French cultural dominance was served by French political dominance, but even after the fading of France hegemony in economics and military power, French culture maintained its prestige as long as the cultural mode of Europe remained elitist, intellectual, and/or Eurocentric(for lack of a better term). Despite the great achievements in art, literature, and music among Germans, Russians, Poles, and others, France continued to maintain its edge in most areas of culture and ideas. The only real rivals were the Germans and Italians in music and then later, Germans in philosophy. While one could argue that Russia produced a number of writers who were as great or greater than any produced by France, French literature by and large eclipsed the output of all other European nations combined, with the exception of Britain, but there was a continental bias against the Britons who weren’t necessarily regarded as Europeans.
In the age of aristocracy, most new fashions and dances originated in France. (French aura and prestige were such that, instead of coming up with their own styles, non-French high societies just waited eagerly for the French to come up with the new and different. Or, the creative and original among the non-French might move to France, often permanently, to breathe in the creative air and live as expatriates, thus becoming French in espirit.) Great non-French artists, thinkers, and activists often drew their elixir from the French cultural spring.
Lucky for the French and European culture in general, even with the fall of the aristocratic order following WWI, elitism was alive and well in the world of arts and letters, even at the core of Modernism, which, though anti-traditional, also tended to be anti-populist, ala Hollywood and Mass Culture. Modernist Art was clearly not for everyone; one needed to be in-the-know to appreciate movements like ‘cubism’, ‘surrealism’, and other isms. And despite the radical rise of mass politics, intellectualism was very much in the air in a culture that was overwhelmingly literary. Men-of-Letters commanded the most respect. It sure was no strike against Lenin to have written enough material to fill up many volumes. And it was a time of Big Ideas when an intellectual worthy of his name was expected to produce a tome like DAS KAPITAL, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, or BEING AND TIME.
The deeper meaning of Marxism could only be understood by intellectuals who could make sense out of stuff like DAS KAPITAL. Even intellectuals who spoke in the name of the people most often spoke and polemicized in the language of intellectualism and theoretics, sometimes esoteric and difficult to discern at times — the masses might respect these people in the way that the illiterate and semi-literate in earlier times were impressed by the clergy who could recite Latin, the language of sanctity. Even as intellectuals and radicals spoke in the name of the People, their vanity as thinkers and secular prophets followed in the age-old tradition: They deserved to lead the people because they knew so much more than the people. Consider the Frankfurt School.
Of course, intellectuals switched gears accordingly, pandering to general readers when not writing for intellectual peers, be they allies, rivals, or enemies. So, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote philosophical tomes and books that made no sense except to those ‘in the know’, but he also wrote popular material for general readers in the mass media. Modern intellectuals wanted to have the cake and eat it too: Establish and solidify their credentials as important thinkers who could only be understood by a select few(with sufficiently high intellect and broad erudition) AND play to the people to show that their ideas were relevant to real people with real problems. And such vanity existed on the Right as well, which is why National Socialists, with their deep inferiority complex in matters of arts and culture — as the great majority of most prominent thinkers, artists, and performers of late modernity were leftist, liberal, and/or apolitical than reactionary or right-wing — , invoked or feted important thinkers and artists to stock their movement with respectability. So, Hitler and other National Socialist intellectual-strivers might quote figures like Nietzsche or show gratitude for the support, even if half-hearted, of men like Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, Knut Hamsum, and others. Though some film scholars have called into question Fritz Lang’s account of Goebbels’ offering him control of German cinema, it wouldn’t have been out of character in the context of Nazi intellectual and cultural aspirations. Indeed, right-wing regimes even reached out to left-leaning artists and thinkers to garner some degree of ‘respect’. (Consider how Franco’s regime tried to win over Luis Bunuel. It was all the more frustrating for the Right because, even though right-wing regimes generally offered more freedom than left-wing regimes did, Western intellectuals still preferred leftism with its tendency toward totalitarianism over rightism that was, at worst, only authoritarian. How is this paradox to be explained? Why would so many Western thinkers and artists feel closer affinity toward totalitarian regimes of the left than to authoritarian regimes of the right? One reason is that rightist regimes could be more nakedly brutal precisely because of the greater freedoms. Since rightist regimes didn’t control everything, there was more opportunity for opposition and resistance. When things got out of hand, the only way to maintain control was to crack some heads. In contrast, because leftist regimes eradicated the very roots of potential opposition and seeded every child with dogma from cradle, the result was more social peace and cohesion. So, leftist regimes externally seemed more harmonious than rightist regimes. Another reason is that Western intellectuals, in their radical zeal, dreamed of having absolute power to change society for the better. Rightist regimes allowed a degree of freedom, but intellectuals couldn’t do much with it except write books and make some art. In contrast, leftist regimes could be idealized as the means for totally remaking society for the better. So, even if most Western intellectuals were likely to be more free in a rightist regime than in a leftist one, the most that rightist authoritarianism offered them was small personal freedoms. In contrast, while leftist regime could mean NO freedom at all, it could also mean TOTAL power in the hands of intellectuals to create utopia. Rightism meant some freedom and limited action, whereas Leftism could mean total freedom and total power for the intellectuals to do as they pleased. It was the risk that intellectuals and leftist artists were willing to take, at least from afar in their role as Western Intellectuals, like the ones in THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE by Denys Arcand.) And this became even a bigger problem after WWII as Western Europe, that had come under German invasion/occupation, held the conviction that right-wing Germany under National Socialism was the biggest evil that had ever existed. And once the Holocaust became ever more prominent in the historical/moral narrative, even right-wing or right-leaning thinkers and artists had to be very careful about their political or ideological affinities and affiliations. Though one could argue that the Soviets had been as murderous as the Nazis, Western Europeans hadn’t been directly affected by communism, and besides, Soviet Union had done the most to defeat Nazi Germany. (And with American Empire as the main enemy of the USSR, Western Europeans who resented American power naturally saw Americanism as ‘right-wing’; the Vietnam War especially gave Americans the reputation as the New Nazis.) So, while the European Left could be rabid, virulent, and extreme in the aftermath of WWII, the European Right had to be very cautious(even if it had been anti-Nazi during WWII). The cultural climate was such that Franco’s right-wing Spain eagerly catered to artists like Picasso and Luis Bunuel in the hope of having them return to Spain. Though Picasso was actively allied with communists, anarchists, and the like and even though Bunuel was famous for his anti-clerical subversiveness, the Spanish government hoped that associations with such artists might improve its image around the world. The Spanish government also had an open-arm policy to film-makers. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO was filmed there, as well as many Spaghetti Westerns, even those with leftist and/or anti-American themes.
At any rate, even after WWII, intellectualism and elitism defined much of Western Culture. European leftism was also organized around elitist attitudes. The most influential intellectual-cultural figures of this period were arguably Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus whose novels and plays administered heavy doses of socio-political philosophy. Indeed, both figures alternated among creative writing and philosophical writing and political writing, and often, the three modes were combined. And with the rise of the middle class in America in the post-war period, there was a mass desire for respectability, phenomenon that came to be denigrated as ‘mid-cult-ism’ by Dwight MacDonald. MacDonald’s point was that low/popular culture could be perfectly entertaining for what it is(honest trash), but high/elite/serious culture required the best of vision, depth, originality, and/or truth. It required genius and purity of commitment. MacDonald was fine with both honest low culture and singular high culture. What got his goat was this kitschy thing called ‘middlebrow’ culture that either inflated the low to faux-seriousness(or faux-respectability) OR diluted the high to something more generic and accessible. And MacDonald wasn’t entirely incorrect about the middlebrow audience not really being interested in art; they were really into ‘Art’ as status symbol, like the Shelly Winters’ character in Kubrick’s version of LOLITA. They might hang a reproduction of a Picasso or Vogh because it signified Kultur. They might attend operas because it was what the ‘best kind of people’ did. And they might mistake movies like BEN HUR or JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG as ‘art’ while being blind to the merits of HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR or L’AVVENTURA. (Or they might pretend to appreciate the Resnais or Antonioni film because it happened to be the ‘talk of the town’. Middlebrow audiences generally had no intellectual or cultural ‘agency’ of their own.)
Anyway, the immediate postwar era in America saw the dramatic rise of the middle class. The working class was also doing well, and ‘middle class consciousness’ began to infect their identity as well. In earlier eras, the ‘middle class’ didn’t necessarily mean those in the middle; it generally referred to white collar workers, the relatively affluent, the professional class. Varying among Western nations, the middle class might up 10 to 20% of the population, the majority of which was still made up of working class, servant class, underclass, and small farmers.
Prior to WWII, many American working class folks didn’t entertain notions of joining the middle class. They might want their kids to gain middle class status through education and social striving, but there was a clear class division between the working class and the middle class, and everyone knew that the vast majority of the population was well below the so-called ‘middle class’; and of course, middle-class-ness varied from race to race, ethnic group to ethnic group. Thus, the black middle class might be only 5% to 10% of the entire black population, and there would have been far fewer Italian-American middle class folks than among Anglo-Americans in a state like NY. Also, standards for ‘middle-class’ status varied among different groups. What might be considered ‘middle class’ among ethnic immigrant populations might have been deemed lower among the Anglo-Americans. After WWII, there wasn’t only a vast expansion of the middle class by the numbers — those working in white collar jobs, professional jobs, or owing small businesses — but by a change in consciousness whereby even those in working class occupations felt themselves to be part of the ‘middle class’. As working class folks got higher wages, could afford homes(with help of loans), own a car or two, and send kids to college, the working class became like a lower-middle class in America, especially as class consciousness in America had never been as strong as in Europe. Part of the reason was the relative freedom and greater fluidity of social mobility in America, but there was also the factor of ethnic diversity. Generally, class consciousness thrives most in homogeneous nations where the working class might unite against the upper classes. In America, the ethnic and even racial diversity of the working class and farming class made it less likely for American workers and farmers to come together to form a coalition based on class. So, even if the Irish-American working class, Italian-American working class, Polish-American working class, Jewish-American working class, Anglo-American working class, black-American working class, and etc. shared certain common economic interests, they favored tribal unity over class unity, especially as the fortunes among the various groups differed greatly. Furthermore, some groups were more adept at socio-economic elevation, and it made little sense for such groups to cling to lower-class identity when their child had a good chance of rising to higher classes. (If West Virginia hillbillies were stuck in their working-class or lower-class status — seemingly permanently — , Greek-Americans might rise high within a few generations.) Thus, a poor Irish-American might feel closer to a rich Irish-American than to a poor Italian-American, and vice versa. When Italian-Americans needed special help, they might to mafia bosses than Union bosses, but then, Union-related organizations ran along ethnic lines(and could even be managed by people connected to organized crime). Thus, Irish-Americans had their faction in the Unions, and so did other groups, just like blacks in Congress have their Black Caucus. Since poor Irish-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Irish-Americans, poor Italian-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Italian-Americans, and poor Jewish-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Jewish-Americans, America was bound to be more pro-capitalist. Even if an Irish-American remained poor, the sight of a rich and powerful Irish-American made him feel pride and power by association. Things were different back in Ireland, of course. Since almost everyone was Irish, there was no need to worry about tribal loyalty or national power since it was understood that all Irish, leftist or rightist, were for Ireland. So, the divisions, such as they existed, were more about class.
But no such ethnic or national sense of power could be taken for granted in America where each ethnic group had its own stake in its struggle for the ‘piece of the pie’. So, the default mode of each group was to root for the successful and powerful of their own kind. Thus, Irish-Americans came to place their hopes on powerful Irish-Americans, and this was true of blacks as well(though, to be sure, blacks came to rely on rich Jews who funded black movements in order to paralyze white gentiles with the stinging venom of ‘white guilt’.) In the South, poor whites sided with rich whites, and poor blacks sided with rich blacks.
Anyway, the huge middle class boom after WWII led to cultural neurosis among many Americans. Before middle-class-ness became the norm, most Americans had no great aspirations; they knew that life was about going to work, raising a family, growing old, retiring, and dying. They knew they weren’t going to college and their kids won’t be going to college either. Their cultural life revolved around Church, family, and the local community. But with the rise and spread of middle-class-ness, many Americans felt they should know some fancy art and culture. No longer could they snub the arts & culture with attitudes like, "What’s the big idear?" To keep up with the Joneses — who might have traveled to Europe, bought fashionable clothing, joined the Book Club, and saved money to send their kids to college — , many Americans figured they should have some taste and intellect. Maybe they should take their kids to the museum once in awhile. Maybe they should watch a foreign film now and then. Maybe they should buy the Harvard Classics for the library in the basement. Maybe they should subscribe to some ‘intellectual’ magazines like The New Yorker. And maybe they should lose some of their provincialism, whether it be rooted in small town values, Old World ethnic customs, or Christian moralism. Maybe they should gaining an inkling of sophisticated stuff like ‘psychology’, especially the fashionable theories of Freud that challenge the so-called New England Puritanism that supposedly made America repressive(politically as well as sexually), though to be sure, the Catholic communities probably had more to do with cultural censoriousness in the 20th century, and besides, the classic Communist Left was hardly made up of ‘free love’ libertines, and they loathed Rock n Roll as ‘capitalist-hedonistic-consumerist’ music and flipped out when Dylan ‘went electric’ at the Newport Festival. Anyway, because of all such aspirations of the nouveau-middle-class that didn’t know how to be truly ‘middle class’ — in the respectable bourgeois and/or intellectual bohemian sense — , they needed lessons and cues from the ‘better’, ‘smarter’, and/or ‘hipper’ kind of people.
Anyway, there was a new striving for respectability among the nouveau-middle-class. But because of the influence of modernism & avant-garde-ism and the fashionableness of ‘radicalism’, the neo-respectability wasn’t like traditional bourgeois respectability centered around manners, sobriety, and propriety. While the traditional bourgeois ideal didn’t fade overnight, the American intellectual elites looked to Europeans and European emigres for Big Ideas, and one of the biggest figures was Jean-Paul Sartre, who even visited America in the 1950s and wrote something in the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville. The problem was Sartre was a radical Marxist, anti-capitalist, and anti-American(despite his bourgeois privileges). Indeed, many of the ‘leading’ thinkers, intellectuals, artists, writers, and performers of the postwar era in America were radical-leaning, not least because American culture, both elitist and populist, had been transformed from the 1930s to the 1950s with the arrival of European, especially Jewish, emigre elites. On the one hand, due to their intellectualism and European-ism, the Jewish emigre thinkers were conflated with seriousness and respectability. After all, the unwashed masses didn’t read philosophy or attend art galleries featuring the latest avant-garde works. It was the elites and the aspiring middle classes who did. But such works were ideologically ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’ even if they were mainly consumed by privileged sophisticates who hung around ‘respectable’ institutions such as museums and universities. Indeed, consider the films of Luis Bunuel that ceaselessly mocked the bourgeoisie in the name of the Revolution or some radical notion. And yet, the great majority of people who watched his films were members of the bourgeoisie and their children who, for all their ‘radical’ or ‘neo-Marxist’ posturing, were headed to college and sought social elevation. Thus, ‘radicalism’ and respectability merged into one, into ‘radictability’. To be sure, this was nothing new as the European bourgeoisie had constituted the bulk of the audience and patrons of modernism in art and produced children who were most likely to adopt fashionably ‘radical’ ideas — that were increasingly less about the substance of economic revolution and more about styles of transgression that hardly threatened the economic powers-that-be and, if anything, served it with mocking flattery — , but what differentiated the postwar period in both Europe and America was that the middle class was much larger, and many more people had access to this fusion of radicalism and respectability. To watch and discuss a film like Jean-Luc Godard’s BREATHLESS was both respectable and ‘radical’. It was indeed a new kind of cinema with dangerous ideas and a subversive outlook, but it was also the favorite of film festivals organized and attended mostly by those with means and sensibility(attained through higher education). And the film was written about mostly in journals for the ‘better kind of people’. So, while the ‘unwashed masses’ — who were, to be sure, the well-showered masses due to mass availability of modern plumbing — were more into Hollywood movies and pop music, the more ‘intellectual’ and ‘sophisticated’ types were ‘thinking’ about Godard’s film and the French New Wave(and Modern Jazz), and of course, the bulk of such people tended to be middle class types in big cities or college towns. You can see the combination of respectability and radicalism in the Folk Movement, especially in the figure of Bob Dylan.
 |
| A Jewishy Italian-American folk-rocker artist(who carried on his shoulder an orange tabby cat if not a Siamese one) in INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS by the Coen Brothers who want to be the Bob Dylan of cinema. |
But over time, middle class kids soon tired of "Erie Canal" and "This Land Is Your Land"(already a pseudo-folk song by Woody Guthrie who was something of a faker as a ‘hobo’ poet-of-the-people). The stuff was getting boring, and so, the arrival of Bob Dylan in the folk scene was like godsend. He looked and sang rougher than the others, thereby seeming authentic, even though he was a Jewish kid from a middle class family. More significantly, despite the earnestness of songs like "Blowing in the Wind", there was wit, originality, brilliance, and eccentricity generally lacking in the other folkies. Instead of being the typical boring Mr. Do-gooder who was dime-a-dozen in the Folk Movement, Dylan was infected with the edgy hipsterism of the jazzy Beat Generation. And even his moralistic songs had a certain irony and playfulness that went beyond the kind of save-the-world drivel sung by Joan Baez whose falsetto voice turned everything into a holier-than-thou homily.
So, a song like the "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" wasn’t merely a sermon but a kind of thought experiment, with Dylan posing certain mind-games: "But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears, Take the rag away from your face, Now ain't the time for your tears." Dylan seemed to be both flattering and mocking his listeners: flattering them for having the decency to care about the death of Hattie Carroll and raptly listening to his song, but also mocking them down for their preference of comfort of self-righteous sentimentality over commitment to real action. And yet, the song isn’t a simple call for action either — like John Lennon’s later song "Power to the People" — but self-reflective and self-mocking as well. Thus, it sermonizes but subverts its own sermonizing; it praises the caring audience but sneers at the narcissism of ‘caring’. Dylan was playing it on several levels and shaping folk music from a simple moral matter to a twisted moral maze. Dylan’s impact on the Folk scene was so fast and profound that it soon couldn’t do without him, which is why it was all the more jarring to see him go ‘electric’ at Newport. It was one thing for Dylan to add sugar and spice to the Folk Movement. It was quite another for him to feed alcohol to the kids. It was as if Moses descended Sinai not with the Ten Commandments but with the Golden Calf. It was as if the Negro in LILIES OF THE FIELD got the nuns into Charlie Parker than merely singing gospel in a more vibrant way.
One wonders. Suppose Dylan hadn’t joined the Folk movement, and it came to be defined by the likes of Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, and Peter, Paul, and Mary(without the songs contributed by Dylan). The Folk Movement may never had an ‘edge’ and might have petered out as a cultural statement in the early 60s(and may not have sprouted a branch called Folk Rock). Dylan infused the Folk Movement with new life, and without him, it might have had nowhere to go.
Dylan did most for the Folk Movement in the 1960s but also did most to undermine it by leaving it. In leaving, he wittingly or unwittingly played pied piper to a whole bunch of others folkies — like members of the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield — who chose to compose personal music than stick to old folkie standards. And once power of personality took precedence over populist politics in what remained of the Folk Movement, all sorts of creative possibilities opened up.
