been in control of America for most of American history and even for much of the 20th century. In contrast, Jews played a decisive and significant role in the victory of communism in the USSR, and many Jewish commissars took part in the mass-killing and mass-oppression of Slavic Christians and other gentiles. Conveniently for Jews in terms of historiography, Stalin eventually purged many of the top Jews in the regime and then turned fully anti-Jewish in his later years when Zionist Jews in Israel betrayed him and sided with the US despite the great Soviet aid in the creation of Israel. So, Jews rewrote the history of the Russian Revolution where they supposedly comprised only a small element in the government and were soon victimized by Stalinist persecutors. In fact, even after the Great Purge, there were tons of Jews working at all levels of the Soviet Union and commanding many of the secret police apparatuses and forced-labor camps. Dirty Jews likeJonathan Brent bitch and whine about Stalin but overlook the fact that so many Jews aided and abetted the mass-oppression and mass-killings carried out by Jews. Jews are the first ones to stress that Hitler ‘did not do it alone’. He has his ‘willing-executioners’. Well then, surely Stalin didn’t do it alone. He didn’t have superhuman powers that enabled him to fly from one corner of Soviet Union to another to carry out all his grim deeds, so who helped him? He had his own ‘willing executioners’, many of whom were ruthless and sadistic Jews. Granted, many such Jews were also idealistic and sincerely believed they were clearing the old ways to make way for the new. But they sure had a lot of blood on their hands, and their ideology ultimately turned out to be bankrupt and delusional. But the likes of Brent only focus on Stalin and the ‘Russians’, just like Jews love to bitch about ‘white privilege’ but enforce taboos that amply clarify that much of this ‘white privilege’ is actually Jewish.
 |
| Dirty Jew Jonathan Brent who bitches about Stalin but not about Stalin's Jewish 'willing executioners'. |
So, even though Roosevelt did more to advance Stalinism in the US — his administration was filled with Jewish spies who sent secrets to Stalin — whereas Nixon devoted most of his political career to fighting communism, Nixon is the one who is tagged with Stalin-ness. To be sure, Brent has a point at least in terms of personality. Though Roosevelt was a devious character, Nixon did have a darker personality, and ideology aside, one could argue that Nixon had more in common with Stalin than Roosevelt did in terms of animus and resentment, notwithstanding the fact that Roosevelt-ism was closer to Stalinism ideologically. Still, we shouldn’t over-state the psychological darkness of Nixon. If anyone in American politics had something like a Stalinist personality, it was Richard J. Daley of Chicago who was a ruthless operator of the bureaucratic machine. Indeed, Nixon was too unstable to be Stalin-like; and he was too opportunistic, which is why he was all over the map ideologically, especially in the latter part of his career. If Stalin had been like Nixon, he would have fallen from the top pretty quickly. All said and done, Nixon was more like Khrushchev, not in style but in carelessness and inability for self-control. Anyway, Brent the Democrat Jew would have us believe that the Stalinist ‘victims’ of ‘McCarthyism’ were like the victims of Stalin, whereas the crusaders against Stalinism like Nixon were like Stalin. That’s devious Jewish logic for you. So, if a Jew serves Stalin and if you oppose him and smoke him out, YOU are like Stalin and the exposed Jew is like a victim of Stalin. And yet, Jonathan Brent had
Anyway, it is time for the White Right to develop a white narrative of victimology. They mustn’t reject the very concept of victimology since every people and nation have used it from the beginning of time. All forms of revenge has an element of victimology to it since the logic of revenge is ‘they did us wrong, so we must return the favor.’ Even animals that can’t think conceptually nevertheless FEEL a kind of victimology. If a pack of wolves were attacked by another pack of wolves, they do FEEL wronged and thirst for ‘vengeance’. Chimpanzee tribes never forgot whom their enemies are. They feel wronged by the enemy and try to get their revenge.