If Pete Seeger hated Dylan’s electric songs, imagine how he probably felt about the Byrds’ "Eight Miles High" or "Hey Mr. Spaceman". (Though men like Pete Seeger were all for Negro rights, they also subconsciously feared the wild-ass muscular Negro and believed that traditional Folk Music, white or black, was the best way to bring the races together. Such music would tame their wilder energies — especially those of the jive-ass Negroes who be stronger than white folks — and make them more reverent toward older folks, noble workers, and social values. If Negroes were encouraged to act wild and crazy, race relations would fall apart. So, Seeger saw Rock n Roll and ‘electric music’ akin to feeding alcohol to the Indians. Given the history of Black Rampage that soon followed the Civil Rights Movement, Seeger wasn’t entirely wrong even though, of course, he never spelled it out that way. Rap music is all the rage, but Rap Culture makes it more difficult for non-blacks to get along with crazy-ass Negroes into Thugro Culture.) Once Dylan went electric, inhibitions began to drop like flies in the Folkie community despite the opposition of diehard purists, and many soon followed in Dylan’s footsteps. Folk went from Protest music to Personal music. It was more about self-expression than save-the-world.
Yet, if the infusion of hedonistic and neurotic strains loosened up the Folkie community, the ‘defection’ of Dylan from ‘folk’ to ‘pop’ made pop music more serious than ever before. Folk music was about ‘save the world’ while Pop music was about ‘see my girl’, but as Rock musicians began to see themselves as messengers(as Dylan had been during the Protest phase) than mere entertainers, they felt compelled to make grand statements, such as "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles and "We Love You" by the Rolling Stones.
 |
| Bob Dylan as Personal Artist |
 |
| Dylan's Retreat in Woodstock from the Peak Creative Period in 1966 |
Anyway, Federico Fellini didn’t recover after 8 ½, and Sam Peckinpah never came close to anything on the level of THE WILD BUNCH again. It took nearly a decade and half for Tarkovsky to make another film comparable in greatness to ANDREI RUBLEV: the ‘science-fiction’ film STALKER. (Though there’s been talk about computers making music in the future, will it ever be capable of producing something like BLONDE ON BLONDE? Will it have personality, eccentricity, and sense of biography that makes Dylan’s album so singular.
Already, we have people composing music with the help of test-marketing, advanced electronics, and psychological studies. It’s almost as if they’ve turned the art of music into a computer software, an app. To maximize market share and profits, music industries recruit psychologists to test market what kinds of beats, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies appeal the greatest number of young people. (The industry goal is to turn consumers into addicts. It used to be that the industry focused on catchy melodies that might become hits. But this approach led to too many misses. It took genuine individual talent of, say, a Carole King, Burt Bacharach, Brian Wilson, or Smokey Robinson to come up with memorable melodies. Now, melodies are secondary to the ‘sound’, the all pervasive rhythm and beat that are almost indistinguishable from song to song. So, even if the melody is limp or tiresome, the songs are sustained with busy beats that provide the high. The ideal of the individual artist was to be as distinct from others as possible. The model of the idol, now favored by the industry, is to be as generic as possible. Such genericism, however, goes unnoticed by many because of the salacious nature of the material that makes it seem ‘daring’ and ‘rebellious’.) And computer engineers keep ‘perfecting’ software and technologies that make it easier for composers to add and mix all kinds of sounds — just about anyone can download programs that can turn any spoken speech into a ‘song’. So based on data of what turns people on — how their senses function and respond to certain electronic-stimuli — a globo-style of music has become the standard around the world. Consider how so many songs now sound alike whether they’re from Japan, France, or India. Indeed, 90% of them might as well have been produced by computer programs. Though every musical genre has its own formula, there were many more dominant genres around the world than there is now in the era of globo-standardization — most musical styles around the world are like non-American imitation of MTV. Furthermore, unique eccentricities matter less than formulaic syntheticism that pervades the idol-centrism of the music industry. Song-smiths matter less than Song-programmers, and spontaneous personalities matter less than well-drilled performers. The diminishment of personality has been compensated by intensification of pornographics, i.e. "I’m special because I’m pornier than you." If unique talent and style no longer draw the line between worthy and unworthy, there is only ‘me so horny’ versus ‘me so hornier’. (Likewise, in the Art World, the total collapse of meaningful artistic criteria has led to Worth — of contemporary art — being judged almost solely by financial value via cynical manipulation. Art was always an investment, but it used to be art works were expensive because they had artistic value, like the works of Vincent van Gogh. Nowadays, the finance comes first, i.e. if enough insiders rig up the price of an ‘art work’, it has value regardless of artistic value. It’s like finance once used to serve manufacturing, productive, investment, and saving economy, but now, so much of Wall Street is geared to playing games to increase value through insider tricks, especially among Jews, explaining why so many of the Jewish super-rich made their massive fortunes in finance.)
Stevie Nicks was unmistakably Stevie Nicks, and no one mistook her for Joni Mitchell or Carole King, but does anyone really care about the differences among the latest madonna, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Rhianna, Skankasshokura, and etc? They have different styles to be sure, but they all look so manufactured.
Of course, there are still surprises like Cady Groves whose amazing album THE LIFE OF A PIRATE is comparable to the early songs of Loretta Lynn. Cady is real in ways that pop idols are not.
 |
| Cady Groves who staked her musical claim with songs of real experience and emotions. Sadly, the industry is turning her into yet another bubbly plastic idol. Her music went from chewing jerky to chewing gum. This happens all the time in pop music. A genuine talent with something real to say is surrounded by 'friends' and agents who pretend to 'care' and know what's best for the artist. In no time, they turn her into just another a dime-a-dozen industry idol. When she started out, there was no one like her. Now, her agenda seems to be another Katy Perry. |
Likewise, despite the high regard for Andrei Tarkovsky, ANDREI RUBLEV will never have mass appeal. Artistic perfectionism of a Tarkovsky is entirely different from the economic perfectionism of Hollywood, the main objective of which is to maximize profits and maintain market dominance. To be sure, it’s not just about profits but about Jewish power. Hollywood could surely make a lot of money by making movies with blonde heroes battling wicked greedy Jews, but why would Hollywood Jews spread a message that might undermine their dominant stake in society? Thus, most ‘conservative’ Hollywood movies are designed to channel white Conservative rage at foreign enemies while enforcing the taboo forbidding the portrayal of domestic Jews as villains. Hollywood and other Jewish centers of culture have been perfecting not only the profit-mechanism but the ideological-mechanism of shaping mass minds into Jewish-friendly sheeple. Thus, a show like WILL & GRACE is meant not only to rake in lots of dough but to disseminate Jewish and Homo supremacist message in the most effective way so that vast numbers of gentiles will be brain-addled into slavish suckers of Jews and homos.
The human mind is under intense study & scrutiny in top universities in America, but much of these insights and understanding are being employed and exploited by a capitalism that is unmoored from morals & values and only cares about profits — even if it means turning the masses into soulless morons. No better is that the political culture is dominated by a fearful & paranoid hostile elites — mainly Jews and some homos — who use the knowledge of the mind not to enlighten us as thinking adults but to manipulate us as dumb children. Indeed, one gets a strange feeling while reading Steven Pinker’s books like THE BLANK SLATE and BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE. On the one hand, they are packed with all manner of new discoveries and theories about the mind and human nature, but there is a sly nagging insistence that certain taboos — especially those pertaining to race — must remain as such because free discussion may bring about the decline or even fall of Jewish power. Pinker is essentially trying to touch upon the reality of biology — something the Jewish Left has been publicly allergic to — to render it safe for politically correct consumption. To admit the power of biology is politically incorrect, but eventual palatability may be at hand with a gentler and kinder style. Thus, the ideas that had been denounced by Liberal Jews as wrong, even evil, could gradually be appropriated by Jews as something mildly unnerving but detoxicated and tamed. Notice how Pinker says there is a human nature(thus admitting the power of biology), but there are no racial natures(thus refraining from going ‘there’ that might provoke the ‘anti-racists’).
 |
| Steven Pinker moonlighting at 50s-themed diner in 2001 to earn extra cash to finish his project of becoming an immortal super-Jewish robot-man |
Anyone who has spent considerable time with whites, blacks, Mexicans, yellows, and other groups of people would notice that, despite the basic commonality of human nature among all peoples(as well as the factor of culture), there are also certain general innate variances across racial groups that aren’t exactly trivial. Any scientist who insists that racial differences are trivial is either a liar or living in a naive bubble world. It’s possible that since Pinker spent most of his life around well-mannered high IQ people of all backgrounds and races — Jewish, white, Asian, Arab, Negro, etc. — , he is blind to the true repercussions of racial differences(especially among the hoi polloi whites who must integrate with trashy Negro thugs), not least because the arid tone of the academia happens to be passionless(except in the heavily politicized departments where we have the strange spectacle of professors getting all worked up using terminology and jargons that sound ill-fitted for emotions: A sampler: "And surely, if his analysis has any validity at all, it should establish quite persuasively that the commodity is indeed the capillary point of that political economy." Here is another: "Moreover, Foucault's focus on the local and capillary nature of modern power clearly resonates with feminist efforts to redefine the scope and bounds of the political, efforts that are summed up by the slogan “the personal is political"). But in the more natural and emotionally expressive world of the underclass(where people say stuff like, "Fuc* you, a**hole", "Suck my dic*", or "I’m gonna kick your ass."), it’s easy to take notice of different natural characteristics of the various races, not least because lower-class people have fewer inhibitions in behavior and speech. They are less mindful of manners and what may constitute ‘proper behavior’. Between the two possibilities(disconnect or deception), I think Pinker is a liar because he seems too smart and knowledgeable about the world to be unaware of the problems of racial differences in America. Surely, he must know that the main reason for the high rates of interracial crime involving black-on-non-black violence has mostly to do with racial differences in physicality and emotions, i.e. blacks are generally physically stronger and emotionally more aggressive and less inhibited or self-controlled. If Pinker, after surveying all the relevant data and surveys, cannot admit to this, he is either a coward in the face of politically correctness or willfully perpetuating politically correct taboos to serve Jewish supremacist goals because, after all, any honest discussion of racial differences will favor whites morally and politically, and that may lead to the revival of white power politics calling for white survival and security from the threat posed by Negroes. And if whites were to see themselves as righteous biological victims of Negroes, then the cult of ‘white guilt’ will fade, and then it will be difficult for Jews to control whites by baiting their guilt conscience.
Also, there’s a difference between creating and catering. Something is created because the creator feels a need to create regardless of how others may respond to it. It may or may not have value, but it was created because of the urge to create on the part of the creator. Thus, every created object is the outcome of force of vision and will. In contrast, catering is about understanding what others want and assembling objects that most ‘perfectly’ serve those demands. A creative chef will come up his own dish out of personal conviction. But a ‘caterive’ cook will make dishes that will most likely appeal to less adventurous, discerning, or sophisticated appetites; he has no desire to challenge the taste buds of others. This is the difference between someone like Philip Roth and Neil Simon. Some of Roth’s books may not go down well with readers, but Roth felt a need to honestly reflect his experiences and thoughts — even if one cannot be honest with the rules of life, one can be honest with the demands of art, thereby opening a backdoor to the hidden truths of life, as suggested in BEING JOIHN MALKOVICH. In contrast, Neil Simon has always catered to middlebrow expectations and tastes. (There’s nothing wrong with that as long as there’s no pretensions otherwise. Aaron Sorkin is offensive because he works on the level of Neil Simon but pretends to be something closer to David Mamet.) Even though computers can be programmed to write intelligent-sounding sentences, can it express the deep truths of great literary figures? It’s doubtful, unless of course, computers become sentient, possessed of emotions & unique ‘personalities’, and develop their own biographies(or cybographies). Today’s popular culture is exceedingly ‘caterive’ than creative(or at least morally serious). The great success of Apple is very much the sign of the times. Everyone holding the same kind of iPhone and owning the same kinds of iPods, where news and music are no longer something to absorb but something to tweedle endlessly with the restless thumb. But what do you expect from a company that turned "Think Different" into a trademark, commercializing famous figures of the 20th century into ‘thinkbots’ whose presumed collective-prophecy was the apotheosis of Steve Jobs who died with the immortal words, "Wow". Considering Steve Jobs’ mania for the Beatles, a band that, despite its creativity and originality, was essentially about formulating the best method of cranking out #1 hits — a song like "Hello Goodbye" could probably be composed by a computer — , one wonders what it was about Dylan that appealed to Jobs so much. For one thing, if Jobs really appreciated Dylan, why was he also into Joan Baez? Even though Baez and Dylan made a popular pair in the heyday of the Folk Movement, Dylan couldn’t really stand her and had only used her to gain wider access. She was a ladder, nothing more.
 |
| Steve Jobs and Bob Dylan, two iconoclasts who became icons. Ain't gonna work on Steve Jobs' farm no more. |
Similarly, the thing about art/entertainment is so much can be conveyed with so little. A kind of universal or innate process is activated just by showing a little to the audience. The audience sense and feel much more than they are actually provided with. Thus, two hour film can feel ‘epic’, a few paragraphs in a novel can make the reader feel as though he’d been through a massive battle, and a series of narrated still image panels can bring the Trojan War to life. Indeed, especially before the coming of cinema, magic lanterns shows and illustrated books carefully featured certain key images to unlock and stimulate narrative movements in the minds of the audience. Thus, a child might be shown only 20 images of a certain tale, but his mind would naturally form a flow of images that fill in the ‘gaps’, and this process would happen effortlessly and automatically. It’d be like he had a built-in or innate understanding of story-telling that could make sense of and fill in a story even if provided only with fragments. But not any series of images, sounds, or words have the same impact on the senses. Certain combinations of stimuli carry more iconic or archetypal weight and trigger far more extra-imagery, and some artists and entertainers have a keen sense of which buttons to push or which triggers to pull than others do. This is something Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have in common. Just about every image in a Kubrick film not only looks great but suggests meaning far beyond the literal presentation. And just about every image in a Spielberg movie elicits strong responses, arousing sensations and emotions that go beyond what the trite narrative would merit. It’s not just a matter of what stimuli will cause what reactions but which stimuli will stir the imagination, i.e. make the person see and feel far more than what has actually been presented.
 |
| Spielberg's magic does it again. Pop Master's intuitive assembly of images turns trite material into one grand entertainment. |
It was only a matter of time before the argument of ‘entertainment CAN BE art’ turned into ‘entertainment IS art’, and so, we now even have people who take stuff like STAR TREK, DARK KNIGHT, THE SIMPSONS, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER seriously. And ‘serious’ directors and actors now invest a good deal of their time and energy in blockbuster movies about monsters that crawl out of the sea or ‘superheroes’ in funny costumes fighting silly-looking villains. Though the change in sensibility wrought by figures like Sarris, Kael, and Sontag had positive impact in allowing new possibilities, the Law of Simplification inevitably took hold of those ideas and vulgarized them. This appears to happen to just about every idea, vision, or value system. If the danger of overt hierarchy and/or dogmatism is the fostering of rigidity, stasis, and exclusiveness, the danger of loosening of standards is vulgarization, loss of direction & focus, corrosive triviality, and the rise of fashionable flippancy. If a Club, Society, or Organization adheres to the most strict standards of merit along established ‘truths’, it will be snobbish, arrogant, and blind to merit that doesn’t conform to narrow standards. But if it keeps broadening and lowering standards, then everyone becomes an artist and everyone becomes a critic. (Surely, even egalitarians must sense deep down inside that art is inherently hierarchical since it requires skill, talent, and originality. Art is valuable because most people cannot be worthy artists. Same goes for criticism. Even among Liberals who pontificate endlessly about equality, there are favorite critics who are respected for the superiority of their erudition, insights, and skills. Even among the vulgarian slobs who know & care nothing about art and only care about popular culture, there is a hierarchy of what is and isn’t ‘cool’. In some ways, pop culture can be even more discriminating and exclusive than the realm of Art. Since Artistic appreciation isn’t necessarily about immediate pleasure, thrill, or excitement, there is wide leeway of what constitutes artistic value. So, even a work that might be controversial, displeasing, difficult, or utterly worthless may receive some attention and be defended & promoted according to some intellectual logic. There can be no such consideration or ‘mercifulness’ in pop culture where something has to deliver the goods[what the audience wants] or it is out. It’s like sports or sex. In sports, the winner wins, loser loses. You cannot intellectually argue that the last-place finisher is as good as the first place finisher. One cannot argue that Danny Devito or Woody Allen is as sexually appealing as Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan. In a way, intellectualism, a highbrow form of thinking, may allow for more egalitarianism; sensualism, considered a lowbrow form of cultural experience, lacks such patience. Cultural patience can help us see higher value in serious art missed by those without the patience who can only tolerate immediate pleasure. But cultural patience can also be manipulated us into seeing value that simply isn’t there — the prime example of wasted cultural patience is the pseudo-intellectual reverence for Akerman’s JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst film ever made. Intellectualism can degenerate into warped philosophizing that goes for all sorts of twisted logic and infinite jests. One can intellectualize that the ‘last’ is the ‘first’ or that 2 + 2 = 5. But according to sensualism, the first is always first and last is always last. This is true of humor. What is funny is funny, what isn’t funny isn’t funny. Humor can be sophisticated, but its end-goal must be to elicit laughter, a strong sensual response. So, in a way, it’s easier to practice affections of egalitarianism via highbrow intellectualism than via lowbrow sensualism. An intellectual may cleverly argue that Gerry Cooney beat Larry Holmes through some warped meta-logic, but the sensual eye clearly saw Holmes beat Cooney. In some ways, the triumph of sensualism — especially black athleticism & musicality and Jewish wit & comedy — over intellectualism isn’t so much a triumph of egalitarianism over elitism but of honest elitism over false elitism. Sports is about honest elitism of the strongest and faster athletes dominating. Popular Music, as an expression of the raw instincts of ‘fighting and fuc*ing’, favors tough rappers over other kinds of musicians. And Jews with their ruthless wit and verbal skills know how to make people laugh and run circles around them in business and finance. This is one reason why European intellectualism lost out. Even though Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes have their defenders, it takes a good deal of intellectualizing to find value in their works and ideas that may or may not be of genuine merit. In contrast, no argument is necessary for who has the biggest muscles, biggest ass, biggest penis, biggest vocal chords, and biggest wit for funny bones. Globalists know the power of sensualism. Sensualism can be used associatively, which is why so many have been won over to ‘gay marriage’. An honest intellectual argument about ‘gay marriage’ would have included discussion of biology, fecal penetration, morality, consequences & responsibility, and etc. And all those facts would have been on the side of decent folks who believe in true marriage. But by associating homosexuality with the sensualism of humor, celebrity glitz, entertainment, rainbow colors, and bread-n-circus hype, so many idiots have been won over to the idea of homosexuality as something fun and ‘cool’. Make things seem festive, and people are carried away.) The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame may have begun with the mission to honor the most talented and important figures in Rock history but has, over the years, degenerated into honoring just about everyone, including Billy Joel. Every time Sight & Sound magazine expands the number of voters in its poll of the ‘greatest films ever made’, the list becomes more questionable. On the other hand, there may not be anything worth saving even at the elite level because the humanities departments of most colleges are corrupt and rotten beyond belief, dominated by insipid ideologues who are into the Theory or some postmodern this-ism or that-ism that happens to be vogue at the moment. (Notice how even certified film critics with the ‘best’ credentials were enthusiastic about the new STAR WARS movie by J.J. Abrams simply because it was more ‘diverse’. That’s all it took for the critical rapture to go bananas.) Even those who command elite institutions of culture, while marketing their anti-elitist and anti-privilege credentials, use every trick in the book to maximize their own positions and privileges to fill up various departments with their personal friends or lovers or ideological allies or puppets.
Since the ideal of ‘art’ and ‘objective worth’ have been dismissed, the only criterion left for favoring certain academics in hiring and promotion is ideology and identity, or personal connection(especially if you’re Jewish, homosexual, or Negro). Thus, if you’re on the side of ‘progress’ and ‘anti-racist’, you are favored for admission and promotion. But if you’re politically incorrect and care about the truth, it doesn’t matter how knowledgeable you are; you will be effectively blacklisted for harboring ‘thought crimes’ or ideas that aren’t ‘permissible’ or supposedly have been discredited according to the circular logic of PC consensus that says the debate is unnecessary since it is over and done with(even though no one remembers the details of the debate that really never took place since the homo agenda was pushed through sensual propaganda and legal bullying). No one who opposes ‘gay marriage’(a proxy of Jewish supremacism) has any chance of being admitted to elite institutions of the humanities. Also, it especially helps if you’re Jewish, feminist, homosexual, or mulatto. But if you’re a white conservative female or a straight white male, you might as well give it up. And since the media are owned by Liberal Jews, there’s no outrage about such machinations in high places, and of course, as mainstream conservatives are so slavish toward Jews, they are afraid to spell out that Jews have been the main tyrants in the Age of Political Correctness. (Conservatives would have us believe that Jews are among the main victims of PC because some ‘progressives’ are anti-Israel. These faux-Conservatives never point out that Jews have been the main enablers of anti-white passion among the People of Color who are little more than barking dogs of globalist Jewish Power.) On the other hand, the relative scarcity of intellectual and cultural firepower on the American Right renders nearly moot the aforementioned point. After all, if the American Right really brimmed over with cultural, artistic, and intellectual flowering, the creative-intellectual-visionary pressure would grow into a force to be reckoned. It’s like blacks were so good at sports that white America could no longer resist the challenge. And even when Jews were excluded from or discriminated by elite institutions, Jewish talent was such that it finally broke the dam. But white conservatives are like ‘Cultural Mexicans’ of America. For all their bitching and whining about the Liberal domination of culture, they offer little or nothing to counter the vision and narrative. White conservatives make no movies to show at Sundance festival. Or, if Sundance favors Liberal artists over Conservative ones, conservatives seem incapable of making their own films and having their own festival, and the one instance of such turned out to be awful. (Suppose Conservatives controlled Sundance and banned all Liberal or Leftist films. Liberals and Leftists would then just have a festival of their own, and it would probably eclipse the hypothetically Conservative Sundance festival.) Conservatives mock liberals for having failed with the Talk Radio format, but Talk Radio is possibly the simplest and most vulgar form of communication and media. It requires no real talent but for someone like Rush Limbaugh to sit on his fat ass and talk shit for 3 hrs a day 5 days a week. If there were real conservative talent out there, they would have taken over entire blocks of cities — like homos have done — and set up their own theaters, book shops, and video shops. But since when are conservatives into culture other than sicko horror movies and Hollywood blockbuster movies? Everything happens in the city, or the key parts of the city. Most of any city is filled with morons of all colors and stripes. Precious little of interest comes out of Mexicans living in L.A, New York, or Chicago because Mexicans, like white conservatives, don’t give a crap about culture except watching food shows and sports on TV. There are far fewer homos than Mexicans in LA or Chicago, but they have a much bigger impact on culture because homos are into the arts, fashions, literature, and etc. Also, homos, like the Jews, are among the most politically active people in America. So, even though homo-towns may make up a small part of the city, they exert tremendous influence due to talent, fanaticism, feistiness, and commitment.
Perhaps, the term ‘conservative’ is itself problematic since it suggests a kind of hunkering down. Modern culture is about making statements, being bold & different, being original, being expressive, seeking new grounds, and etc. Even if much of liberalism today is politically correct, dogmatic, repressive, and etc. it still has the cachet or cult of being ‘different’ and ‘rebellious’, and that SENSE keeps the torch of excitement burning.
To be sure, one advantage of Liberalism over Conservatism is the difference between proximatism and ultimatism. Steven Pinker in THE BLANK SLATE explains that the ultimatist goal of human behavior is to survive, reproduce, and multiply whereas the proximatist goal is to feel pleasure, feel good, and/or to have a good time. For example, people eat and seek sex for pleasure and don’t much think about the ultimate purpose or goal of such behavior, especially since modern society has made food so plentiful — we rarely eat out of desperate hunger — and personal freedoms into guarantees, i.e. individuals enjoy the liberty of having promiscuous sex for no other reason than having a series of orgasms. Conservatism is essentially ultimatist whereas liberalism is essentially proximitist(more in line with the sensual pleasures of life that excite people). To be sure, it’s more complicated in the United States since American Conservatism is closely intertwined with libertarianism and individualism. Thus, a Liberal like Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York argued for the ultimatist position in controlling food-and-drink sizes, whereas many conservatives attacked him for interfering with free individuals enjoying their own freedom in their choice of fast foods and Big Gulp drinks. But in terms of overall behavior, especially involving sexuality, the Liberal side has been much more proximatist than the conservative side, notwithstanding the vocal power of the Libertarian wing of the American conservative movement. Indeed, the ‘gay marriage’ debate is, to an extent, an argument between proximatism and ultimatism. Since homos find pleasure in fecal-penetrating one another in the hynie, that is a good thing from the vantage point of Liberalism. If men and women seek pleasure through sex and if homos seek pleasure through ‘butt-sex’, what is the difference between real sex and ‘gay sex’? Both produce pleasure to people who are sexually attracted to one another. If the pleasure principle is everything and if homos find pleasure in sticking their male sex organs into the fecal holes of other men, then one could argue that they are deserving of the same ‘rights’ to marriage. But from an ultimatist perspective, ‘gay sex’ has no biological value and ‘gay marriage’ has no moral value. Nature designed the penis as a sex organ to be complementary with the vagina. Testicles produce sperm that ejaculate out of the penis, and the biological purpose of sperm is to race up the vaginal tubes to get to the egg. There is no biological sense in a penis entering the anus — designed by evolution to serve as poop shoot — and ejaculating sperm to come in contact with fecal matter. There is nothing good about a penis being smeared with fecal matter inside the anus and large intestine. There is nothing good for the rectum to be pummeled by the penis. It increases the chance of rectal cancer by seven times and loosens anal muscles to such an extent that many homo men find themselves having to wear adult diapers. Perhaps, part of the reason why homo men are so fussy about cleanliness is because they indulge in a kind of ‘love’ that is so filthy. When your idea of ‘love-making’ involves sticking your penis into a fecal hole or having some guy plug you in the ass with his ding-dong, maybe you need to compensate with a fetish for order and cleanliness in everything else. Homos are guys who mistake the fecal hole as the poo-sy.
Of course, it makes no sense for anyone to be purely ultimatist or purely proximatist. Even though we need to be mindful of the ultimate purposes of our behavior as a group — survival, well-being, power, strengthening, continuity, deeper truth, etc. — , life wouldn’t be much fun if we had the big goal or true purpose on our minds all the time. Besides, biological ultimatism, tribal ultimatism, and cultural ultimatism are often divergent and conflicted. If the purpose of a species is to grow more dominant, then every race, nation, or group should surrender its sovereignty and accept being conquered by other races or groups with higher talent, intelligence, or strength. In intellectual terms, a group of people is likely to become more intelligent if they were conquered and raped en masse by Ashkenazi Jews. In physical terms, a group of people is likely to become physically stronger if they were conquered and raped en masse by muscular Bantu blacks, especially those of West Africa. In aesthetic terms, a group of people are likely to be become aesthetically more attractive if they were conquered and raped en masse by Europeans, as indeed scientific studies have shown that people all around the world prefer facial features that conform, more or less, to Caucasoid standards. So, from the ultimatist view of the species as a whole, one could make such arguments, but peoples around the world may prefer racial ultimatism over species-ial ultimatism. So, even though Vietnamese are a bunch of scrawny buggers, they may still prefer to preserve their Vietnamese than be conquered and raped by stronger blacks, more intelligent Jews, and/or handsomer whites. (Though Tom Vu might disagree.) And then, there’s the matter of cultural ultimatism that is often tied with religion and spirituality. From a species-ial or racial perspective, cultural ultimatism may be counterproductive as it favors tradition over nature, but some may believe that the preservation of Sacred Truths(and taboos associated with them) is the highest value. For example, Christians believe in God and the notion that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind, and therefore, what matters most is the spreading of the Gospel and the spiritual brotherhood-of-man. To a rational race-ist, this may seem crazy & stupid because, even if all men did have ‘souls’, the content of the souls differ from race to race, and therefore, the Truth of Jesus will manifest differently among blacks than among whites. If whites understand Christianity as a culture of humility before God & Jesus and the singing of solemn gospels, Negroes take the Faith in a very different way. Negroes, due to their racial nature and personality, have turned Christianity into an opportunity to holler like baboons, jump and dance like disco bunnies, act self-aggrandizing — as if they know better than God or Jesus — , and demand that other peoples do favors for blacks while blacks, in their psychopathic egocentrism, never think to apologize, atone, or self-reflect in the manner that Jesus urged all men to do so. Most black churches indulge in nothing but sermons about ‘white folks gotta gimme stuff’, and even when black ministers are critical of moral rot among blacks, he’s screaming and shouting like he hisself is so high-and-mighty, indeed as if all the problems are with OTHER blacks than with hisself or his family. When the leading reverend of the black community, Jesse Jackson, raises a son like Jesse Jackson Jr. who blows away $800,000 of his campaign funds on stuff like Michael Jackson’s autograph and Bruce Lee memorabilia, something really stinks in the black community. But, the white Liberal community — utterly brainwashed by hideous Jews — is obsessed with the notion that George Zimmerman is some towering ‘redneck white supremacist’ who killed an innocent ‘black child’, when in fact, Trayvon Martin was much taller and bigger than Zimmerman and was pummeling Zimmerman like a pinata before Zimmerman finally saved himself by shooting the worthless black scumbag.
Anyway, there is no single ultimatism, and indeed, even hedonistic-sensualist libertarians might defend their ideology in terms of ultimatism, i.e. free markets, in the long run, do most for the wealth-and-health of societies, and the ultimate meaning of what it means to be human is to be a free individual moving and working all around the world without artificial borders of politics and nations. Paradoxical as it may be, libertarianism seems to say that the total freedom of proximatism will lead to the best kind of ultimatism, at least as long as people are free to indulge in their pleasures and suffer the consequences of their excesses. So, people should be free to indulge in gambling and narcotics as long as they are not ‘bailed out’ by the state. Thus, most individuals will, through trial and error, find the proper balance between business and pleasure, between freedom and responsibility. (There is a strange puritanism at the core of Libertarianism. Some of its biggest adherents are actually uptight and sober men & women who aren’t given to self-indulgence and wild hedonism. Indeed, they seem more enthralled with the Stick aspect than the Carrot aspect of Libertarianism. They figure that vice and self-indulgence will be balanced out by the hard lessons of experience. So, Libertarianism is paradoxical in championing total freedom and total pleasure in the conviction that those who indulge in such excesses will get a good spanking from reality and be sobered into responsibility. Young people have shown support for Ron Paul as a champion of fun and pleasure, but Paul’s defense of Libertarianism has always been more about the stick that controls the penchant for fun and pleasure. Personally, he hasn’t been a self-indulgent reveler in drugs and sex. So, why does he champion the freedom to indulge in such things? Because he feels that total freedom will correct and balance itself out AS LONG AS the government doesn’t step in to bail out the crazy loons. In this sense, the Rightist Libertarians or Stick-Libertarians are more responsible and consistent than Leftist Libertarians or Carrot-Libertarians. The former values the Stick aspect of Libertarianism. It champions individual freedom to indulge in all sorts of behavior on the premise that individuals will be sobered into sanity when excess leads to loss and pain. In contrast, Leftist Libertarians want to have the cake and eat it too. They demand the freedom of excessive indulgence — the carrots of life — , but they don’t think individuals should ever be held accountable or shoulder the burden for the problems they cause. This Woodstock Libertarianism or Carrot-Libertarianism[of Bernie Sanders supporters who demand that Society pay for everything they indulge in and fix the problems that they cause] says individuals have the right to wallow in pleasure and excess, but if things go wrong as the result of such trashy behavior, it is up to Society and Government to repair things, clean up the mess, and fix problems. So, let people use all kinds of drugs and then have the government offer treatment. Let hippies mess up Woodstock and then have OTHER people clean up the mess. Let young women have wild sex, get pregnant, and then demand government to pay for their welfare and well-being. Let black kids sing rap, run around crazy, and act like louts... but have government fix the mess of urban degeneracy. Needless to say, Stick-Libertarianism, with roots in hard Cowboy ethos, makes more sense than Carrot-Libertarianism. It’s like the ants vs grasshoppers. But even Stick-Libertarianism fails to understand that certain addictions rob people of their freedom and power of reason. Once people become addicted to something like meth or gambling, they cannot control themselves even when they know it is destroying them. Humans are rational beings but also sensual beings, and certain vices are so pleasurable and addictive than once people revel in them, many individuals cannot wrest themselves from the addiction.) This may be true of lots of individuals, but what if certain races have more of the type who aren’t capable of self-regulation even when met with negative consequences for their actions? What if they are more like savages than rational civilized folks? If you give cocaine to a monkey, it will use it til it dies. While humans, unlike monkeys, can notice what the drug is doing to them and can drop the habit, the fact remains that many people, once addicted to certain pleasures, cannot stop even when they KNOW they need to stop. And if there are too many of such people in society, the society will crumble before correcting itself. Imagine a libertarian society where everyone’s happy and self-controlled, more or less. But suppose someone creates a new drug in a lab that is super-duper-addictive. Suppose he has the freedom to sell this stuff since libertarianism says one should be able to make and sell any drug, like Ron Paul says. Suppose many people use this drug, and they become addicted and don’t show up at work regularly or skip school. Suppose this drug is beginning to ruin lives. Suppose 50% of those who use this drug are able to wean themselves off its terribly addictive powers, but let’s say the other 50%, even though knowing of the drug’s horrible effects, are hopelessly addicted to the drug and totally ruin their lives, and in the process, mess up society as well. This is where libertarianism fails. Libertarianism would work fine in a world where everyone has the character, fortitude, and power of self-control that Ron Paul has in his personal life. Otherwise, it’s pipedream, especially in a world with so many Negroes who be flipping all the time. Even though the Democratic party machine bears much responsibility for the demise of Detroit, the disaster was also owed to defacto libertarianism. ‘Defacto’ because there’s no such thing as an ideological libertarianism among blacks. But in black communities, there are few social controls because every black man, woman, and child be thinking he or she must do as he or she be feeling like doing. There is no philosophy or ideas behind this kind of ‘savage libertarianism’ or ‘vulgar libertarianism’. Indeed, Detroit might have done better under the governance of the Cuban communist regime that uses political force to make sure that most Cuban blacks don’t get out of line. If Cuban black students act up, they get beaten by the teachers, and the blacks parents and students can’t go running to the media, lawyers, or ACLU. If Cuban blacks act like gangster rappers and talk shit to cops, they get hauled into prison. If Cuban black decide to play racial rabble rousers as ‘leaders of the black community’, they are sent to work camps and made to behave. Cuban doesn’t allow blacks to play on ‘white guilt’; blacks are made to accept as fact that Castro has done wonders for them. And the homicide rate among Cuban blacks is far lower than among Detroit blacks. Thus, more government control of blacks is better for blacks.
 |
| Blacks in America mired in culture of the Gangsta and protected by the law to act like louts and thugs |
 |
| Blacks in Cuba. Poor but they better behave. Otherwise, they get a club on their head with no recourse to lawyers and lawsuits and favorable media coverage. |
This insistence on the ‘racial oppression’ narrative is, of course, utterly irrational and illogical. If indeed people are mental prisoners of their past history, why should 300 years of ‘racial oppression’ count more than the 200,000 yrs of savagery in black Africa? Before blacks were brought to the Americas in any substantial number in the 18th century, black Africans had existed for hundreds of thousands of years in savage Africa where evolution shaped the Negro into what he be. If indeed the past casts a long shadow on the present, wouldn’t black behavior be more the product of 200,000 yrs of savagery in Africa than 200 yrs of slavery in America? If Liberals argue that 200 yrs can drastically reverse the effects of those 100,000 or 200,000 yrs in Africa, why can’t 50 yrs of social reform reverse the effects of 300 yrs of oppression? Think about it. Liberals would like to believe that Africans lived in Edenic wonder in Africa for 100,000s of years, but the effect of all this was reversed by 200 yrs of slavery. Of course, in truth, blacks in Africa lived like wild murderous savages(and practiced slavery for 10,000 yrs), but for the sake of argument, let’s say blacks had lived in a kind of jungle eden. How could 300 yrs of history reverse 200,000 yrs of edenic soul-development among blacks? And if such a short duration could undo the effects of 200,000 yrs, why can’t decades of reform and progress improve the lot of so many underclass blacks? Furthermore, Liberals and ‘leftists’ claim to believe(contrary to the conservative position that society should ideally change gradually and ‘organically’) that fundamental changes can happen very rapidly, indeed almost overnight, i.e. people who, for eons had worked as dirt-poor peasants under crushing conditions, can become perfectly well-adjusted modern folks. Consider the rapid social revolutions that took place in Europe in the 19th century, Japan in the early 20th century, and China and India in the last two decades. Consider the sudden collapse of communism in Eastern Europe when so many experts had predicted that such a powerful system could erode away only gradually. And consider the rapid change among Germans from aristocratic rule before WWI to democratic rule before WWII to totalitarian rule under the Nazis to democratic rule after WWII to globo-PC rule since the end of the Cold War. And consider the pace of social change as dirt poor and backward Okies became modern sunny Californians. Consider the pace at which the black community, in which the out-of-wedlock rate was 12% in the 1950s, went from conservative-minded family values to libertine jiveass craziness since the mid-1960s. And consider how the wild 1960s that seemed to be getting wilder(and even possibly leading to violent revolution) vanished overnight once Nixon ended the Draft. And consider how homosexuality, which had been seen as a perversion, came to be something to celebrate and even to associate with the rainbow by both the educated elites and TV-addled moronic masses hooked to Ellen Degeneris and WILL & GRACE. Prior to the rise of the revolutionary power of capitalism — that toppled old social hierarchies and accelerated the process of replacing one set of elites with newer ones with mastery of innovative technologies and control of mass media that shapes reality and fantasy for billions around the globe — , historical and cultural change had been gradual, indeed glacial. (Wars, invasions, and famines could be very disruptive and transforming, but they didn’t alter the way things were done in production and distribution. It was the same economy and technology but under a different set of rulers.) The old elites remained in power as the landed gentry, and trade consisted of middlemen activity by those patronized or tolerated by the ruling classes. And since most people weren’t literate and spent nearly all their lives within the 20 mile radius of where they were born — and since there was no mass media or mass education —, things changed very slowly if at all. And some conservatives, upon examining such histories, came to the fallacious conclusion that history must move very slowly. But with new means of communication, organization, and mass culture, history can and does move very fast. Russians, who had worshiped God and revered the Tsar for hundreds of years, almost overnight became fervent communists. Chinese, who had revered Confucius and filial piety for thousands of years, were, under Mao, beating up parents and teachers, burning books and denouncing intellectuals. But just when Red China seemed to have hardened into staunch communism, the reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping transformed the nation into something more like a giant Hong Kong or Singapore than Mao’s vision of red utopia. So, history in modern times can change very quickly, and conservatives who scratch their heads and wonder why — and still refer to Edmund Burke — don’t know what the hell is happening(like Mr. Jones of Bob Dylan’s "Ballad of a Thin Man"). This isn’t to suggest that rapid change is necessarily a good thing but merely to observe that rapid changes are ongoing and unceasing realities in a globalized world. Indeed, the cult of change on the ‘left’ is such that Liberals(who should really be called ‘Illiberals’ in the age of PC) feel a need to create the impression of ‘progress’ even when there isn’t any. To any sane person, the idea that we should celebrate the lifestyles of homo men whose idea of ‘sex’ is using their sex organs to carry out acts of fecal penetration is obviously demented. Sure, we can see the need to tolerate homos(because they were born that way), but why ‘celebrate’ a gross deviancy like homosexuality with rainbow flags? (The pageantry hoodwinks people into thinking homosexuality is something fun and wondrous. If ‘gay pride’ parades featured people carrying posters showing a penis up a bunghole, public opinion will change very fast.) If we must, why not do the same for incestuous people? How is homosexuality better than incest? Of course, homomania makes no sense, but Liberals are so addicted to the self-image of being on the ‘right side of history’ or ‘more evolved’ that they’ve concocted ridiculous notions of ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘marriage equality’. Your average Liberal being about as smart as your average Creation-believing Conservative, would fall for such idiocy. Such dummies don’t realize that this ‘gay’ agenda is being pushed by Jews and homos, the most unequal, powerful, and privileged groups in society. The ‘gay’ agenda or Gaypac does for homos what AIPAC or the Jewish agenda does for Jews. They privilege and favor Jews and homos over all other groups. Thus, any form of white or European nationalism or race-ism is reviled as ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’, BUT it’s wonderful for Jews to support the race-ist and democratic-fascist nationalist state of Israel with its tough immigration policies. So, even though polygamists and incest-sexuals aren’t allowed to marry — and used as butt of jokes and derision — , it’s PHOBIC and ‘hateful’ to deny homos whatever they demand — even the trans-gender ‘right’ for men in wig & dress to use women’s restrooms and showers. But using logic and reason with Liberals(or illiberals) is pointless. For elite Liberals, especially Jews and homos, so-called ‘progressivism’ is really a form of crypto-tribalism. If one inspects their agendas carefully, and they simply favor their own narrow interests over those of other groups. And there is no consistency in their arguments, e.g. Jews were for unfettered freedom of speech when Jewish radicals were against the ropes, but now that Jews control the commanding heights of American Power, they are now for restricting freedom of speech by defaming speech they don’t like as ‘hate speech’. Homos talk of ‘tolerance’ but show no tolerance toward anyone who thinks ‘gay marriage’ is a preposterous idea. Even though homos take pride in being outrageous and rebellious, they shriek at any joke about homos and bitch and whine that it’s ‘homophobic’ and must be shut down. They think they have the right to piss on any parade but act like precious snowflakes when their tender feelings are hurt: Gaudy excess for themselves but sheepish obedience for everyone else... that is unless they wanna wave the ‘gay flag’ and scream rapturous love for the homos like Red Guards did for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. If Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother, your average Liberal has learned to love Big Bugger.