And revenge has been the central theme of history. Much of the Bible is about vengeance, whether it belongs to man or to God. The entire justice system is about victimology. The system exists because people are wronged all the time through fraud, deceit, robbery, rape, or murder. People are victimized and seek redress. Of course, victimology can become cancerous and turn into a kind of radical victimology or eternalist victim-hood that tries to hog the mantle of holy victim-hood for all time based on what transpired in a specific time and place. Most people don’t carry victimology that far, but Jews and Negroes have done just that. Though Russians still harbor fears about yellow peril, they don’t feel that they are the eternal victims of the Mongols. And Greeks still have some bitter feelings about the Turks, but they don’t go around acting like they are the forever-victims of Turks. Greeks know well enough that during certain times in history, it had been the Greeks who conquered other peoples and enslaved others. So, Greek leftism is a genuine form of leftism that can be critical of the history of the Greeks. It’s unlike Jewish Leftism that accuses other groups of cruelty and injustice but refuses to acknowledge all that has been brutal, venal, and tyrannical in Jewish history. When leftist Jews invoke conscience, it means other groups must own up to Jews, whereas when leftist Greeks talk about history and morality, they are all-too-willing to admit that Greece has done its share of bad things. So, even the cunning and devious Greeks are more genuinely conscientious than Jews who have a very warped view of morality and ethics. This is why increasing numbers of leftists are beginning to wonder about Jews and raise complaints about Zionism. Both the gentile right and gentile left are beginning to question the hypocrisy of Jews who claim ‘right-wing’ nationalism for Jews in Israel — and enjoy unprecedented power and privilege for themselves — while professing ‘left-wing’ values and agendas for everyone else, especially for Northern European gentile whites. Is the Jewish refusal to address this issue of hypocrisy the product of fear or arrogance? Are Jews aware of their own BS but afraid to air it out since the masses of gentiles might wise up about the true nature of Jewish power and agenda? Or are Jews possessed of such a powerfully arrogant and self-centered cultural personality that they are simply blind and oblivious to all the BS they pull on others? Is David Mamet fully aware — and proud — of Jewish perfidy & deviousness and resorting to angry rhetoric to intimidate critics of Zionism OR is he so myopic in his Jewish self-righteousness that he has simply conned himself into thinking that the Jews are indeed a people who’ve been wronged by everyone everywhere since the beginning of time, and therefore, all of mankind — including those who never interacted with Jews — need to kneel before Jews? According to hardline Christianity, only those who accepted Jesus into their hearts go to Heaven whereas everyone else goes to Hell. Even if a people never had access to the Gospels and never heard about Jesus, they too shall go to Hell and burn forever. Similarly, according to Holocaustianity, even people who never came in contact with Jews and had no part in the Holocaust are guilty of ‘antisemitism’ if they don’t honor, revere, worship, and obey the Jews.
The victimology of the White Right need not be so extreme, but the White Right must fight fire with fire. If Jews insist that they are the eternal-victims of white gentiles who must revere, apologize to, and obey Jews forever, then, as long as Jews are the enemies of the white race, white folks must return the favor and make Jews out to be the enemies, oppressors, exploiters, and genociders against whites from the beginning of time. Unless Jews change their ways and no longer pose a threat to the white race, the white race must hate the Jews just as much as Jews hate the white race. White folks must teach their young ones about all the horrible things Jews did to gentiles since the beginning of time. Young whites must be taught about the history of Jews as genociders, slavers, murderers, fanatics, finance capitalist thieves, communist mass-killers, Stalinist spies, porn kings, gangsters in America and Russia, and etc. Of course, young whites must also be taught of the great things accomplished by Jews as there’s much to be learned from Jewish achievement, and besides, credit must be given where it’s due. But whatever good Jews might have achieved, whites must learn, copy, and master the lessons for their own interests. Whites must think like the Japanese in the late 19th century when they were keen on learning from the West, all the while serving their own ethno-national interest. Japanese were filled with awe for Western power, but they ‘westernized’ and modernized for the sake of Japanese power and glory. Similarly, Jews learned from gentiles not out of any great love for the gentile-kind but to use the lessons for the sake of Jewish power. Countless Jewish musicians studied Richard Wagner, but it didn’t mean they liked him as a person or that they liked German people and culture as a whole. On the evidence of Steven