Anyway, because of the Burkean strain on the American Right, many conservatives tend to be complacent, patient, and bemused than impassioned and motivated. They just shrug their shoulders, remain on the sidelines, and wonder, "gee, why is all this happening?" and "maybe, it will burn out of its own accord." (The boomer radicals did burn out, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when America seemed to be returning to normal. Therefore, American public figured that radicalism has no real shelf-life and will fade away like all fads and fashions. But it only appeared that way in the late 70s and 80s because boomers had yet to decisively take over the institutions and industries of power. Things are different today because the very halls of power are now controlled by PC-lords. If radical lunacy in the 60s and early 70s was happening from the outside, today the radical nuttery rules the halls of power from the inside and encourages lunacy among the millennials.) In terms of energy levels, the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is like that between Rex Kwon Do guy and Napoleon Dynamite’s friend. Liberals may be full of shit and making up a lot of dumb crap, but they always doing something and acting like they are making a DIFFERENCE, and that makes all the difference.
Of course, another difference is that while Liberalism is led by dominators, Conservatism is led by servers. Jews and Homos are the leading forces in American Liberalism, and they are committed to pushing policies that boost and secure their own Jewish and Homo power. Incidentally, even though Jews are far more powerful than homos, Jews have highlighted homo power to distract us from the Jewish power that is really the power behind the throne. Thus, homos serve as not only as a sword but a shield for Jewish power. Anyway, in contrast to the power dynamics of American Liberalism, American Conservatism is led by an elite that is mostly concerned with serving another group. Jews in American Liberalism feel historically, morally, and socially proud and do everything to further Jewish interests, even if these concerns are shrouded in the language of ‘equality’ and ‘progress’. But most Wasps and white ethnics in American Conservatism don’t serve Wasp interests or even Southern White interests but the interests of Wall Street Jews & globalists and, increasingly, even homos as, one after another, Republican politicians are coming out of the closet to declare themselves shameless whores of the homo agenda. 99% of Republican politicians are, first and foremost, shameless whores of Jewish power and Zionism. They haven’t said a peep about the plight of whites in South Africa, the memory of the millions destroyed by Jewish communists, the problem of black-on-white crime & violence in America, the danger of massive immigration on the interests & well-being of white Americans, and etc. Instead, they get all passionate about stuff like "we must do everything to defend Israel, even if we have to declare war on Iran", "we must send billions more in aid to Israel lest the all-powerful neo-Nazi Palestinian children armed with stones drive the poor helpless Israelis into the Dead Sea in another holocaust", or "MLK was a conservative, and he would have been on our side, and we need to worship him and wanna kiss his black ass to the end of time because he was bigger than God, Jesus, and all the Founding Fathers put together". Therefore, even though the GOP is understood to be an implicitly ‘white party’, its imperative is to slavishly serve, toady up to, and seek the approval of the group, the Jews, who have done more to harm the interests of white Americans than any other group has done. Whites serve Jews who serve themselves. THAT is the main weakness of American Conservatism. It is most servile to the group that aims to it the most harm, and it carries on with the delusion that Jews will come over to the GOP if American Conservatives go out on a limb for the Tribe.
In the 2008 and 2012 elections, there was the hilarious spectacle of the servile Republican candidates before the Jewish community that wasn’t merely overwhelmingly pro-Obama — indeed Jews made, groomed, protected, and promoted him — but actively mocking, insulting, and spitting on American Conservatism. It was a sickening sight, and it just gets worse and worse. Jews kicked John McCain in the ass, so what does Mr. Magoo wanna do? He wants to declare war on Russia to show Putin that it’s not nice to mess with Jewish oligarchs who, in McCain’s eyes, have some God-given right to gain control of all of Russia. You’d think a white ‘conservative’ like McCain would take some cues from Putin who wrested some of the power back from heinous globalist Jews, but instead, even as American Jews continued to mock and insult him, McCain pleaded for approval from the Jewish community — maybe another glowing editorial in the pages of the New York Times — by barking like a running dog of global Zionism at the Big Russian Bear that, unlike America, still won’t bend over backward to the Jewish agenda that uses homomania as its globalist-imperialist proxy. Homos want the world to be homocentric: Every nation should legalize ‘gay marriage’ and have massive ‘gay pride’ parades as the main annual celebration. According to Jews and homos, Western nations that have legalized ‘gay marriage’ are ‘more evolved’ than the non-Western world. It’s amusing how white Liberals who’d long maintained that it’s ‘racist’ to say that Western culture is superior to non-Western cultures are now saying that the Western folks — at least those who cheer for ‘gay marriage’ — are ‘more evolved’ and advanced than non-Western folks who still preserve the ultimatist meaning of sex and marriage.
Of course, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are many areas in which Western culture and values are indeed superior and more advanced than the cultures of the non-West, which is why non-Western peoples have been more attracted to Western ideas, principles, and means than vice versa for the last several centuries. After all, even the most politically correct Liberals don’t want to adopt African tribal ‘philosophy’ or ‘politics’ as the basis of social philosophy or organization. Furthermore, Western Liberals are hard at work trying to spread modern medicine, democracy, and the idea of ‘human rights’ in the Dark Continent. However, all civilizations, however advanced they may be, eventually tend to fall into the vice of decadence. Surrounded by prosperity, security, and plentitude, the elites of the decadent order began to take things for granted; they begin to lose sight of fundamentals, and indeed may see fundamentals as obstacles to further ‘progress’ that becomes measured by the fetishistic cult of change and libertine excesses of hedonism. And then, the elites seek to buy off the masses that have also grown corrupt and decadent with bread & circuses than with tough lessons about core values, responsibility, and honesty.
In 2008, the economy went south largely due to the Jewish control of our financial sector, but Jews wanted to keep the power; therefore, Wall Street Jews were ‘bailed out’. But since this was bound to upset the masses, the people were bought off with massive ‘bread and circuses’ in the form of greatly increased food stamps, unemployment checks, and other handouts. And even though there are so many economic, cultural, moral, and demographic challenges facing America, the main moral concern of the American elites has been... ‘gay marriage’! And even though more Americans have college degrees than in the past, their idea of Culture is slobbering over GIRLS starring Miss Piggy Lena Dunham, and their idea of moral participation in society is waving the ‘gay flag’ at some event where narcissistic fecal penetrators on parade floats act like conquering Roman emperors. It’s as if current America is ruled by Jewlius Caesar and his Homo guards. The ‘gay parade’ is the victory procession of the new elites over an America where most white people are either brainwashed Liberal dupes or browbeaten Conservative running dogs whose main concern is killing Muslims to win the approval of Zionists.
 |
| 'Gay Pride' parade as victory march of Jewish-Globalist Power. The celebration of the Homo Anus fecal-penetrated by the penis smeared in human feces. The celebration of men cutting off penises and obtaining fake vaginas or women mutilating their vaginas to be fitted with fake penises. Thanks, Jews. |
 |
| Homo Agenda as Globalist-Zionist-Imperialism. A homo freak rides on a float staging an anal-bombing of the Iranian President. |
For most American sheeple, nothing is good enough for the Jews who must be showered with endless accolades, praises, sympathy, and adulation. And thanks to Jewish machination of the mass media, many gentiles and straights are now falling all over themselves to praise homos as the greatest thing since cream-filled buns.
Though Jews and homos have an image of wildness and abandon, the great source of their power is self-control and devious cleverness — Marx Brothers revel in controlled craziness — , and homos especially re-learned this lesson after the debacle of the HIV epidemic that killed off so many homos who went around buggering every fecal hole they could sniff out. Power means gaining and having control over others. How can anyone gain control over others if he hasn’t control over himself? Before one gains control over others, one must first gain control over oneself. It’s like if you’re a boxer and wanna win the fight, you must first conquer and control yourself and make sure that you wake up every morning to exercise and train for the fight. If one loses self-control, like Mike Tyson prior to his fateful match with Buster Douglas, one cannot conquer/control others. To be a big-time lawyer with control over other lawyers and the legal system, one must have self-control and get good grades in school, study for and pass the tests, and gain all the right credentials. The Jew lawyer played by Sean Penn in CARLITO’S WAY self-destructs in the end because he loses control of himself. To win the marathon, one must have control over what one eats and how one regulates the body throughout the training. One cannot be a fat lazy slob who eats a lot of junk and then shows up for the main event. Thus, we must be careful not to associate Jewish and homo power with overt images of wildness. Even when Jews seem to be acting wild, there’s cunning and control behind it. The Marx Brothers weren’t just winging it but using strategy and coordination. While there’s a certain spontaneity about Jewish wit and brilliance, Jews also work very hard at what they do, and that means self-control and self-awareness. Imagine a Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Sergei Eisenstein, Cecil B. DeMille, William Wyler, or Billy Wilder without self-control.
While some Jews lose themselves to excess or debauchery — like Lenny Bruce and Amy Winehouse — , most famous Jews don’t confuse the act with the fact, the fact being seeing the forest as well as the trees. No self-control means no map, no sense of direction, therefore no control of others. Indeed, if you want to weaken your enemies, you should them lose self-control. You make them use drugs, become sexually loose and confused, eat too much and become fat and infantile, lazy and shiftless. If Army A faces Army B, Army A will have a better chance of winning if Army B is made up of people who are doped out on drugs, lacking in discipline, fuc*ing everything in sight, weak on unity, and etc. Of course, if Army A is to encourage such behavior on Army B, it wouldn’t do to be honest and admit its true intentions. Instead, Army A should tell the members of Army B that they are being ‘empowered’ with the freedom to indulge in their animal drives, and maybe just maybe, enough members of Army B will fall for this bullshit and really think they are gaining greater power by indulging in their wilder instincts for debauchery. People without self-control fail to understand that control of the world is impossible without control over the self, and instead, they’ll conflate self-gratification with self-power. Of course, thus debauched and demoralized, they can easily be invaded, conquered, and controlled by the Army A that maintains its unity and self-control among its members. (Of course, commanders of Army A would be stupid to encourage such behavior among their own men. The elites need disciplined hardworking men on their side, the sort of men with self-control and discipline. You can’t win with an army full of bums and louts. But if the men below you are self-controlled, hardworking, and disciplined, what if they gain credentials, master special skills, organize, and rise up to challenge your elite power? To prevent this, you must make sure to control the Narrative and ideology so that the men, despite their self-control and work-ethic, will remain mental putties in your hand. Like the beasts of ANIMAL FARM, they work hard but for YOUR agenda, not for agenda of their own conception. Also, you can increase diversity so that the men below you will never unite as a racial or national collective. Furthermore, you can maintain control by instilling them with guilt-emotions, such as ‘white guilt’. That way, if you feel any threat level from those below, you just mutter loaded terms like ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ to make them back down and hang their heads low in shame.) In today’s world, Jews and homos spread and encourage the loss of self-control among the masses so that the Jewish and homo elites of media, entertainment, and academia can easily gain and maintain control over everyone. Thus, if girls are raised to be skankass sluts like the Lena Dunham’s Miss Piggy character in GIRLS — and if they’re dumb enough to think that such behavior is ‘empowering’ — , their minds and emotions can easily be molded by the elite controllers of popular culture. Mindless idiots tend to be addicts of hedonistic machine factory controlled and operated by the globalist elites. Jews encourage the spread of rap music and other such junk in Europe, Middle East, and Asia because new generations of Europeans, Arabs/Muslims, and Asians will be reduced to mindless consumers of orgasmo-opium-peddling machine factory controlled by the Globalists or the GLOB. It’s like pushers selling dope to unwitting fools who feel ‘empowered’ with the rush of narco-exuberance when, in effect, they are turning into mental-sensual slaves of the pushers who monopolize the dope supply. Why enslave people physically when you can enslave them mentally, emotionally, and sensually? And no need to worry about the masses waking up since the dummies conflate their own mental-emotional-sensual enslavement with delusions of ‘empowerment’. Just look at the sorry spectacle of the ‘slut pride parade’. Just look at all the dumb girls who think they are ‘empowered’ because they try to live the SEX AND THE CITY life? GIRLS is supposed to be more ‘realistic’, but it is a fantasy of Miss Piggy as a sexpot.
And the cultural elites, instead of dissecting and critiquing such garbage, approve and endorse it because they(along with the purveyors of trash), consciously or subconsciously, use popular culture as a means to gain control over the minds-emotions-senses of all the dummies out there. So, they care less about artistic quality, levels of truth, or possible insights — or lack thereof — of the work in question; they decide its worth in terms of whether it will further the ‘progressive’ cause by turning the masses onto piggishness so the masses will be more pliable to the Jewish and homo elite controllers of the world. (Just consider the ecstatic critical response to the new STAR WARS movie by J.J. Abrams. It is utterly worthless, as bad or even worse than the equally cynical JURASSIC WORLD, but has been praised for its multi-culti content of having more ‘diversity’ in the Galaxy.) Of course, self-control, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily lead to power. It is also a matter of degrees. For self-control to be effective and useful, there must be something to control. It’s like a furnace without wood to set on fire is cold and dead. It may be a fine piece of machinery for controlling the fire, but there is no fire. For the furnace to have meaning and serve its purpose, it needs to wood to burn, and then and only then, the fire can be tended effectively to warm the whole house. Without the furnace, burning wood will just scatter in the winds and burn out fast. It’s like how men of talent burned out before their time due to lack of self-control. Sam Peckinpah had exceptionally bright inner fire, but his lack of self-control sent his career up his flames; he died at the age of 59 in sickly body of an 80 year old. The problem of American Conservatism is that even those with self-control have little that is creative and/or compelling burning inside. Jews and homos have lots of inner fire and control over that fire. Is it then any surprise that they control America. The only reason that conservatism still has a place in American society and politics is because conservatives still have numeric power of quantity, especially in the South. But in terms of quality — passion, creativity, brilliance, expression, inspiration, originality, imagination, and etc. — there is at best the slow burn of smoldering ashes. Indeed, even dumb passion is absent is absent on the Right. When Supreme Court struck down DOMA, there was hardly any show of outrage or protest from Conservatives who just griped quietly as if they were too ashamed to make any fuss lest they upset Jewish neocons who have been spreading the homo agenda inside American Conservatism Inc.
 |
| American Conservatism is like a cold furnace without wood to burn. Without fire to control, a cold furnace is like a dead body that causes no harm but does no good either. |
Similarly, the idea of ‘gay marriage’ has risen from the notion that the ONLY purpose of sex is pleasure. Thus, whatever gives sexual pleasure to whomever is supposedly of equal value(biologically and morally) to any other kind of sex. But can anyone, with a straight face, really say that they believe that two guys ramming their penises into fecal holes or two females poon-rubbing each other has any biological worth or makes moral sense? It’s one thing to say that some people are born sexually deviant/weird and should be allowed to pursue their own paths to ‘sexual’ pleasure, but should such behavior be regarded as the essence of sex and marriage? Marriage is essentially a vertical or ultimatist institution premised on the notion that since male and female can biologically produce life — the next generation — , they should make a moral commitment to each other to raise the children whom they may produce together. Thus, marriage is biologically and morally meaningful. It’s not just about our self-interests in the horizontal social present but about how we are part of a vertical continuum that goes back eons and shall continue on through the coming eons through the mating of male and female and the moral responsibility of raising the offsprings of such matings. But homos cannot have kids. No amount of fecal penetration between homo men and no amount of poon-grinding among lesbians has ever produced a SINGLE life form. And for homos to ‘have a kid’, one of the biological parents must walk out on his or her own child. If two homo men wanna play husband and ‘wife’, the real mother will have to surrender her kid to the homo couple. If two lesbians wanna play wife and ‘husband’, the real father will have to surrender his kid to the lesbian couple. So much for biological or moral sense. But since homos have been elevated to neo-aristocratic sainthood, we peasants must do everything to make them happy because the new morality is measured by the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" and "Is it pleasing to the homos?" At the feet of Jews and homos, we are like the Mel Brooks character before his former master in TWELVE CHAIRS, but we remain blind to our slavishness because Jews and homos have been portrayed — by the Jewish-controlled media and academia — as the ‘eternal victims’ in need of our love and protection. So, even as we slavishly serve them, we pretend that we are protecting them. Jews and homos are hideously clever, and we are damn dumb.
Anyway, because of the Jewish-and-homo manipulation of our horizontal proximatist impulses and desires, we tend to lose sight of the Big Picture and favor whatever jolts individuals with pleasure. So, if straight people associate sex primarily with pleasure and not much else, they would feel guilty if the ‘right of pleasure’ was denied to homosexuals. (Also, even marriage came to be seen essentially as a matter-of-pleasure, something that should serve our sense of individual self-aggrandizement than a noble tradition that should be served, preserved, and honored.) Therefore, there followed the decriminalization of homosexuality and the opportunity for homos to ‘come out of the closet’.