Spielberg movies, he learned a great deal from the Nazi film-maker Leni Rifenstahl and ‘anti-Semite’ Walt Disney, but that didn’t mean he had to like those people as individuals. Similarly, we don’t have to like Jews to learn about them and from them. What came to be known as American ‘black music’ wouldn’t have been possible without blacks learning from whites. After all, American ‘black music’ developed nowhere else. It wasn’t indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Blacks learned from white musicians and made their own kind of music with their own rhythms, and white rockers took elements of black music and made it their own. Chinese have been learning and imitating Western technology, but it’s not for the power and glory of the West but for their own glory. If indeed the West learned the craft of gunpowder and paper from China, they didn’t do it for the sake of Chinese power and glory but for their own. It’s like what ‘Mozart’ says in AMADEUS the movie. He acknowledges that the opera came from Italy but he says Germans should create their own form of opera that is better and transcends the conventions of the Italian kind. So, seeing the Jews as the main enemy doesn’t mean we have to shut ourselves to Jewish genius. After all, much of the internet is run by Jews, but we use the technology anyway. Indeed, even as Jews have felt such hatred and contempt for goyim, their success in modern times owes to the fact that Jews were willing to learn from, steal from, be inspired by, and/or improve upon the achievements of the gentiles — even or especially the kinds of gentiles who were known to be ‘anti-Semites’. This is why National Socialism was limited in its imagination and effectiveness. Unlike Jews, it shut itself from too many useful outside/alien ideas and influences that could have been used creatively by the ‘Aryans’ themselves. Also, the National Socialism’s ‘sterility-ism’ and ‘antisepticism’ were blind to beauty that organically grows out of the muck. Plants and flowers grow from moist dark earth than from ‘clean’ sand and rocks. Life, even the most beautiful kind, grows from the ‘dirty’ earth. Indeed, the very process of reproduction is pretty gross, especially as the baby squeezes out with all that goo. For any culture to flourish, it needs to allow space for the earthy and fecund as well as the beautiful, graceful, and noble. It has to address the issues of the impermanence of life and beauty and has to boldly underline the processes of life that continues through birth, growth, decay, and death. Stalinism, for all its limitedness, did allow some degree of humanist earthiness, which is why even the USSR under Stalin was culturally more productive than Germany under the Nazis. Nazi art was dead art for it was about aesthetic ideals frozen in perfection with little sense of origin, growth, and death. They were beauty petrified into the perfect form. They were like seashells without the living organism inside. If Nazi art suffered from the overt idealization of perfection — plus the simple fact that so many Nazi artists were second-rate to begin with — , communist art suffered from conformism with the mass ideal, which reached its most extreme forms in China under Mao. What makes art and entertainment — even of the leftist kind — interesting is the sense of individuality that makes their components, vision, style, and/or imagination stand apart from others. It could be that the characters are eccentric, special, or different in surprising ways. Or even if it’s a work of propaganda — like the early films of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Rifenstahl’s two grand films made for Hitler — , it may stand out as bold, original, or unique expressions, as indeed BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and TRIUMPH OF THE WILL are. True art cannot be generic and standardized — interchangeable with whatever else is out there — , and even though generic entertainments can give us a good time, they are mostly disposable and forgettable. For this reason, genuine art and superior entertainment — whatever its ideology or purpose — are essentially elitist or rare-ist since so very few people possess high levels of imagination, inventiveness, and creativity. Almost anyone can write a song, but only a handful of people can write songs like "Bridge over Troubled Water" or "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" To the extent that so many English and Humanities Departments are less interested in this rare genius of great literature and would rather pontificate endlessly about ideological matters, it’s not surprising that much of the academia has gotten a bad rap — though I suspect there are still lots of diligent people doing worthy work who are simply ignored by those who stirring the ideological pot. Clearly, both Liberals and Conservatives prefer to focus on the kinds of schools and figures who stir up the loudest debates and ‘controversies’. But, when it comes to true art and creativity, it doesn’t matter what the religion, ideology, race, or culture is. Anyone who truly appreciates art and entertainment recognizes — and has the courage to admit — that artistic talent, while it can serve certain causes or ideologies, doesn’t