But once homos came out and rose to neo-aristocratic ranks and rubbed shoulders with elite Jews, it wasn’t enough for them to be tolerated. Instead, all of society had to be brainwashed, indoctrinated, duped, pressured, threatened, and intimidated into making themselves believe that homosexuality has the same biological and moral worth as real sexuality. Since this was a hard sell to anyone who ponders the true nature of homosexuality and its related deviancies — ranging from two guys practicing fecal penetration to a male or female having their entire bodily organs cut off and replaced with fake organs of the opposite sex — , it was imperative that Jews and homos make the masses not think about the issue at all. Thus, the whole issue became slathered with slogans about ‘equality’, images of rainbows, pageantry of Gay Day as the new May Day — with the working class and lower classes taking a backseat to the ‘creative’ neo-aristocratic homos perched up high in the globalist hierarchy — , TV sitcoms with homos who are too-good-to-be-true(indeed even more so than the idealized families in the 1950s TV shows), weepy Hollywood movies about the tragic nobility of homos in mushy Stanley-Kramer-ish drivel like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, homos in top slots in the news and entertainment industry — Ellen Degeneris, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Pooper Cooper, etc. — , and educational propaganda associating any critical or skeptical feelings about homosexuals as HOMOPHOBIA, considered a clinical mental disorder comparable to ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’. Thus, homos went from real people seeking tolerance and justice to a kind of god-saint-victim folks who must be revered and celebrated mindlessly. The ‘fag flag’ — the one with the rainbow — has been slathered so excessively by the Jewish-and-homo-controlled media that most people now Pavlovianly associate homosexuality and tranny business with the miraculous beauty of the rainbow. (I wonder why Jesse Jackson didn’t complain about this since he was the one who first claimed the rainbow with the Rainbow Coalition; maybe, he was bought off as he’s always been a pimp-whore who would stoop to any level for a payoff). If the media flashed the image of the American flag with every story about the US government or military, they would be accused of jingoism. And if the media flashed the image of Holy Bible or the Cross every time it did a story about Christians, they would be accused of promoting religion. But when it comes to homo-related stories, the ‘fag flag’ is always featured in the photos, as if to say homosexuality is the miracle of the rainbow itself. Of course, no one even bothers to ask why the rainbow got associated with a bunch of fecal penetrating homos, poon-grinding lesbians, and penis-lopping or vagina-mutilating transvestites. Imagine watching a sex-change-operation where a guy’s penis and testicles are removed with a scalpel or a woman’s vagina is altered with a knife and sewed up with a fake penis. What kind of a sicko would associate such a thing with something as wondrous as the rainbow? We are told that people should have control over their bodies and do with it anything they like, but that would mean people should have the right to ask doctors to remove their eyes, hands, and legs for whatever reason. The proximatist argument also favors abortion ‘rights’ because a society that sees sex as little more than a means of pleasure and self-gratification would naturally see an unborn fetus/baby as an obstacle to one’s prioritization of fun and pleasure. What if a woman got pregnant but sees the kid as an hindrance to her desire for more hopping around in bed? Then, it’s obvious that the kid must be aborted. From an ultimatist perspective, such attitudes are childish and callous, even immoral. Also, even though abortion is touted as a case of woman’s empowerment and control over her body, one must ask why, if she has such control over her body in the first place, she got herself pregnant in the first place through casual sex(in an age that scoffs at the notion of causal sex of consequences)? It’s hardly surprising that abortion is most often used by underclass women who have little self-control over themselves and therefore no control and power over their social sphere. (For this reason, abortion should be kept legal because it’s better for dumb whores to have the freedom to choose to kill their own babies than have then be born and grow up into louts.) They are little more than animalistic slaves to desire. But then, one could also make an ultimatist argument in favor of abortion in that it’s probably better for society in the long run if dumb, poor, and low IQ women — especially the Negresses — are allowed and even encouraged to abort their kids. Fewer Negroes is always better for society, and it would be better for the white community if blacks aborted and killed 90%(or even 99%) of their kids. For that reason, conservatives should come around to supporting state-funded abortions, at least for the Negroes, illegal aliens, and some ‘white trash’ types who really aren’t good for anything.(Worse than abortion is ‘Afrortion’ whereby a white woman uses her womb to have a black baby. She is essentially killing and murdering the white-child-that-could-have-been by banning white men from her white womb, which is to be reserved as a nursery-hatchery for black babies who will grow up to be biological enemies of the white race. There is no worse enemy than a white bitch who chooses Afrortion. Her betrayal isn’t merely ideological or cultural but biological and of the blood. Is it any wonder why Jews promote interracism? A white woman who ideologically betrays her own people can return to the fold with a change of heart & mind. But when her very body rejects white men and serves as a life-giver to mulatto-black children, her betrayal has taken place at the bio-molecular level. It is why THE SEARCHERS is such an important movie. The Politics of the Womb is most important, indeed even more than Politics of the Soil. A people can lose the land but still maintain identity, culture, and heritage by having the men and women form families to have more of their own kind. Thus, Jews survived without a nation for thousands of years. But when the men lose connection to the wombs of their women, they are finished as a race and culture. Every time a white woman has a mulatto-black baby, a white-child-that-could-have-been has been Afrorted from her womb.)
 |
| While abortion is pretty gross and unpleasant, it is better for trashy women to kill their own kids than have them be born and grow up to be louts and leeches. |
 |
| Bosley Crowther, the philistine film critic of the New York Times |
 |
| Todd Haynes the fruitkin director. Haynes is pretty good when just telling a story, as with his TV adaptation of MILDRED PIERCE. But his attempts at intellectual-filmmaking has been a pain-in-the-ass. Who with any sense can stomach something so bogus as I'M NOT THERE or FAR FROM HEAVEN, an unveiling of the supposedly closeted hangups of Douglas Sirk melodramas. |
The rise of Rock music as an ‘art form’ probably played an important role in the change of cultural climate, in some ways more so than the rise of cinema as the ‘art form of the 20th century’. After all, many of the highly esteemed ‘art films’ were serious and ‘difficult’, indeed connected with traditional art forms such as Theater, Painting, Classical Music, Architecture, Novels, and etc. Patience and erudition(about art, history, and culture) were prerequisites for appreciating such works. Films like HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, JULES AND JIM, THE LEOPARD, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, 8 ½, WOMAN IN THE DUNES, MY NIGHT AT MAUD’S, L’AVVENTURA, MOUCHETTE, and many others were paeans to Youth Culture. Even a film like ZABRISKIE POINT raised more questions than provided answers as to ‘what is to be done?’
Many young college students and Counterculture folks adopted cinema as their art form, but even highly exciting films like BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH were far more multi-faceted than Rock music that, for the most part, was all about the groove(though there were exceptions like Bob Dylan, Fairport Convention, Pink Floyd, etc). Thus, it was a matter of time before cinema-as-art would lose its appeal as the culture became more nakedly popularized and youth-oriented. Too much of ‘art cinema’ was simply not fun in the way of immediate gratification as favored by young people and Negroes. So, even though the boomer generation in the 80s and 90s bemoaned the fading of cinephilia of the 60s and early 70s(supposedly replaced by the blockbuster craze that began with JAWS and STAR WARS), they weren’t being very honest because the love of ‘art cinema’ among the boomer youths — mostly college students and folks in a handful of big cities — had been more of an affectation than a real passion. Art Cinema could really be art in the traditional meaning of the term, but the fact was that most boomers, even Counterculture people and college students, didn’t really wanna see the films of Robert Bresson or even those of Jean-Luc Godard. Not when it was so much fun to listen to Beatles & Rolling Stones and smoke pot.
The great passion among the boomers, educated and uneducated, was Rock music because no other cultural product had so brilliantly, deviously, and cleverly combined elements of Pop, Art, and Personality. Had Dylan remained true to the Folk Movement and forsaking going ‘electric’, perhaps Rock music might not have gambled on becoming a bonafide ‘art form’. Recall that John Lennon had initially been happy and content with Rock n Roll, Pop, and rhythm-and-blues. The Beach Boys and Rolling Stones initially just wanted to make a lot of hits, make a lot of money, and get the girls. The British Invasion was initially a hit-making competition among various rock bands. Everyone was happy having a good time.
But Dylan threw a monkey wrench into the whole dichotomy among pop and folk and art and poetry and philosophy and spirituality. He infused a heavy dose of poetics into folk music that had originally been admired for its simplicity and willful naivete. Dylan made folk music literary in the ‘intellectual’ sense, and he had a huge impact on Phil Ochs and Donovan who strove likewise. Dylan’s shift in tone inspired the Byrds to record a rock version of "Mr. Tambourine Man". Some surmised that Dylan heard the ‘folk rock’ sound of the Byrds and made his own transition to a musical fusion, but even Dylan’s original version of the song was kinda ‘trippy’ and ‘far out’, no simple folkie tune. Indeed, prior to Dylan’s breakthrough, the only Rock tune that might be considered in terms of ‘art’ was the Animals’ version of "House of the Rising Sun". To all who heard the song, it was undoubtedly something more than a rock n roll, blues, pop, or whatever. Though a reworking of an old folk tune, it was powerful and electrifying — and emotionally ‘deep’ — in the way that almost no other pop tune was, with the exception of maybe "You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling". As it turned out, even though the Animals would have a few more solid hits, their triumph with "House of the Rising Sun" was something of an anomaly, their one truly great song.
It really took Dylan to fully transform the culture(with the help of the media that were less interested in his music than in his image and ‘message’), and others soon took notice and inspiration. Lennon, who’d wanted to be British Elvis, heard Dylan and began to feel an inferiority complex. (Lennon was too uneducated for his considerable intelligence and natural intellect. His impatience prevented him from taking books and studies seriously, and his wild nature gravitated towards things of immediate gratification. When his sensual needs were finally satiated and grew tiresome, his undernourished intellect craved for seriousness and meaning. Indeed, even in the early days as dreamy-eyed rock-n-roller, Lennon’s personal hero was none other than his friend Stu Sutcliffe, a fellow art student with genuine talent as a painter working in a respectable art form. Later, Lennon’s intellectual hunger fed on Dylan and then Yoko Ono who, like Sutcliffe, was an artist, though a worthless one if you ask me.)
 |
| Stu Sutcliffe, a promising artist who died too young. |
 |
| Yoko Ono, a mental case who lived too long. |
Dylan’s influence convinced Lennon that it wasn’t enough for him to a pop entertainer in the manner of the Dave Clark Five or the Hollies. A pop musician pans for gold, the universal value of which is easily accessible to all, whereas a modern artist digs for something stranger that unlocks the secrets to something hitherto hidden. One pans for gold for money. One digs for fossils or searches for new species for meaning and knowledge.
The way of the Artist was doable for Lennon who was gifted with talent, brilliance, and intelligence but not so much for George Harrison, for whom ‘art’ became a crutch for his relative lack of talent. Though Harrison wrote several good songs and at least two great ones — "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Something" — , he was nowhere near the equal of McCartney or Lennon and, deep down inside, he knew it. Thus, ‘seriousness’ became a rationale for Harrison to concoct ridiculous tunes like "Within Me, Without You" and "Blue Jay Way" and pretend that many people didn’t really get them because they were ‘too deep’ and ‘far out’.
Indeed, ‘seriousness’, more than triviality, is the real disease among the less talented or the wrong-talented. Neil Simon, for example, was very good at what he did, but imagine if he tried to write like Eugene O’Neill. It would have been much worse than mediocre. Woody Allen was supremely talented as a comedian but had no talent for Art Cinema, and just look at most of his forays into ‘serious film-making’. They are insufferable(with the exception of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, but then it is at least one-third, if not one-half, comedy. It is a film where Allen is considerably more self-aware that things are not as what they seem. Allen, as intelligent as he was, was often blind to truth because of his ego and cleverness that spun rationales to justify his own neurosis. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. It is the best tool for unveiling the truth, but the problem is intelligence is usually the slave to than master over the ego and emotions. So, an egotistical person with high intelligence may only become more blinded by his/her own intelligence that is used by the ego for self-justification. Consider Bill Clinton’s propensity to lie to himself. It’s no wonder that so many smart Jews are so blind. Their personal egos and ethno-egos warp their considerable intelligence to cleverly distort reality to serve their own narratives, interests, and agendas. Likewise, Allen’s high intelligence was no guarantee that he would see the truth. Rather, he would use his wits and smarts to spin tales and excuses to protect himself. All of Allen’s films are filled with liars and cheats prior to CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, and Allen seemed to think that he has a bird’s eye view of the lies of the world, including that of his own, not least because he often played flawed characters. But such self-delusion was a lie in and of itself. It’s like an alcoholic who is aware of his alcoholism is only fooling himself that he has things under control because he knows of his problem. Likewise, some liars seem to think their problem is under control because they readily admit that they do have a problem with the truth. But such admission could actually be disingenuous, a means to disarm others and one’s own conscience that something is being done about it because the problem has been identified and addressed. [It’s like Obama’s admission of ‘mistake’ in Libya is merely just another layer of lies. By feigning contrition, he hopes to evade further investigation and return to his reckless foreign policy that has caused so much harm in North Africa and Middle East.] And it is with CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS that one surmises how the world-according-to-each-of-us is filled with so many layers of lies, some big, some small, some serious, some trivial, but they are all lies just the same. It is about lies beyond lies, lies around lies, lies buried within truth itself. For instance, the biggest fool in the film is the Alan Alda character, and Allen makes us feel glibly superior to that fraud and faker. But is Allen’s character any better? Is he really into meaning and truth, ostensibly because he expresses such respect for an old Jewish philosopher who says such wise things? But if the old man is so wise, why does it turn out at the end that he killed himself, or murdered himself? He sure didn’t need a gangster to do it for him. And if Alda’s character is such an idiot, why does Mia Farrow’s character go with him than with Allen, whose integrity we are led to believe she respects? Is the search for truth and meaning also just a big lie, a crutch for those who lose in life? What is life about? It is about men seeking women, women seeking men. Fame and fortune have value in attracting mates. Alda, jerk that he is, knows how to make it and win in a world that favors fakers over truth-seekers. But then, if life is about getting the girl, then maybe Alda’s character is closer to the truth since he knows what it takes to win-the-girl, which is what life is all about. So, maybe his jerkdom is the real deal whereas Allen’s truth-seeking is a pathetic exercise, a self-delusional escape from the true purpose of life where women prefer winners-by-any-means-necessary to whiners-who-claim-to-seek-the-truth. Maybe the joke is really on Allen’s character. If Martin Landau’s character, a successful doctor, had a problem with a woman who loved him too much, Allen’s character has a problem with a woman of seeming integrity who didn’t love him at all. So, what is the worth of integrity when the game wins out over the truth? Isn’t the game itself the ultimate truth, as David Mamet implies? Life is about feelings & advantages, not about academic ideas & integrity. And maybe even the old wise Jewish man was going on and on about the meaning of life because he didn’t know how to live life. Maybe even the Holocaust comes in two flavors: For the suckers for truth who seek meaning and find only the horror and the peddlers of the narrative who seek to shape it as a weapon of Jewish power. Some would say Claude Lanzmann of SHOAH is like the wise old man philosopher whereas Steven Spielberg of SCHINDLER’S LIST is like Alan Alda’s character, but I would say both Lanzmann and Spielberg are shameless peddlers of the Narrative to further Jewish Power. If Lanzmann is such a champion of the victims of history, why did he hang around Stalinists in the 50s and 60s? And why has been a one-sided supported of the IDF against the Palestinians who paid the price for the Holocaust that they had no hand in? Anyway, if it’s true that the world favors jerks like Alan Alda’s character over supposed truth-seekers like Allen’s character, we are led to question the success of Allen himself. Allen became one of the most successful and celebrated American film-makers since the 1970s. If the world favors fakers over the real thing, does Allen’s success owe to his fakery or, at least, comprised spin on the truth? So, could it be that Alda’s character is at least half-Allen? The difference between HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is that the lies are contained within the characters and stories of the former, whereas one doesn’t know where the lies begin and end in the latter where everyone and everything, including the film and film-maker themselves, are implicated in the lie of life. In HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, we are well-aware of the lies before us. In CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, we hear the faint echoes of the lies that extend far beyond what is shown. And it is this sense that makes MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY and BLUE JASMINE among Allen’s best films as well. They pique on awareness to the lies beyond lies.) Anyway, Dylan influenced/inspired the Beatles and the Byrds, they influenced one another, and the Rolling Stones also wanted to be more than a Rock n Roll band and began to get serious, and then, so did The Who. Rock music began to go from Pop to Art, and SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND was hailed as the ‘bridge between Pop and Art’, and this formulation(as opposed to sincere interest in serious art) became the dominant cultural signpost of the boomer generation as it began to take over the elite institutions. Consider the frequency with which journals like Newsweek, Time, Atlantic, Vanity Fair, and many others mentioned, revisited, recounted, and celebrated the achievements of Bob Dylan and other Rock figures from the 1960s. Compare that to the number of times have figures like Truffaut, Godard, Peckinpah, Altman, Resnais, Penn, Bergman, Fellini, and others been revisited? Most mainstream journals focused on current cinema while conveniently forgetting the giants of 60s cinema, with the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick. Though many old films have been revived in theaters, the boomer controllers of the culture in the 80s and 90s rarely held up the great directors of the 60s and 70s as the icons of the Zeitgeist. Rather, the main emphasis has been on Rock music, and indeed Rolling Stone magazine probably has more subscribers than the all the film magazines combined.
Because Rock Music, the foremost and most resilient passion of the Boomer generation, was rarely a ‘pure work of art’, the cultural mind-set and sensibilities of the Boomers got muddled and clouded. Except for Dylan’s HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, Velvet Underground’s VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO, Pink Floyd’s UMMAGUMMA, and few others, it’s difficult to recall anything in Rock that attained the status of ‘pure art’ as the works of classical music, serious literature, theatre, painting, sculpture, and cinema. This isn’t necessarily to denigrate Rock because, after all, a hybrid work of ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’ can be just as amazing as a ‘pure’ or ‘serious’ work of art. I’d say Beach Boys’ PET SOUNDS, Jimi Hendrix’s ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?, and Beatles’s album HELP!, and Led Zeppelin’s LED ZEPPELIN IV are worthier than the works of Alban Berg, John Adams, or many ‘serious’ composers of the 20th century. Nothing wrong with adding some fun & wonder to art OR some depth & meaning to entertainment. Even so, most of Rock was really just for fun, though there’s nothing wrong with that either. But because Rock music got tagged with seriousness, personal expression, and elements of ‘art’, it had a greater lasting impact than earlier forms of popular music. (And because Rock became associated with seriousness and importance, boomers and their children thought it sufficient to get all their cultural nutrients from Rock music since it provided both fun and meaning. Prior to Rock Culture, no one who listened to Pop Music would have thought he or she could get the full cultural experience from pop tunes alone. This is the danger of pop culture merging with seriousness. Many people, including the educated, get to feeling that whatever they like — Hollywood movies or Rock music — is enough since it comes packaged with both fun and meaning. So, watchers of ‘serious’ TV shows may feel no need to read books. Fans of Rock music may feel no need to listen to classical music. Fans of ‘serious’ Hollywood movies — even superhero movies and 007 flicks are now sometimes given ‘art-house’ treatment, as with Christopher Nolan’s dreadful BATMAN movies — may feel no need to watch Art Films since the junk they like are now said to be sufficiently ‘artful’. We have grownups like Walter Russell Mead, Francis Fukuyama, Jonah Goldhagen, and Richard Spencer pontificating about GAMES OF THRONES, THE WIRE, BREAKING BAD, and BATMAN as if they are awesome works of art.) As important, even great, as Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Frank Sinatra were, they were clearly entertainers first and foremost — though Gershwin did go for some arty fusion of the serious and fun. So, even as people who grew up with them loved them, they tended to fade in popularity and relevance once their fans grew older and new generations arrived. (In a way, the legendary status of 60s Rockers owes to a certain paradox. They represented the unlikely fusion of the great reverence and great rebellion as well as the fusion of the biggest collective cultural movement and most intense individualism — hippies gathered at Woodstock to see some of the most singular acts in music history. The Rolling Stones and many British acts loved playing nasty, but they were steeped in a kind of mystical respect for the blues tradition. Dylan was steeped in folk, country, & blues but also the most daring innovator and stylist. Dylan copped the rebel attitude from Rock n Roll and James Dean. But he imbibed a reverence for traditional music and cultural roots from the Folk Movement and long bouts of private readings on history and literature. So, Rock culture, especially as shaped by folkies like Dylan and Neil Young, gained a sense of heritage rooted in history, thereby able to withstand the winds of fashion. Folk music has lasting value but is regarded as past music locked in its museum-like traditionalism. Pop music has wide appeal but fades with fashion. 60s Rock Music merged roots, popularity, and personal vision. This sense of personal vision went far beyond the personality of, say, Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby. It wasn’t merely a matter of celebrity or style but having something-to-say, something-to-reveal-of-oneself. And Dylan embodied this ideal better than anyone else. His music had roots, daring, popular appeal[especially when covered by other performers], and personal vision.) Generally, most entertainment speaks to the people of the time, and fitfully, its value passes away with the time. There are exceptions to be sure, as certain works of entertainment have such a vast and universal appeal that they pass from generation from generation. Though most people today don’t know or give a hoot about Gilbert & Sullivan, everyone still knows about THE WIZARD OF OZ. All the children loved it in 1939, so much so that they showed it to their kids who grew up and showed it to their kids and so on. Though GONE WITH THE WIND was never a movie I cared for, it’s another one of those movies that seem to pass from generation from generation.
But most works of entertainment pass from the limelight once fashions change. And since they were made for the masses and since the masses mostly have cultural amnesia, most of older entertainment become forgotten except in the archives rummaged by buffs and ultra-fans with fetish for that stuff — like the Steve Buscemi character in GHOST WORLD by Terry Zwigoff. Far more people indulge in entertainment than in art, but paradoxically, art wins the long-distance marathon of longevity and memory.
Some might argue that art wins in the long run because the Test of Time ultimately favors works of more beautiful, more sublime, more mysterious, and/or more meaningful value. This is true enough. But the other reason is that elite cultural institutions cannot function without a canon, and therefore, they maintain an official memory of the most essential works. Thus, even though works of art may survive for a long time whereas most of entertainment is forgotten, most of art survive only in the minds of a relatively few people who have ties to elite institutions or show an interest in such things. Thus, classical music will never be forgotten, but the torch will be passed from elites to elites while being ignored by the masses, even the college-educated ones.
There has been some discussion as to Classical Music could be revived, and maybe the only useful way is to re-associate the music with stories, themes, events, and phenomenon outside music: representational music. Why do people still love classical-style music in movies? Because the music is associated with other things in life and reality. For the same reason, representational painting will always be more popular than abstract ones or those hung up on the inherent features of the form itself, which is like a mind that Platonically thinks of nothing but the mind itself, as if all the truths are contained within. But, in reality, the mind has no purpose and meaning without its relations to the other senses and the body. Why did Helen Keller arrive at a higher kind of reality? Because she finally learned to associate her senses of the world around her with her mind. The rise of modernist music was like the willful dumb-and-deafen-ization of music, a disassociation of music from the world around it. While music is intrinsically the most abstract and elusive art form, meanings could be conveyed and textures could be highly suggestive of certain moods and experiences. Though any piece of music could conjure up thousand different images or sensations in thousand different listeners, certain sounds clearly suggested grandeur or heat while others intimated darkness or coldness. Thus, music had traditionally been a part, an ebb-and-flow, of the larger reality and experience. Think of the First Movement of Antonin Dvorak’s NEW WORLD SYMPHONY that suggests ships sailing in the open seas and the excitement of discovery of virgin land. Or consider the darkness and solemnity of the Second Movement. Though there was justified excitement in the rise of modernist music and its experimentations, it tended to be radical and exclusive, thus shutting off the elite music schools to any other kind of music, and of course, this was an effective way of discouraging many talented people with different ideas(from the prevailing dogma) and of preciously walling in the avant-garde acolytes from the larger world.
Instead of arguing that there should be a place for modernism in music, the elite controllers of institutions insisted that modernism must be the only thing that really matters in the academia, and it was attitudes such as this that led to the demise of classical music. When musical elites come to degrade talents like Dmitri Shostakovich and Jean Sibelius because they didn’t conform the modernist notion of what is truly worthy of ‘serious’ consideration, the world of classical music was condemned to grow less and less relevant. And since the newly trained ‘serious’ musical composers in elite music schools equated accessibility and representationalism-reflectionism with sell-out philistine-ism and run-of-the-mill reactionism, they weren’t likely to attract a new generation of music lovers from the general populace.
One can understand why many people in the past were attracted to Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, or Richard Strauss, but how many people really care for stuff like Elliott Carter or John Adams? Not that there’s anything wrong with liking that stuff, but a kind of neo-puritanism took over the elite fields of art where it was deemed almost ‘neo-sinful’ to make or partake in anything pleasurable, and this has certainly been the case with Jean-Luc Godard ever since the late 1960s; it’s like Godard instituted his own self-injunction against anything that might delight people with beauty, romance, and humor. It’s all deadly humorlessness and morbid seriousness. Worse, it’s seriousness that one cannot even make sense of. But then, presumably a form of seriousness that can be accessed or understood is a kind of pleasure, a bad bad thing.
 |
| Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE. At some point, Godard decided he is such a compelling figure that we should pay attention to him paying attention himself. To watch a film like DETECTIVE is to watch the 'art' of navel-gazing. If celebrity culture is about worshiping idiots who worship themselves, cultism is about obsessing over fools who obsess over themselves. Thus, Godard's Maoist period in the late 60s and early 70s was less political than psychological. He felt a need to be like Mao, a god-like figure who is mindlessly obeyed and worshiped by acolytes and devotees. Godard went from genuine experimental film artist to a cultist with mindless hangers-on and followers. |
Anyway, for along stretch in the 20th century, the new kind of ‘serious music’ being concocted by the modernists simply didn’t offer much for those seeking alternatives to popular music. Much of the new music sounded disassociated from what might be recognized as ‘human’, ‘emotional’, or ‘historical’. Though even music that was specifically composed to ‘denote’ certain events or phenomenon could evoke different things — Prokofiev’s score for ALEXANDER NEVSKY, for example, can rouse up images of any great battle or violent natural phenomenon — , the listener has a general sense of what-kind-of-thing is being conveyed or expressed. While it’s perfectly understandable as to why some people care about abstract painting or avant-garde or modernist/atonal music, the fact remains that even among the serious followers of art and culture, most prefer something that is reasonably(if not entirely) recognizable or representational. (Van Gogh and Monet were reasonably representational, presenting an interesting tension between the familiar/ordinary and strange/extraordinary. It is also the strength of MULHOLLAND DR., as opposed to something as shapeless and pointless as INLAND EMPIRE.) Thus, even if most cinephiles care about the art of cinema more than most moviegoers do, the average cinephile prefers something like BREATHLESS, 400 BLOWS, SEVEN SAMURAI, TOKYO STORY, THE RULES OF THE GAME, CITIZEN KANE, and IVAN THE TERRIBLE to something like the later works of Godard, the films of Alexander Kluge, the works of Stan Brakhage, and the dreadful works of Chantal Akerman. While cinema should be experimental, expansive, and open to all kinds of expression, the ‘art of cinema’ will decline and die if the elite controllers of cinema insist that ‘true artists’ of cinema must only make ultra-avant-garde films — like some of impenetrable works of Jacques Rivette — and dispense with all ‘conventional’ aspects of cinema such as storytelling, characterization, dramatic conflict, and etc. (Indeed, such dogmatism seems to have succumbed to natural death due to benign neglect though, to be sure, it is kept alive by artificial life-support at certain film festivals and corners of the academia. Due to the cultish respect for figures like Godard, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and even the loathsome Akerman, most in the film community dared not voice their opposition to the Cinema-of-Boredom, though some have. But even without overt opposition, things fade and die though polite neglect, and in both Rock Culture and Film Culture, there was a quiet but decisive move away from Difficult Dogmatism that came to test people’s patience. Rock critics’ insistence on unpleasant acts, especially punk and the likes of Patti Smith, as ‘authentic’ Rock music gradually turned people away from the Critical perspective toward the fun celebration of Pop Idol culture. And the slow demise of Film Culture at the hands of radical critics who favored dull neo-puritanical film-makers turned the newer generation of film fans to Pop Cinema. Ironically, the fans of Pop Cinema will pay salutary tribute to the Difficult Dogmatists — just like white/Jewish/homo Liberals[who should really be called illiberals] who gentrify the Negroes out of cities will pay lip-service to the nobility of the wonderful Negro — , but they would rather gab about the latest superhero movie or some such than discuss the meaning of JEANNE DIELMANN. Of course, the Goldilocks Rule, usually the Golden Rule of Art, offers a third way between Pop Culture and Difficult Dogmatism, but culture tends toward extremes becomes it comes to be dominated by money-men in the industry and by the radicals in the institutions.) Whenever Peter Greenaway bitches about how cinema is still a "19th century art form", he overlooks the crucial truth that cinema has remained a living art form because it still produces works that has meaning to a lot of people. Also, storytelling is timeless and eternal, not limited to any time period.
In the world of culture, there are the masses, the elites, and ultra-elites. For an art form to be viable, organic, and alive — as serious art — , it must hold the interest of both the elites and ultra-elites. Serious film-making is still alive as an art form because the concept of the ‘art film’ still ranges from those with ‘conventional’ narratives to certain more ‘avant garde’ works. But think of the damage done to other forms of art — painting, sculpture, music, and etc. — when the controllers of the elite institutions overseeing such arts insisted that everything had to be ‘radical’ and cleansed of all ‘conventional’ and ‘accessible’ impurities. As those art forms only appealed to the ultra-elites, they lost the interest of the elites who wanted something more than mass entertainment but still wanted something recognizably human and emotional from the arts.
What happens when the ultra-elites shut themselves off from the rest of society[though often with the conceit that they are ‘progressives’ twenty years ahead of their time and working to advance the arts as a tool of revolution] and the elites who still cling to the ‘human element’ lose hope? In time, no one gives a crap about the ultra-elites who are ‘masturbating’ in their own corner, and the elites don’t know what to do since the intolerantly radical ultra-elites hold the keys of institutional power. The eventual result is the rise of Pop Art. Since the elite culture that had existed between pop culture and ultra-elite culture is gone, Pop merges with avant-garde, and we have a culture that hails the likes of Andy Warhol as one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, maybe of all time.
It’s worth speculating how the cultural sensibility of the Boomers might have panned out if not for the intervention of Bob Dylan who did more than any other figure to turn Rock music into an art form. While there had been plenty of playful, ironic, refined, sophisticated, and/or artful expressions in popular music, few had taken the direction of eccentric personal vision of the kind exemplified by Dylan. His force of will and vision made himself the center of gravity. His music was about his being and vision. One could make this claim for Jazz greats like Charlie Parker, but Jazz, by its very nature, was either too restless & hyperbolic or too slippery & elusive to form into a cogent personal vision. It was all more about the vibes or showmanship. Country singers and blues-men also had stories to tell, but they stuck to the limitations of their genre, and this fidelity took precedence over personality even though personality was a big part of the act. Once a blues-man, always a blues-man. Once a country singer, always a country singer. In a way, such fidelity was also the limiting feature of classical, modern, and serious music. Classical artists couldn’t deviate too far from the classical mode. They could draw inspiration from non-classical sources, especially folk melodies, but classical music had a certain sound. From Mozart to Mahler, they all had to have the classical sound. And modern music had its set of formal and/or ‘ideological’ rules. The striking thing about Dylan was that, once having broken free from the orbit of the Folk Movement, he himself was at the center of all the swirling sounds. This wasn’t the product of arrogance or egomania — though he did think highly of himself — but his genius of taking all the influences and melding them into a sound expressing his sense of life.
BLONDE ON BLONDE poses a challenge to categorization. Is "Visions of Johanna" a form of popular music made serious or a form of serious music made popular? Was it equally both or neither? Was Dylan reshaping one thing into another, or was something new emerging from his creative smelting pot? BLONDE ON BLONDE is like musical metallurgy where the bits and pieces from the American musical junkyard weren’t merely fitted together but melted down and melded into new forms that hadn’t been known before.
"Visions of Johanna" is not a pop song merely gilded with arty touches — like certain later Beatles songs — but a total work of art where every material has been forged into an inseparable whole. So, even the label ‘folk rock’ is misleading in delineating its essence. A song like "Subterranean Homesick Blues" or "Maggie’s Farm" may indeed be properly be characterized as "folk rock", but songs like "Just Like a Woman", "One of Us Must Know", "Visions of Johanna", and "Memphis Blues Again" render such designation inadequate. The conscious mind can logically and rationally separate, piece together, and conjoin different sets of images and ideas, but the artistic process, at least in its truest sense, requires something more than assemblage of different components. It requires heat of the creative furnace. The components must be melted down and alchemically molded into something new at the ‘molecular’ level, and this process can only happen in the furnace of the subconscious. The rare great artist has more of a direct connection between the subconscious and the conscious, but he relies on his subconscious to melt them all down in order for his conscious mind to reprocess them and mold them into something original, singular, and different. That is the essence of the greatness of BLONDE ON BLONDE. It is also one of the truly momentous cultural events of the 20th century.
If we take Dylan out of the equation — suppose he had never been born or become a lawyer or died in the early 60s in a plane crash — , would Rock music have made the claim to be recognized as a genuine form of art? Would Beatles have been inspired to push the envelope and go into the mode of Personal Artist than remain as mere entertainers like the Dave Clark Five, thus inspiring countless fans to see Rock differently and expect more from it? Would Lou Reed have written the songs for VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO? Would the Boomer generation been so passionate about Rock music in the way that the 1950s generation wasn’t about Rock n Roll? While the 50s generation dug Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the like, they knew it was about dance music, about having a good time. No one was looking for meaning from the songs of Elvis or Chuck Berry, no more than the 1940s generation sought meaning from the songs of Sinatra and Sammy Cahn. Indeed, once the 1950s had passed, original Rock n Roll was little more than nostalgia music. In that sense, even the 50s generation had much in common with earlier generations who also looked back to the music of their youth with little more than nostalgia. (Meaning and Truth were to be found in life, literature, religion, and serious culture, not in popular music.) But there was something more in the attachment of the 1960s Boomers to Rock Culture, especially beginning in 1965 when Dylan, Beatles, and Stones took the music to a whole new level. This music wasn’t just for fun, and it would survive not only as cultural nostalgia but serve as the template for personal creative expression for generations to come. 1940s generation and 1950s generation past their youth might listen to their favorite musical stars, be they Sinatra or Elvis or some other, and they might think, "those were the days", but the 1960s generation past their youth might listen to the music of their youth and recall not only the fun but the ‘meaning’ and ‘truth’, what Benjamin Braddock craved in THE GRADUATE. (Especially as each child tended to have his or her own bedroom with his or her own record player, pop music went from something for the whole family to something for him-or-her alone. Indeed, many 60s songs originated in the bedroom of young men like Brian Wilson. When Benjamin Braddock sits alone in his room in THE GRADUATE, the songs of Simon & Garfunkel mean something to him and to no one else. There’s also a one-on-one personal meaning to the Cat Stevens songs in HAROLD AND MAUDE. They are no longer mere pop songs but personal pop songs or ‘perpops’.) Sinatra and Elvis, great as they were, were never appreciated as anything other than entertainers, whereas the best of the 60s Rockers were seen as artists, and art is where the meaning-and-truth is at. You listen to "Hound Dog" not for meaning but to shake your hips. But you listened to "Visions of Johanna", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Ruby Tuesday", "Sounds of Silence", "White Shade of Pale", "Box of Rain", "Into the Mystique", "Fotheringay", and "Stairway to Heaven" for meaning. The meaning might be opaque or hazy, or maybe the lyrics were really just bogus clever nonsense that only sounded ‘poetic’, but there was no denying that 60s Rockers were tapping into moods and feeling heretofore unexpressed in music, popular and serious.
 |
| John Lennon and Beatles working on RUBBER SOUL |
Therefore, the staking of Rock as an art form depends largely on Dylan and a handful of special talents that were either directly or indirectly influenced by him. And apart from Dylan and a few others, there’s precious little in Rock music that could be approached from an academic or ‘intellectual’ angle. As fine as RUBBER SOUL and AFTERMATH are as Rock albums — and even though they would make terrific subjects for books on popular culture — , who would want to take a semester-long college course or write a serious academic study about them? On the other hand, one could easily imagine a year long study of BLONDE ON BLONDE in a university or a dense book on the subject. How many such Rock albums were produced? Not many. This isn’t to suggest that a Rock album’s merit should be determined by academic/intellectual interest — after all, WITH THE BEATLES, Foghorn Leghorn cartoons, and MIDNIGHT RUN are intellectually lightweight but nonetheless fabulous works of popular culture with more creative value that most ‘serious’ works out there — , but cultural elites have always existed, and they’ve always wanted to guard and champion the ‘deep’ & ‘meaningful’ and claim such as their own, and Dylan, more than any other figure, provided this opportunity for the boomer cultural elites. Dylan-ism has become such a feature of Rock Culture that it is applied even to shallow entertainers, as if every personality in pop music is a ‘personal artist’ with ‘something to say’. For example, a clown by the name of Kanye West yaps and yammers about his myriad stupid hangups, but idiot Rock Critics ‘analyze’ the stuff like it’s art and poetry. Even a bogus idol like Christian Aguilera is discussed by some as a singer-songwriter with a personal soul to bare. Dylan was the first to set the template of Rock star as a bonafide all-out personal artist, and this model has been promiscuously applied on too many acts by Rock Critics who feel a need to justify their careers as something other than consumer reporting. Naturally, it helps if they can fool themselves as well as the public that Rock-and-Pop community is filled with ‘personal artists’ with something ‘deep’ and ‘powerful’ to say.
And of course, the entertainers themselves(with full support of the cynical industry) promote such ‘cult of personal expression’, not least because they are filled with massive egos that can easily be stoked by flatterers, which most of today’s critics are. So, when some dumbass rapper hears from critics and commentators that he isn’t just a silly punk or fool but an artist, poet, or prophet, he begins to think accordingly, as if his gibberish really has something to say about the world.
 |
| Christian Aguilera aka Agorilla. Yes, some people regard her as an 'artist' too. If Lena Dunham stands for universal narcissism where ugliness is attractive too, Aguilera stands for universal artistry where even trashy industry-idol antics count as meaningful art too. |
It became all the more confusing because the New Sensibility’s attitude toward ‘art’ was rather like the Liberal view of ‘race’. Liberals will say there is no such thing as ‘race’, which is only a ‘social construct’ in their minds, but they still insist that Negroes must be seen as a race and favored over those designated as ‘white’. (This goes go show that there are only two kinds of people: honest racists or race-ists AND dishonest racists who pretend to be anti-racist. In truth, races do exist, and racial differences exist and profoundly impact society. All people notice racial differences and think-feel-act accordingly. Even watching black-dominated sports is ‘racist’ since black domination means that blacks are superior at running and jumping. Gentrification is ‘racist’ since it predicated on pushing out dangerous criminal blacks to make a community more amenable to ‘nice white liberals’. So-called Affirmative Action is ‘racist’ since it is premised on the notion that blacks need special consideration. So, everyone is a ‘racist’. The question is, "Are you an honest racist or race-ist OR are you a dishonest racist pretending to be anti-racist?" It’s like Hate. Everyone hates to some extent. It would be inhuman to be without hate because it’s such a universal human emotion and response. So, the world is really divided between honest haters who admit they feel hate and dishonest haters who claim that ‘hate’ exists only on the other side. Dishonest haters don’t regard their own hate as hate but as ‘righteousness’. They are so deluded.) Similarly, while the New Sensibility subverted the notion of ‘art’ as ‘reactionary’ and ‘outdated’, it nevertheless argued that a whole bunch of Rock stars and Hollywood directors are genuine ‘artists’ too. So, ‘art’ is just a reactionary social construct that sustains unjust hierarchies — especially favoring ‘dead white males’ — and therefore must be rejected, BUT we must recognize Hollywood film-makers and Rock stars as ‘artists’ too. Liberals(who should now be called Illiberals, especially with their love of PC and ‘free speech that bans hate speech’) were never much for logic. Of course, they will rationalize their blatant contradiction accordingly: Even though ‘race’ and ‘art’ are indeed non-existent social constructs, because such notions have shaped our view of the world — and thus determined the nature of the power dynamics — , we have no choice but to use them towards ‘progressive’ ends to affirmatively privilege those very groups whose rights had been denied by such categories in the past. So, since the concept of ‘race’ favored whites over blacks in the past, we must now reverse-engineer the concept to favor blacks over whites. And we must use the concept of ‘art’ to favor mass culture over elite culture that had been privileged by powerful institutions. Only when total equality has been achieved among the races and in culture can we finally do away totally with the notion of ‘race’ and ‘art’.