play by ideological rules. A person with whom you disagree on just about every moral, political, and spiritual issue can be a great talent, and a person with whom you agree on just about everything could be a zero talent. This amorality of creative genius has made art a difficult issue for all sides. Even now, Jews wrestle with Richard Wagner’s irrefutable genius(as well as that of T.S. Eliot), and ‘anti-racist’ Americans still have trouble coming to grips with D.W. Griffith’s awesome THE BIRTH OF A NATION. And of course, the Nazis couldn’t come to terms with the genius of men like Gustav Mahler. To the extent that ideological systems — of any color — often favor the official line over individual creativity, they have a tendency to favor the second-rate ‘correct’ artist over the first-rate ‘heretical’ artist. So, Nazis elevated a lot of second-rate neo-classicist hacks, and much of communist art came to favor mediocrities who could reliably crank out the kind of stuff that pleased Stalin and Mao. Even so, Stalin and some of the elites of the Eastern Bloc weren’t entirely without artistic sense & taste — whereas Mao was — , and their systems did produce their share of worthy art that sometimes equaled and even surpassed the works created in the West. Could Hollywood have made something like ANDREI RUBLEV, COLOR OF POMEGRANATES, or THE RED AND THE WHITE? Does any Hollywood epic come anywhere near SIBERIADE by Andrei Konchalovsky? And how many political films in the West were as thoughtful as Andrej Wajda’s MAN OF MARBLE? And think of the wonders of the Czech Spring cinema. And it was under the communists that Emir Kusterica made his first masterpieces that put much of Hollywood film-making to shame. Besides, the West was hardly an equal opportunity paradise for just about any artist with talent. If one ran foul of the Jews, feminists, and homos since the 1980s, the entire art-and-entertainment complex could defacto conspire to lock you out. If a writer, film-maker, or musician was deemed a ‘racist’, his or her career could effectively destroyed no matter how talented he or she was. He or she wouldn’t be arrested, sent to prison camp, and/or shot in the back of the head — though Europe and Canada eventually came to fining and arresting people with ‘incorrect’ thoughts — , but he or she had less hope of working in the business than blacklisted communists during the so-called McCarthy Era. We know that it’s very difficult to break into many departments in the academia if one harbors politically incorrect views. And only reliable Liberals are given tenure in most departments. Even full-blooded Jews who run afoul of the ADL — such as Norman Finkelstein — have a difficult time getting teaching gigs — let alone tenures — as the colleges are hounded and intimidated with hostile action by the all-powerful Jewish elites that can make or break entire institutions financially unless they obey the dictates of the Jewish establishment. This is why there’s such ideological conformity in the academia. And even though the bohemian types sometimes bitch and whine about the state of affairs in colleges, they are no less PC and conformist-minded than the people who run the colleges. They too mindlessly attack and hound any idea that is deemed ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘homophobic’, and etc. Indeed, their main gripe seems to be that colleges are too ‘bourgeois’ and not ‘leftist’ enough. In many cases, it’s just resentment over the fact that others got the teaching gigs and tenures while they themselves didn’t. It’s often PC outsiders bitching about PC insiders.
That said, there’s some validity to people’s fears about creative-talent-outside-or-opposed-to-the-prevailing-values-of-a-social-order. There is something subversive about great creativity since (1) something so rare implies independence from the officially sanctioned norm and (2) a great work of art or entertainment has the power to spellbind and ‘corrupt’ a lot of people. This is why all social orders try to either suppress the power of individual creativity, win it over to its own side, or threaten & intimidate it so that it won’t serve the other side. Though Mel Gibson isn’t a great film-maker, he’s a man of some talent, and his PASSION OF THE CHRIST angered many Jews because its compelling manner of religious expression had the power to inspire millions of people, thereby undermining the narrative of Jesus’ death that is favored by Jews since the end of WWII: the killing of Jesus was entirely a Roman affair. If Gibson was a complete no-talent and nobody, Jews wouldn’t have cared what kind of film he made, but in fact, Gibson used his considerable talent and ample funds to make a film that came to attract billions of people all over the world. Especially as the film came out during the presidency of the ‘born-again’ George W. Bush, it freaked out a lot of Jews. THE BIRTH OF A NATION may well be the first great feature film of the art form that came to define the 20th century, and this was deeply disturbing to many people at the time and thereafter. Griffith was a great film pioneer — possibly even a genius — , but his talent was put in service of what some deemed as ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’. If a great talent tried to make a film like that today, he would be hounded and destroyed even before he raised a single buck for the project. A remake of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, even if or especially if made by a film genius, would be just about the most subversive thing that could happen to the current PC order. So, all sides fear the power of genius, originality, and imagination. Art and entertainment have the hypnotic, orgasmic, or rapturous power override the rational and skeptical faculties of people. Art and entertainment have the sorcerous power to make even non-believers believe; they can convert even the skeptics to a new or alternative way of feeling or seeing things. (To be sure, it’s not easy to be a skeptic for it leads to discomfort in the human psyche, emotions, and drives. Skepticism is a lonely form of self-restraint. It’s like if someone puts an entire cake on the table, you should just have a slice. But after you eat a slice, you want more and more. You want to eat the whole thing. Cake is made in such a way as to make you want more of that sweetness and creaminess. Eating the whole thing would be unhealthy and make you fat or diabetic. But you want to eat more. You need self-control to restrain yourself. When America was a nation of self-restraint, people were mindful of how much they ate. But as America became more hedonistic and shameless, we have more gluttonous pigs, and that accounts for the obesity epidemic. Same goes for sex. When America was socially more repressive and shame-oriented, individuals were taught to think about values and reputations. This was always bound to cause some discomfort because the animal-orgasmic side of man wants more/bigger pleasure. As America has grown more porny and horny, there’s less restraint and people dance at clubs like they are having sex. Sexual behavior has turned from carefully finding your slice of cake to having the entire cake. Such wantonness has made for emotional shallowness, inability to develop self-respect except as pimp or whore, and relational immaturity. It’s no wonder that the culture of love and marriage is collapsing all around. Divorce rates may be down, but then it’s because fewer people are getting married. Skepticism means to maintain a part of your individual soul and consciousness apart from whatever that is beckoning you to surrender completely. Such restraint causes discomfort because things that seduce and tempt us offer us total pleasure or salvation. Pop culture is sugar and cream. It’s formulated and marketed to offer instant-maximum-pleasure like cocaine and meth. It’s meant to addictive, and of course, the appeal of acquiring a new addiction is it offers another means of finding a quick fix for a high. [Paradoxically, addiction acquirement is a form of increased pleasure through increased pain. If you have an addiction, you will likely feel more uncomfortable when you can’t have the fix. But the desire for the fix and getting the fix gives you great pleasure. It’s like if you don’t have a cigarette/nicotine addiction, you don’t suffer the pain of not-smoking, but then, you don’t enjoy the pleasure of smoking either. It’s like sexuality — a naturally existing form of addiction — makes people uncomfortable for not ‘doing it’, but there’s intense pleasure to be had while doing it. Indeed, give the amount of discomfort and pain caused by not having sex, one might think a lot of people would take up the offer of being ‘asexualized’ bio-chemically so that they won’t suffer from sexual craving anymore, but most people will reject such an offer since they look to the pleasure of sexual release. Then, it’s not difficult to understand why even smart people do stupid things like getting addicted to cigarettes, gambling, sugar binges, and etc. Though they know the risks and the increased discomforts/pains caused by such addictions, they also know of the greater pleasures by indulging in them at opportune moments.] The influence of pop culture is poisonous because of how it’s been formulated and how the human mind works. If humans had more sense, they would see pop culture for what it is and enjoy it now and done like a piece of candy or cake. But just like many people want to eat the entire cake, those into pop culture totally surrender to its power. It becomes their core experience of their identity, culture, and ‘values’. As pop culture is essentially consumerist, materialistic, narcissistic, amnesiac, and immoral, it cuts off one from a sense of biological, historical, cultural, spiritual, and national community. Instead, one is made to feel as if he or she will be ‘forever young’ to indulge in the orgasmic pleasures of the moment. Also, as pop culture is obsessed with the image of the ‘cool’ — which is just an illusion as nothing real is ‘cool’ — , people who’ve surrendered to pop culture lack a humanist respect for anything that is ‘uncool’, ‘unhip’, or ‘badass’. If anything, the new radical narcissistic mind-set feels contempt for anything that doesn’t smack of the latest hip fashions and status-mania. This is why we need to be wary of the poisonous effect of pop culture. It and the human mind conspire to make us sugar-binge