Of course, we know the history of communism and the consequences of such utopian pipe-dreams. Try as they might, communist nations couldn’t not get rid of inequality, and if anything, merely a new class of elites and masters(who were more tyrannical than the capitalist bourgeoisie) arose to take total control. The natural way of the world is to have hierarchies and unequal divisions of power and wealth. Such may be alleviated if everyone were naturally equal in ability and ambition, but even then, differences would remain. After all, even if everyone was an Einstein, not every Einstein could work as a scientist or in some elite position. Some will have to work as janitor, some will have to clean the streets, some will have to work in factories, some will have to work as bus drivers. So, class didn’t fade away even in communist nations as Karl Marx predicted it would. If anything, former communist nations like Russia and China — today ‘communist’ only in name — have huge inequalities. And anyone who thinks Cuba and North Korea — the last communist holdouts — are societies of any kind of equality is crazy or ignorant.
Anyway, an artist of Bob Dylan’s caliber is rare, and even Bob Dylan couldn’t sustain peak-genius for long. Also, if Rock music threatens to become overly ‘arty’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘deep’, and/or ‘complex’, it loses its vitality and essence, which was why there was a kind of neo-puritanical punk backlash against the so-called Glam Rock and what might be called Grand Rock — of operatic proportions — that became prominent in the early 70s. Though it may sound odd to associate something as nasty, dirty, rotten, and degenerate as Punk with puritanism, Punk was an act of cultural purgation, and that could have been why it never really caught on in America. For all its conceit about returning to the rebellious and primitive roots of Rock n Roll, it was driven by dogma and ideology than with real sense of fun and pleasure, the whole point of original Rock n Roll. Early Rock n Rollers were rebels by default than design, guys who were having too much fun and getting in trouble over it; they weren’t necessarily trying to be unpleasant and vicious to piss off authorities.
 |
| While the Sex Pistols had novelty act appeal, their shtick was sheer unpleasantness. This could be said of 99% of Punk Rock. It may well be that the Clash was the only truly great Punk Rock band. The Pistols sounded like an electric saw that needed to be put out of its misery. The cultural impact of Punk on British working class culture was dire to the max. Pure poison. |
If Punk Rock gained, at least for a time, greater cachet in the UK, it was due to the lingering legacy of class consciousness and rebellion, but, on the other hand, the kind of fools who were into Punk Rock were more part of the Shirking Class than the Working Class as they generally preferred welfare to work when offered a choice. Though Punk Rock produced its share of great songs — especially by the Clash, the only truly great Punk Rock band — , its days were numbered because its heart-and-soul was sheer unpleasantness. It was like atonal modernist music for vulgarian slobs, which is why the form primarily attracted intellectuals like Greil Marcus on the one hand and unwashed mental cases on the other. Intellectuals could yammer away about the ‘radicalism’ of Punk, and unwashed mental retards could freak out like the morons in the film SID AND NANCY. Also, Punk offered instant identification-with-the-people for the intellectuals and instant identification-with-intellectuals for the dummies. Thus, a leftist intellectual, who had no real connection to the masses, could take up the ‘cause’ of Punk Rock and suddenly feel he’s spreading the gospel of the angry young masses; and half-educated idiots who’d never read Karl Marx or Noam Chomsky could jump around angrily at a Punk concert, stare at the covers of Clash albums, and feel like a ‘revolutionary’.
But such hokum rarely has long shelf life, and Punk faded from the scene, replaced by New Wave that restored the harmonics of Glam Rock. To be sure, Disco was much bigger than Punk, and it was filled with color, harmony, melody, rhythm, and the beat, all the elements essential to Pop music, but it soon embarrassed itself when it got too ‘gay’ and when even foreign tourists came to Disco bars and turned it into sheer camp. When everyone from France, Turkey, and Japan comes to America, dresses up like John Travolta, and wiggles his body, you know it’s all over, especially in a pre-globalist era. In the current global age, something that’s hot in America instantly travels all over the globe, so Americans no longer feel like they are the cutting-edge in culture. But popular culture traveled a bit more slowly back in the 1970s. So, even though Disco was hot in America, Europe caught on somewhat later. And by the time Europe did catch on and was doing the Disco stuff, Americans thought of it as old and passe since OTHER people had finally caught up to the act.
Anyway, even Dylan began to sense that the essence of Rock is simplicity and directness, and this may explain why nearly all of his post-BLONDE ON BLONDE songs have straightforward lyrics than surreal ones. While much of the song-writing in BLOOD ON THE TRACKS is impressive and brilliant — especially "A Simple Twist of Fate" and "You’re a Big Girl, Now" — , the lyrics speak for themselves and don’t require literary interpretation to unlock their meanings. Dylan probably ditched surrealism because he never wanted to do the same thing twice and because he knew it couldn’t be faked once the surreal muse had run dry. When he was under the influence of certain drugs and filled with literary(as well as musical) ambitions while working on HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, the strange flow of words probably came together in his mind, and even he probably didn’t know the full implications of their meanings. The narratives seem to be taking place in a kind of lucid-dream-space where reality was simultaneously unveiled of lies and mocked into nonsense. It was like satire of satire, the vision of a satirist with the conceit of seeing the world clearly only to realize that his clarity is itself a delusion and hypocrisy. A song like "Memphis Blues Again" mocks everyone in town but then also the narrator who feels the desperation of someone who not only sees too much bullshit all around but finds himself mired in the quicksand of absurdity. It’s like a world of clowns where every clown laughs at other clowns only to realize that he too cannot escape from his own clown-hood.
 |
| John Lennon on Yoko was worse than any Rock Star on any drug. The crazy Japanese bitch was pure poison. |
Nevertheless, there must be something about a work that makes it spread and dominate like a virus or ‘meme’, whereas other works, even if of higher artistic value or deeper truth, has difficulty catching on. Apart from the issue of artistic worth, has any form of French music taken the world by storm like Jazz, Rock n Roll, Rock, and Hollywood show tunes? Also, we can name lots of French tunes that were borrowed from American music, but how much of American music was borrowed from 20th century French music? There’s "Beyond the Sea" popularized by Bobby Darrin and some others, but the fact is even many French came to prefer English pop. There are many English-language acts with cross-over appeal in France — consider the huge popularity of Cranberries in France — few, if any, French acts that gained popularity across the English Channel. American music aficionados may love the music of Delerue, Piaf, or Legrand, but how much of American music takes cues from French music?
 |
| Michel Legrand |
But it still begs the question, why did American culture have such a huge impact on French culture and not vice versa, especially when America as a nation was created through much greater diversity — immigrants from all over the world — and when American pop culture through much of the 20th century was controlled by International Jews than by established Wasps? Perhaps, Americans didn’t feel a need to look beyond their borders since America was perceived as having been created by the coming together of the entire world — just about every nation in Europe and from non-white nations too, especially blacks from Africa. Why look outside America when America is itself the culmination of the world?
Or maybe the great diversity of America made Americans favor the generic and universally appealing over the specific, special, traditional, and/or tribal. Since all kinds of Americans had to get along and since a shared culture was important for the unity of Americans, maybe masses of Americans felt greater affinity for the kind of culture that seemed easily appealing and accessible to just about anyone. Thus, even though Jazz had specific Negro origins, it was appealing because it made everyone — black, white, brown, yellow, red, etc. — wanna wiggle their bodies like monkeys. And even though the Western was essentially about the white man conquering the West — often violently in conflict with the red man — , it had universal appeal with its themes of adventure, right & wrong, manhood, and honor. As for immigrants in America who arrived with dreams and hopes, they could identify with Western pioneers who were moving into new territories. Also, there was the balance of the old and the new in the Western that any immigrant would have understood since every immigrant group wanted to preserve their culture of origin but also embarked on new freedoms and possibilities in this land called ‘America’. And even though there weren’t too many Negroes in Westerns, Negroes in the South might see Westerns and feel a sense of freedom they lacked living under the rednecks who might even call them ‘nigger’ on occasion. A Negro sharecropper who had to pick cotton all day might feel a sense of thrill at the sight of a cowboy on horseback roaming freely through vast expanses in a Western movie. Better to imagine riding a horse than working like a horse which is what most folks, white or black, did in the South, like in the song "Old Black Joe".
Perhaps, the great advantage of American popular culture — and even high or at least higher culture, as in the case of Ernest Hemingway — was a combination of genericism and aggression. The genericism made it appealing to everyone because it wasn’t loaded with the specificity of culture or tradition, and the aggressiveness made it ‘sexy’ and exciting. The Western is both generic and aggressive. Cowboys and gunmen wear simple clothes, carry simple weapons, and act simply without pretensions, but they are also tough, aggressive, and proud, which makes them kinda admirable, even ‘cool’ and ‘sexy’.
Even though there is much in French culture, high or low, that may have considerable appeal to people around the world, one is always aware that it is French culture than a culture-for-everyone. Indeed, ‘American’ has become almost synonymous with what anyone around the world could be with the blessings of freedom and opportunity. Some might argue that it has something to do with language, i.e. that French language is stylistically far more distinct than English, and there is no way to speak French in a generic or plain manner. French is stylistic and showy by inherent design. Even if you try not to speak it in a fancy or stylized manner, you find yourself doing so because the sounds call for musicality and fragrance.
In contrast, even though British English is stylized and mannered(though in a curt than cursive manner — British English is spoken like Times New Roman whereas French is spoken like Dancing Script), English can be made and spoken in a plainer and more generic manner, as indeed Americans, Canadians, and Australians came to do. Without the lordly control of society and culture by the British elites with their clipped manners and insistent social standards, the masses of English speakers ‘reverted’ to speaking English in a rather common manner. Thus, English needs a degree of effort, insistence, and upkeep to maintain its refinement whereas French is refined by nature — though, to be sure, one can see plenty of working class ruffians, nasty intellectuals, and Negroes speak French in a rather crude way in some movies.
And it must be remembered that it wasn’t so much British English culture that gained prominence around the world but American English culture. Even though the British Empire had once dominated the world, British English culture generally appealed to the elites of other nations than to the masses. Thus, Asian Indian elites would learn to speak refined upper-crust English and try to associate with the best of British English elite society. Since British English imperialism was very hierarchical, the elites maintained authority and power over the lower-rung Britons who did the grunt work. (If American colonialists[especially among the elites] rebelled and overthrew the rule of the British elites — not least because native-born American colonialists were the overwhelming majority in the lands that they occupied — , even most lower-rung British colonialists in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East remained loyal to the British Empire since they were vastly outnumbered by the natives who might think to chuck spears at the colonists.) Thus, British Imperialism was about elite rule, and therefore, the cultural influence of British elites generally fell on the native elites favored and handpicked by the British. British Imperialists were not interested in spreading British culture to the native masses of their empire. Also, British capitalism tended to be industrialist than consumerist — it valued workers for their labor than purchasing power — , and it was American capitalists like Henry Ford who began to spread the notion that just about anyone should be able to afford a car.
Millions of dolts could be watching the same TRANSFORMERS movie around the world, but each viewer feels ‘empowered’ by the fantasy that HE is the hero who defeats the bad guys, gets the girl, and saves the world. The Soviet idea of the Hero was to lose oneself in the humanist-ideological embrace of the People, whereas the American idea of the Hero was to stand above the crowd, and of course, every moviegoer would rather identify with Clint Eastwood or Tom Cruise than the little ordinary people who need to be saved.
Then, it is perhaps not surprising that much of Hollywood blockbuster movie-making today could be called ‘pop fascism’ or ‘universal fascism’. They make the viewer feel not so much as a good person like any other but as the grand hero superior and indispensable to all. It is premised on the notion of will-to-power and supremacism, BUT the catch is that just about ANYONE could be this hero with the price of admission to fantasy. Thus, superhero comic book movies sell both supremacist exceptionalism and universal egalitarianism in a single package, especially since many of the superheroes start out as ordinary nobodies but then gain extraordinary powers. Even Superman came from a planet where his kind were but ordinary mortals with human strengths. He only gained super strength upon reaching Earth.
Such notions were denounced as narcissistic and egocentric in the communist world — even body building was officially frowned upon as self-serving and self-promoting during Soviet rule — in the spirit of socialist altruism and humanist virtue(at least to the morally puritanical), but communism lacked ‘sex’ appeal or the cult of coolness. It was more fun and fetching for people around the world to imagine driving a sports car, owning fancy property, having the latest TV sets and stereo systems, and watching the latest 007 movie than to ride on the Red Train of Revolution singing the Internationale for the umpteenth time. (It’s not surprising that communism had the greatest appeal when the power of religion was still strong even while its grip was slipping. Many communists had been raised with the fear of God and vision of Heaven & Hell. They were turned on by the Moral Authority and Messianic prophecy of communism as the New Faith. So, even as communism was virulently atheistic and waged violent war on religion, it often appealed most to those steeped in religious mind-set or those seeking a secular substitute for religion. But once society and culture became less religious/spiritual in favor of materialism, modernism, and individualism, the appeal of communism was greatly diminished. With new generations addicted to fun, leisure, and narcissism[without all the religious hangups of the past], communism seemed puritanical and drab like Old Time religion. Thus, it makes sense that the new forms of ‘progressivism’ would latch onto Pop Culture, funky Negro music, and homo displays of excess. Sensualism became the new ‘spiritualism’, going so far as to proselytize that God exists to serve the vanity of homos.) It is no wonder that even as Catholics loathed Godless communism, on certain matters and issues Catholics found themselves agreeing with communists who spoke the language of sacrifice and virtue than with capitalists who promoted and encouraged the culture of narcissism and materialism. On some level, even an arch-conservative like Pat Buchanan culturally feels closer to Soviet Communists than with globalist capitalists who are spreading decadent-narcissistic stuff like the homo agenda all over the world. For all its rhetoric about creating a worldwide utopia without borders where all workers would be brethren and sistren, communists tended to be culturally more conservative, nationalistic, and moralistic than the capitalist-consumerists for whom morality became serving the vanity of Jewish and homo elites who use their control of the capitalist media and crony-capitalist state to transform the Narrative into a morality tale that would have us believe "serving rich Jews is noble" and "serving rich homos is virtuous" — and "worshiping the apelike thug Martin L. King with the boom-box voice is the highest religion of the land." That’s basically what now passes for Western morality: Serving powerful Jews & privileged homos and saying prayers to Magic Negroes. Liberals insist that they are ‘more evolved’ because they do just about anything to please Jews and homos, and Establishment Conservatives insist they’ve been cured of ‘racism’ because they will do just about anything to appease Jewish Zionists, even if it means abandoning opposition to the homo agenda so dearly loved by Neocon or Ziocon masters of the GOP.
On the other hand, there were German Jews who appreciated German tradition & culture and wanted a meaningful stake in it, and if National Socialism had offered a place to such Jews — like Mussolini had initially welcomed Jews into the Fascist Movement, which is one reason why Jews aren’t so harsh on Italian Fascism as many Jews had been a part of it — , a considerable number of German Jews would likely have joined the movement even if the majority would have remained on the Left or in subversive mode. And of course, there were many German or Germanic Jews who were both brilliant(and contributed to German culture) and committed to undermining & trashing German culture. It’s like Robert Oppenheimer was a great Jewish-American scientist who made a great contribution to nuclear physics but also a committed closet-communist and Zionist imperialist with a virulent hatred for patriotic white Christian Americans.
 |
| Heinrich Heine the great German poet and nasty Jew |
To be sure, there are lots of smart white gentiles, but they’ve lost the righteous fire and aggression of the Jews. Generally speaking in history, those who would be pushed around will be pushed around by those who would push. It’s like Anglo-Americans got used to ruling over Mexicans because Mexicans preferred to be pushed around and take orders than do the pushing and ordering themselvers. Mexicans come to America not so much to take over but to serve. Even though Mexicans speak of "we shall overwhelm" as a collective, most of them seek out gringo bosses to work for. "Gimme job to pick lettuce, senor; gimme job to clean the stable, senor; gimme job to mow the lawn, senor; etc." There are many more Mexicans than Jews in America, but just compare the relative power of the two groups. Jewish immigrants mostly arrived poor, but they had their minds set on money, education, and taking over elite institutions & governments even though they never made up more than 3% of the US population. Even though Mexicans are nearly 10% of the US population and there may be an extra 10 million illegal Mexicans in this country, their idea of a good life is finding some gringo to hire them to pick lettuce. So, Mexicans tend to be rather passive — despite the angry rhetoric of La Raza — and want to follow orders in light of their lack of initiative. So, whites(and Jews) rule over Mexicans in Texas and California even though there are so many Mexicans in both states.