on the entire cake than eat just settle for a slice and fill up the rest of our stomach with healthier food. Healthy/natural foods are a combination of various tastes. An apple is sweet but NOT only sweet. In contrast, junk foods isolate certain flavors such as sweetness or creaminess to the exclusion of everything else. As such, the pleasures of junk food is maximized — as with illicit drugs — , but their value as nutrition is greatly diminished or even entirely obliterated. Same is true of pop culture. It ‘refines’ and ‘purifies’ certain sensations that increase maximum fight-and-fuc* orgasmic pleasures at the expense of all else. So, if music in the past had a sexy component along with romance and love, much of today’s songs are about nothing but fuc*ing. And if movies in the past had character, plots, and moral issues as well as action, many of today’s action movies are little more than porny celebrations of violence, mayhem, and explosions. 300 and 300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE may be superior examples of such, but they are nothing but bloodbath orgasms, or gore-gasms. Personally, I like pop culture too, but unless we approach it with a ‘slice of cake’ attitude than ‘entire cake’ attitude, it will poison our moral culture, just like an entire cake is poisonous to the body. Sugary cake should not be the mainstay of anyone’s diet, just like pop music, action blockbusters, junk teen literature, porny stuff, and etc., crap TV shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS should NOT be the mainstay of anyone’s cultural life. But as such has become the core cultural life of many youngsters — even adults who won’t grow up — , so many kids are aping the likes of Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Eminem, Lena Dunham, and other trashy morons. [If you must have pop, have some decency to at least prefer Cady Groves and TWILIGHT movies.] This is true of religions as well. All religions say surrender your soul completely to God or higher truth. If you maintain a degree of skepticism, you are seen as uncommitted or even heretical. For full salvation, you must surrender completely. Same goes for ideologies. A kind of "If you’re not with us, you’re against us" mentality pervades both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’. The idiotic ‘left’ will shriek and howl about anyone who even questions a facet of the latest PC fad. And thick-skulls on the ‘right’ will deem as ‘unpatriotic’ anyone who won’t ‘support the troops’. Given that humans are social animals that evolved in close-knit tribes and communities, it’s not difficult to understand why people feel this way. Skepticism and individuality go against human nature. Indeed, what is truly pernicious about modern pop culture is that it sells conformism and total-surrender-ism as ‘individuality’. So, even though so many young ones are brainwashed into talking in the same rap-infected lingo and splattering themselves with ugly arm tattoos[in imitation of Justin Bieber, Lena Dunham, or some other freak], they think they are being ‘themselves’. Todd bless Bella Swan who isn’t into mindless shopping and consumer-conformism. Even as all of us have certain loyalties and leanings, we must safeguard a part of us that resists totally surrendering to the ‘entire cake’. Too much of anything is dangerous. Each us must find a way to a RESISTANCE FIGHTER against Pop Culture that is dominated and controlled by globalist Jews who seek to own and control our souls. But, this doesn’t mean we should totally reject pop culture because it does offer certain pleasures. It’s like we need to control our intake of soda pop, but we can have a can of Coke or 7-Up once in a while. Besides, puritanism and prostitutionism/pornographism are two sides of the same coin. Deny yourself too much pleasure in the name of purity, and it might lead to wholesale rejection of puritanism and total surrender to prostitutionism; but then, those who’ve debased and degraded themselves via excessive prostitutionism may go crawling to puritanism for salvation. It’s like, in order for people to have immunities against certain germs, they need to be inoculated with vaccines of those very germs. If you lack such immunities, you might fall prey to the germs. Look what happened to the natives of the Americas who had no immunities to Old World germs. So, parents who are overly protective of their children from junk culture may actually be making their children more defenseless against it. What are the best defenses against the poisonous nature of pop culture? Love of art, literature, and humanities. Real art, unlike ‘family values’ propaganda, deals with issues of the human condition, the problems of crime-temptation-nihilism, and etc. Also, grounding in philosophy makes people think about things instead of just falling for trends in pop PC ideology. Also, awareness of higher forms of art in painting and music broadens one’s perspective. If you know classical music and the rich traditions of folk music, you won’t see pop music as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It’s like if you’ve learned to appreciate real food and healthy drink, you won’t be so crazy about sugary junk and soda pop. And if you appreciate the depth of cinematic art, your idea of cinema won’t be limited to ‘tent-pole’ Hollywood movies and trashy junk on TV. Though cinephile community has a lot of looneys, I’d still wager that cinephiles, by and large, have better cultural sense than most fans of pop culture. Cinephilia, as an appreciation of cinema as an art form, cultivates qualities such as patience, curiosity, memory, mindfulness, and empathy. Art is a conversation between truth and artifice that reflects another truth, whereas mere entertainment is a matter of industry formulating a product to rake in maximum profits by giving people what they want or have been made to think they want. If movie buff culture is fixated mainly on latest big releases and Hollywood celebrity, cinephilia is interested in matters and issues all around the world as refracted through the lens of cinema. Also, it has a sense of memory as it preserves the canonical achievements of great film masters such as Carl Dreyer and Robert Bresson. It’s not just about what-is-hot-and-what-is-not. In contrast to cinephilia, much of music culture in the West is only fixated on Anglophone pop music, much of which today is just rap nursery rhymes about ‘muh dick’, ‘my ho’, and ‘shut up nigga’. Cultivation of serious culture is the best bulwark against the poison arrows of junk culture. It’s like those with the least culture are often most vulnerable to excesses of basic/debased appetites. American Indians had primitive culture and were defenseless against alcohol sold to them by the white man. In contrast, Jews, with a strong spiritual and literary culture, were impervious to such temptations. If anything, just as more advanced whites hooked primitive Indians with ‘firewater’, smarter Jews hooked less intellectual/serious whites with junk culture, porn, and pharmaceuticals. Chinese were able to stave off the onslaught of opium sales by British imperialists because they did have an advanced culture and a powerful sense of their heritage and identity; in contrast, less cultured Filipinos and Koreans are succumbing to pop-culture junk addiction. In America, educated whites are less likely to fall prey to stuff like meth and other drugs than lower class whites who tend to indulge in meth and moonshine. On the other hand, elites today have a weaker sense of seriousness. Their idea of Important Art is Andy Warhol, and their idea of ‘serious art’ is BREAKING BAD or THE WIRE, and their idea of a ‘public intellectual’ is Lena Dunham and Amanda Marcotte. Some of them even get tattoos and piercings. As for the voice of ‘millennials’, it’s morons like Jenna Marbles who is obviously missing a few marbles. Ross Douthat is an idiot who hates TWILIGHT and surrendered to ‘gay marriage’, but he made a valid point in discerning the difference between what successful Liberal elites do and what they say. Most of them do NOT raise their kids to become like Jenna Marbles or Lena Dunham, but they pay lip-service to hedonistic hipsterism because they are so anxious to be thought of as ‘cool’ and ‘hip’. Because moral judgement and ‘high brow’-ism have become associated with the Right and/or snobs of yesteryear, even Liberals who disdain much of pop culture tend to keep mum or mute their criticism. Oddly enough, Susan Sontag, who was often credited with subverting the dichotomy between high culture and low culture — though her role and intention in this has been greatly exaggerated as she was ALWAYS a serious thinker — , spent her energies since the seventies toward defending high/serious culture from the rising tide of frivolity as the new Culture of Importance. Still, while moderation is ideal in most cases, it must be said that certain things are impossible without obsessive total commitment. Some things cannot be achieved with a moderate sensibility. The great European voyagers who discovered and connected the entire world were bold visionary men willing to take great risks. Had Beethoven and Van Gogh been moderate in their commitment and devotion to art, they never would have achieved greatness. Some callings in life are extreme by nature. It’s like Evel Knievel would never have done what he did if he’d been more sensible and cautious about using his motorcycle. That said, we must make a distinction between individual extremism and collective extremism. Beethoven and Van Gogh were extreme but in the development of their individual visions. They weren’t surrendering themselves to an ‘entire cake’ but insisting on creating a better cake, and in that was a kind of nobility that collective extremists will never understand. It’s like what Stanley Kubrick said of the Icarus myth. One way to read the myth is that one shouldn’t try to fly to close to the Sun. But maybe another lesson, at least for men of greatness, is the challenge of building a better craft that can fly ever higher.) The morality/amorality of art has always been matter of great controversy. Consider the power that Richard Wagner had on an entire generations of Germans. Because so many artists and entertainers have been on the ‘left’ since the end of WWII, there’s this truism that Liberals are for creativity/talent whereas Conservatives just want stuff like the ‘family movie’ or ‘gung-ho movie’. So, creativity is ‘liberal and good’. But if a lot of creative artists were to express themselves through sounds and images that are hostile to Jewish interests, Zionism, & the homo agenda, Liberals and ‘progressives’ would have a big problem with creativity. Indeed, despite the fact that most artists and entertainers being Liberals or Leftists, the academic Left still continues to attack the notion of genius, originality, individuality, personality, and etc. (Part of the reason is that, even though most of today’s artists and entertainers are reliably ‘liberal’, most of the greatest writers and artists through the ages have been ‘white males’, the kind of people celebrated by Charles Murray’s book HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT.) They prefer schools of thought that are usually grounded in some leftist ideology. Ideology, after all, is more reliable than creativity and originality. A leftist is a leftist whether he or she is artistically talented or not. But there is no absolute guarantee that an artistic genius will be pro-Jewish, pro-Leftist, pro-homo, or pro-PC. There’s much about THE WILD BUNCH and STRAW DOGS that would make a lot of ‘progressives’ flinch and sick in the stomach, but they are powerful works made by a great film-maker. Art and entertainment have the power to enchant, enrapture, seduce, corrupt, hypnotize, convert, and transform people in an instant. It’s like Michael Corleone fell in love with Apollonia with just one look. As powerful as words and ideas are, the power of sensuality and thrills conveyed through film, music concerts, and mega-stage productions are like mini-Nuremberg rallies that has everyone screaming "Heil Hitler", "Heil Jew", or "Heil _____". Or it has the power to goad people into giving the middle-finger to the prevailing authority. Imagine if Charlie Chaplin’s THE GREAT DICTATOR had been screened all across Nazi Germany. Its magic might have broken the Hitler spell. Indeed, few things are deadlier to authority than having it reduced to an object of mockery. This is why Jews encourage us to laugh at their enemies, but we better not laugh at anything that is sacrosanct to Jews or their allies. The policy is "No Jokes about Elie Wiesel and MLK." Whether pro- or con-, all of us have been manipulated to be for something and against something largely on the basis of the movies, music, TV shows, and books we consumed — or were forced to consume as part of the school curriculum. So, the narrative of something like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD has become almost sacrosanct, but suppose a great novelist writes a book about something like the Knoxville Massacre or some other horrific black-on-white crime. Suppose the author has no love for Negroes and believes in the right of the white race to defend itself and survive. Suppose he’s a man of genius and produces a very powerful work. Would Liberals, Jews, and blacks still favor genius and talent over ideology and political correctness? Or, would they say such a work is beyond the pale, a corruption of artistic talent? Or will they say it’s ‘bad art’ since there’s no way a good work of art can be ‘racist’? The Liberal establishment favors genius/talent over conservative culture/expression but favors Liberal culture/expression over politically incorrect genius/talent, though, to be sure, it isn’t always the case. It’s like the Liberal stance on ‘freedom of speech’. Liberals will favor freedom-of-speech principles over Conservative values, but will favor Political Correctness over freedom-of-speech principles. Whether it’s creative genius or freedom-of-speech, it has to be neutral or Liberal under the rules of PC, but if it happens to be overtly anti-Liberal and politically incorrect, Liberals will focus more on the evil of its ideology than on the genius of its expression. This explains why there’s no end to articles about how Wagner and Martin Heidegger should be denounced more for their political views than for their genius as composer or philosopher. But then, if some great artistic or intellectual talent on the Left was morally tainted, Liberals will tend to favor the admiration of his or her genius, insight, and vision than the denunciation of him or her for disgraceful political views. But if Conservatives held power over the elite institutions, they would likely act no different. It’s just a facet of human nature when it comes to power.
For Part 2 of this blogpost, CLICK HERE.
Once Upon A Time In America: Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascism On The Politics Of Victimology: Victimology Is Not The Problem. Consideration Of Our Victimology Vs Other Victimology. Part 1. >>>>> Download Now
ReplyDelete>>>>> Download Full
Once Upon A Time In America: Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascism On The Politics Of Victimology: Victimology Is Not The Problem. Consideration Of Our Victimology Vs Other Victimology. Part 1. >>>>> Download LINK
>>>>> Download Now
Once Upon A Time In America: Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascism On The Politics Of Victimology: Victimology Is Not The Problem. Consideration Of Our Victimology Vs Other Victimology. Part 1. >>>>> Download Full
>>>>> Download LINK n2