If there were as many Jews in Texas and California as there are Mexicans, they would have taken over the entire galaxy many times over. So, Anglos push Mexicans around and play boss since Mexicans feel at east with such relationship(especially if the Mexicans happen to be of indigenous ‘Asiatic’ blood that makes them more earnest and docile like the old man who brings the ax to Kris Kristofferson in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID or like the stable-hand in BIG COUNTRY.) Mexicans cross the border in search of Big Gringo and ask, "Will you be my boss, por favor?" They are like Tattoo of FANTASY ISLAND who bleats, "Boss, the plane, the plane." If Mexicans serve Gringos, white Americans serve Jews. Relative to Jews, white gentiles are more passive and mentally slow. Even when you have a white gentile and Jew of same IQ, the Jew is doing the pushing and the white guy is doing the getting-pushed. Jews like being the boss of all people, and white gentiles, though no slouches when it comes to Mexicans and Asians, turn into cattle before the Jews, and this is why Jews were pushed out of so many European nations. Once they were a given a chance to rise up and make something of themselves, Jews would get all nasty and pushy and act like they owned the place. (To be sure, Jews aren’t pushy all the time. Being only pushy would be dumb. It’d be like a basketball player acting like a defensive lineman in football. It would be like a fighter swinging like a brawler than moving like a boxer. To be a truly great fighter, one must master the ‘sweet science’. This is why Jews love basketball. True, it is about speed and aggression, but those abilities aren’t enough. A basketball player can’t just push his way through the defense. He has to go around opponents, slip and slide, feint and fool. He has to look for openings. So, Jews don’t just push. They wind, burrow, squeeze, slither, slip & slide. They are keen on timing. They know subterfuge and ambush. They may act passive, nice, and gentle but then make the sudden move through the opening. Jews negotiate like that. Same with Jewish humor. Consider Woody Allen who acts nice and smiley but is always looking for that perfect moment to strike with lethal venom when least expected. Jews are pushy when they can just push their way through. But they are also slippy-slippery and look for vulnerabilities when up against the wall. It’s like how Kubrick was obsessed with the bugs in the system. A system is works like a brick wall — like the Wasp father in THE HEARTBREAK KID — and meant to be impenetrable, but every system has its Achilles’ Heel or fatally weak spot. Every system has a soft underbelly, a soft heart, a soft head. Jews may smile and act nice & kindly and friendly. But they are only biding their time to ‘feel around’ the defensive system to identify the soft spot, and then they strike. Only a dummy would push against a thick brick wall with brute force. Look what happens to Jake LaMotta as he batters his head and fists against a concrete wall. He goes nowhere. If you want to break out of the wall, you have to ‘feel around’ for weakness in the system and slip-and-slide through it.) Just think about it. How did a great nation that was created by great vision, effort, and principles by the white Anglo people fall so easily into the hands of hideous and venal Jews? How could white Anglo-Americans create something so magnificent as America and then, without hardly a struggle, hand over the keys and levers of power to fiendish Jews? Because Anglo-Americans realized that the smartest and pushiest people on Earth are the Jews, and therefore, maybe they should step aside with gentlemanly principle and allow Jews to take over everything. Why didn’t Anglo-Americans push back to keep the power? Because they believed in the principle of honor and the Rule of Law(as opposed to Rules for Radicals) and, as a result, felt it was only right to move aside to make room for a people who beat the Anglo-Americans at their own game.
 |
| In THE REVENGE OF THE NERDS, nebbish Jew-like characters use their superior wits against a blonde 'Aryan' fraternity. But they still lack for muscle and manliness, so they ally with a Macho Black Fraternity. It's like how Jews waged their War on Whiteness. They used their brains, but wit wasn't enough to topple white prestige. In order to destroy white manhood, they needed the alliance with a kind of manhood that could beat up whites. Jews allied with Negroes and promoted black brawn to de-legitimize white manliness. that was beaten by black fists in sports. So, white boys came to worship Negro athletes and white girls now have babies with Negroes. Jews rub their hands in glee. Jewish War on Christianity is of secondary importance. White people can still be powerful without Christianity. Indeed, the demise of Christianity may only empower whites by ridding them of the soft heart of universal brotherhood and Christian guilt that is the prototype of 'white guilt'. But when white men lose manly pride and their women to Negroes, the white race is over and done with. Whiteness has been destroyed at the genetic level. A white 'leftist' can be ideologically made into a white nationalist with a change of mind. But a mudshark uses her white womb to produce black babies for black men. Her womb has turned traitor at the biological level. Jews want to turn all white women onto jungle fever and turn white men into a bunch of pansy cucks via all this multi-gender identification that encourages even straight white males to see themselves as fey if not 'gay'. |
Anyway, the success of a national culture on the global scale cannot be measured by the popularity of its consumerist products alone. For a product of one nation to appeal to other nations, it needs a certain transnational hook. Consider that the relative popularity of German culture in the first half of the 20th century had to do with rise of Jewish-German talent. Early German cinema owed substantially to Jewish writers, directors, & producers. Unsurprisingly, many such figures made smooth transition to Hollywood. Since Jews in Germany didn’t feel a soulful or ethnic connection to Germany, their sensibility was bound to be more worldly and transnational. Thus, if a German film-maker might fixate on his German-ness as part of his very being, a Jewish-German director might formulate German-ness as a concept that could be molded to appeal not only to Germans but to people around the world..
Profoundly nationalistic German artists might deride or demean the Jewish-German artist or film-maker as inauthentic in Germanness, but works that are adamant in their national identity and character generally don’t translate into global appeal. Of course, certain national cultures may be admired and appreciated for their uniqueness, but such appreciation usually takes place in the realm of elite culture. For cultural elites who prefer the real or authentic over the ‘watered-down’, ‘cross-over’, ‘exotic’, ‘genericized’, or ‘universalized’, a film like ANDREI RUBLEV or TOKYO STORY may indeed impress. Such works come across as ‘less compromised’ and ‘less eager to please’.
 |
| SUNRISE directed by F.W. Murnau |
But surely, there were other reasons too. America, being more democratic and egalitarian in spirit, was less conscious of the hierarchical value of Culture. If a European film-maker might have given some extra effort to make something of ‘worth’, the American counterpart was more willing(even shameless) to make anything to make people laugh and to rake in the bucks, and such freewheeling spirit was bound to have greater mass appeal. Even when European artists and film-makers were being anti-authoritarian, they sought out ‘intellectual’ angles of rationale, whereas Americans just poked fun at stuff for a laugh. It was in the spirit of TOM SAWYER and HUCKLEBERRY FINN. (The art of subversion, though often directed at the powers-that-be, tends to be elitist than populist for it thrives on irony, ambiguity, and deception. Subversion isn’t a direct strike at the system. It is a covert act, and the masses are as likely to be hoodwinked as the powers-that-be even if the subversive act is ostensibly carried out in the name of the People. In a way, subversion is a two-front war by the avant-garde that disdains both the traditional/established elites and the vulgar-dumb-bigoted masses with ingrained prejudices. The radical vanguard finds the elites to be greedily guarding their unfair or undeserved privileges. But, the vanguard also finds the masses to be ignorant, prejudiced, and brainwashed by the elites. If populism assumes that what most people want constitutes the essence of social-political justice, radicalism assumes that the people don’t know what they want since they’ve been kept in the dark from the real truth and raised as sheeple under the influence of corrupt elites. As Thomas Frank wondered in WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?, true radical politics cannot be about what-the-people-want because the people’s hearts-and-minds have been molded by the elites against the people’s own true interests and advantages. After all, one reason why communists had a difficult time was not only the repressive violence of the capitalist or ‘reactionary’ elites but the knee-jerk hostility of the masses who’d been indoctrinated by overlord class to see socialists and communists as ‘Godless heathens’ and baby-eating monsters. The Alt Right is well-aware of the fact that majority opinion doesn’t necessarily reflect the natural wisdom of the people or what is good for the people. Consider how easily the majority of Americans were won over to the filth of ‘gay marriage’. But did the American people really embrace ‘gay marriage’ on their own or were they fooled into thinking it’s what they want by the elites who control media, academia, law, and the state? If elites can mold mass opinion, then which mass opinion is really of the people and belongs to them? Especially when all real cultures & values are dead and have been replaced by fickle fashions of Pop Culture and insipid soma of Political Correctness, opinions and ‘values’ can be changed overnight by the levers of the Cult of the Cool, celebrity-mania, and hype delirium. So, just like the leftist vanguard of yesteryear had to fight a two-front war, the Alternative Right must fight a two-front subversive war against the Globalist Elites and Progot[progressive-bigot] masses whose ideas & values are nothing but poison seeds planted in their minds by Jews, homos, and cuck-traitors. Alt Right needs its own RULES FOR RADICALS by Saul Alinsky.)
In contrast, every European nation was relatively small, and everybody that was anybody tended to be squeezed into one dominant city in every nation. Even today, Paris is France, Vienna is Austria, and London is Britain. Now, imagine if America had been the size of France or Germany and suppose NY was the city with monopoly of power and prestige. Imagine if Hollywood tried to get off the ground in NY where the established elites were. There might have been more pressure on the Jewish film industry to be sensitive to the cultural and ethical standards as laid down by the powers-that-be. In France, the film industry was centered in Paris, like everything else that mattered, and the heart of the film industry in Germany was in Berlin. Thus, Jews in the French film industry and German film industry would have been in much closer proximity with other kinds of people involved in arts and culture and would have felt pressure, direct and indirect, to be more mindful of cultural standards, be they moral, intellectual, or ideological.
But Hollywood developed in Los Angeles when it was pretty much a cultural wasteland in terms of High Art and intellectualism. Even in the 1970s, Woody Allen made jokes about the difference between New York and Los Angeles(though he was surely proud that Jews came to dominate both. In a way, Los Angeles seems to have won the Culture War due to the gradual demise of High Culture in America. In media and academia, there is far more attention paid to Pop Culture discourse. NY and other such cities still have obligatory book readings at book stores and film festivals, but the cultural center of attention is about the Blockbuster movies, and much of Contemporary Art is Warholism-to-the-infinite-power. It’s all about hype, marketing, auctioning, and investing. There is Pop Culture and Pop Art. Serious art and ideas still exist but are shunted to the side. Up to the 1970s, the cultural establishment still clung to emphasizing serious intellectual figures of arts and letters as the standard bearers of Real Culture against the philistines and popularizers. When Allen mocked L.A. in ANNIE HALL, many NY sophisticates laughed along in ridicule and agreement. But that scene wouldn’t work today since the sensibility of New York and Harvard is hardly different from Hollywood excess and San Francisco homo flamboyance. While homos had long been prominent in the New York arts & culture scene, their preferred mode had been sublimation. Susan Sontag didn’t always live in NY but she thought like a New York intellectual and kept her lesbianism in the closet even after people found out about it. She thought she had more important things to think about, and making a big fuss about her sexual life seemed irrelevant and pointless. In contrast, there developed a crass and vulgar shameless style in the West Coast cities, and that mind-set, which morphed into Puritanical Shamelessness in demanding that all of us agree that homo shamelessness is the new ‘pride’, seems to now prevail in NY and Ivy League schools as well in that they enforce homomania on everyone; they are neo-puritanically heteronormophobic. Also, NY intellectuals and other such serious folks used to be anti-kitsch. They saw kitsch as the vulgar tool of the powers-that-be in politics and industry that seek to manipulate people with pseudo-ideas[presented as trite slogans], mushiness, collective sentimentality, and etc. They thought the human intellect should be critically sharpened against such mass-manipulation whether by capitalists or communists. But there is no longer any Resistance against Kitsch. If anything, Jews and homo elites now find kitsch very useful, no less than Stalin and Hitler did in their time. Homo ‘pride’ parades are pure kitsch with those Teletubby ‘rainbow’ colors. Obama as new messiah and Oprah as billionaire mammy are pure kitsch. Ellen Degeneris the degenerate as New Normal is kitsch. Indeed, the very idea of New Normal is kitsch that smothers real thinking. People have been won over to ‘gay marriage’ due to mass manipulation of soapy hopey-dopey emotions and razzle-dazzle delirium & hyperbolics. It’s Bread & Circus sold as Buns and Funs. Political Correctness rests on kitsch, just like the Cultural Revolution in China in the 60s. There used to be sharp-edged intellectuals who disdained George Lucas’ descent into kitsch as STAR WARS got dumber and dumber. But the New STAR WARS by J.J. Abrams, which is kitschier than ever, has been hailed by most critics because it conforms to PC kitsch of ‘diversity’, which is also pure kitsch that doesn’t pass the intellectual-factual test. Slogans such as ‘diversity is our strength’ work according to kitsch logic which is no logic at all. It’s all about feely-good emotions. 9/11 didn't kill irony as Roger Rosenblatt wrote. What killed it was Jewish and Homo Power that now rests on hoodwinking and manipulating the mass emotions of the dumbed down population. On the other hand, anti-kitsch-ism can also lead to a trap. The critical mentality may develop a puritanism that ends up cannibalizing on itself. Because the critical mind is distrustful and skeptical about emotional manipulation, it may end up throwing out the baby with the bath-water. It may come to conflate genuine emotions with kitsch or cultural conventionalism that appeals to the mushy heart than to the hardy mind. Since emotions in art tend to be satisfying whereas ideas, formalism, & intellectualism tend to be challenging, the critical mind comes to dismiss emotions as ‘easy’, ‘complacent’, ‘satisfying’, ‘soothing’, & ‘conservative’ and instead comes to value only that which tends to be mentally challenging, abstract, severe, and/or cerebral. Such attitude effectively detects and repels the mushy-gushy inflated hype of kitsch, but it also filters out genuine emotions & rich feelings. Consider the overly intellectual cinema of Jean-Luc Godard or Susan Sontag’s increasingly opaque foray into ‘difficultism’ and ‘esotericism’. Consider the dull-as-hell works of Hans Jurgen Syberberg[who has defenders on the Alt Right only because he said some impolite things about Jewish power] whose stultifying and suffocating HITLER: A FILM FROM GERMANY was lavishly written up by Sontag. Or the anemic, mind-numbing, and sensory-deprived works of Chantal Akerman. [Of course, Akerman’s defenders will argue that the film’s very boredom is a commentary on the gently repressive sterility of bourgeois life that is finally smashed by a ‘revolutionary’ orgasm that raises the heroine’s consciousness into that of psycho-killer like Norman Bates.] This is when the mind turns culturally and aesthetically ‘vegan’. In forsaking all meat as deceptively/deviously satisfying and ‘sinful’, the mind just feeds on hard ideas and spartan concepts. But the human mind devoid of emotional & sensual red meat is famished. Devoid of vital nutrients, it begins to feed on itself for ‘cultural iron and protein’. Such minds turn sallow, soulless, and inhuman even as they claim to speak for justice and social progress. They become like Robespierre in Andrzej Wajda’s DANTON, a film that might have been a commentary not only on failed communism in the East but the humorless radicalism that spread across Western Europe with the May 68 Uprisings. It’s one thing to reject the kitschy junk of fast food like hotdogs and ice cream that offer pleasure but little nutrition, but it’d be fallacious to believe that since fast food is pleasurable, all pleasurable foods must therefore be just as worthless. That would mean rejecting all meat, chicken, fish, pasta, butter, and etc. One reason for the demise of European cinema in the late 60s and 70s had to do with cultural radicalism, especially in France[the main alternative to Hollywood], that rejected pleasure and recognizable emotions. So, European Cinema became cluttered with dull works like the later films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, puritanical Godardian exercises, Jean Eustache’s morose THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE, and worst of all, JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst film of all time. And for a time, Ingmar Berman made film after film devoid of approachable human emotions. There was Jean-Marie Straub’s static contraptions. Jacques Rivette’s films became increasingly detached from any human quality. Susan Sontag dabbled in film-making for awhile and made dry-as-hell exercises in intellectualism that offered nothing for the soul. Sometimes, films along this line could be reasonably interesting, like the Japanese EROS + MASSACRE by Yoshishige Yoshida, but they were rarely engaging on any emotional or human level. For many, the appeal of such films was the smugness of being part of a hip ‘radical underground’ or special club, privy to something that most people have no idea about. Even Robert Altman caught this bug with dull films like THREE WOMEN and the dreadful QUINTET. This was bound to be a dead-end. Usually, there are two kinds of dead-ends in culture. Puritanism that denies, rejects, or represses too much OR Animalism[or ‘Pornitanism’] that lets it all hang out like a gorilla in heat. A puritan is forbidden to express his/her true emotions, and a ‘pornitan’ or animalist has nothing more to show after showing it all in the basest manner possible. It’s no wonder Rap has nowhere else to go. Once blacks yap about how they be all about guns, money, and ho’s, what else is there to say? Once a woman bares her body and says "fuc* me in the ass", where do you go from there? Once homos go wild and celebrate fecal penetration, what else do they have to offer? Culture developed all its rich variations in the sublimated regions between puritanism and pornitanism. It’s that strange contradictory blend of repression and release that makes culture interesting. It’s like the boot-camp scene in FULL METAL JACKET where Sergeant Hartman drills the privates with a perverse mix of reverence and irreverence, of purity and profanity, of community and individuality, of repetition and improvisation. What Hartman says of the Virgin Mary is both reverent and irreverent. He needs to turn these soldiers into men who pledged to a sacred cause but able to sink to beastly level to fight and kill. He needs to turn them into hard men of discipline who are nevertheless imbued with humor and irony to laugh and blow off steam in the most fearsome situations. Anyway, cultural veganism in the arts and culture eventually got tiresome, and even its champions grew bored, and new generations failed to catch on even if some paid it obligatory lip-service to the ‘radical’ thinkers & artists. There was a return to emotions and sensuality, indeed even a return to kitsch, the once derided expression of mass manipulation. But then, how could ‘radical’ intellectuals and ‘creatives’ justify their craving for such ‘triteness’? A conceit was devised whereby the ‘emotions’ carried a certain duality. On the one hand, the emotions could be valued as a means to nudge the masses toward ‘progressive’ ends. Since the masses were dumb and gullible, kitschy use of emotions was thought useful and necessary. But on the other hand, the intellectuals could appreciate and analyze the ‘emotions’ ironically within the cultural & socio-political context in which it operated. It’s no wonder that so many film critics and scholars loved FAR FROM HEAVEN. It can be seen on two or more levels. For the sucker masses who don’t know about Douglas Sirk and 50s cinema, it is gushy-mushy melodrama that plays on their heart-strings in Oprah fashion. It is effective as kitsch. But for the intellectuals, the ‘emotions’ are a commentary on the esoteric design of Douglas Sirk’s film-making and the historical context within which they were closeted. Such conceit even applies to the new STAR WARS movie that is aesthetically and dramatically dreadful. Never mind the Negro actor. Even if every actor in it were blonde and blue-eyed, it is total shit. But so many film critics praised it to the galaxies because they, wink wink, see it as weapon in the Culture War to deconstruct and de-legitimize White America and prepare it for a ‘multi-cultural’ future where Diversity is the new ideology. They love it with contempt for the masses who are ideally manipulated by kitsch engineered by ‘pop radicals’. It’s like the wink-wink appreciation of STARSHIP TROOPERS. So, if Sergei Eisenstein made films that declared war on capitalism, J.J. Abrams wage social revolution from inside the system. The Jewish Power Elite with great wealth and privilege are the ‘rebels’ since they employ the Disney version of Rules for Radicals to turn all white Americans into their sheeplike gelded minions. Jews love it, of course, because Diversity means for them the Rule of the Jewish Minority over the Gentile Majority riven with divisions and strife that can be manipulated by the Jewish elites and their homo allies.)
Thus, despite the cultural ambitions and status-striving of some Hollywood moguls and directors, they had more freedom to make of cinema as they pleased. If anything, the main pressure in Hollywood was financial and commercial than artistic, moral, national, or cultural. As long as Hollywood churned out products that made lots of money — while avoiding inconvenient controversies by working with certain pesky moral/religious organizations — , everything was hunky-dory in Hollywood. And even though Jews held the power in Hollywood and were determined to keep it permanently, they opened Hollywood to various talents from all over the world. Too many non-Jews had either the glamour or talent. How could Hollywood not welcome Alfred Hitchcock? Thus, Hollywood was filled with Anglo-American, Anglo-British, Jewish German, Jewish French, Irish-American, Italian-American, Swedish(especially Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman), and many other talents of different backgrounds. Thus, even though Jews are exclusive in the inner cores of power, they are willing to attract and employ(and exploit) any talent from all over the world(as long as they pass the philosemitic smell test) to make products with the widest appeal. It’s like Jews in the Silicon Valley keep the elite power for themselves but aren’t averse to hiring high-tech talents from around the world. Jews may be ruthless in their monopolization of top positions, but they can be ‘generous’ and ‘inclusive’ when it comes to hiring gentiles to positions that serve the Jews. (It’s like what Amy Chua said of hyper-powers throughout history. They weren’t into equality but they used ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ as imperialist tools to make talents and peoples from all over to serve their institutions and armies. So, even as the imperialist overlords kept the power to themselves, they were more-than-willing to hire talent from anywhere and to use different ethnic groups in their armies. The US has become such a hyper-power. Jews and Homos dominate the upper-echelons as Globo-neo-imperialists, but they hire people from around the world in middle-management positions. They replace white workers with Mexican workers. They see Asians and ‘Hispanics’ as ideal since both groups have the servile Mongoid gene of ‘model minority’ personality. They are more likely to serve their masters than seek to gain dominance themselves. Jews naturally want to lead and rule. Mongoids from Asia and Mexico ideally want to serve and follow. PC-brainwashed Asians bitch about being labeled as a ‘model minority’, but their MM personality is really the product of Asian history & culture that stressed harmony, obedience, order, politeness, & cooperation while castigating trouble-making, defiance, assertiveness, and dissent. MM-ism began in Asia before Americans took notice of it among the Oriental immigrants. Hyper-powerism is essentially imperialist since Diversity is the product of constant migration, invasion, conquest, and uprooting of peoples and cultures. For US to turn into a Hyper-Power, the Jewish and Homo elites had to override the wishes of the white majority and make them submit to the Jew World Order where GLOB or globalist elites recruit and exploit talents and men from all over the world while keeping the real power to themselves.) And Jews are more willing to follow through on this because they have the will and confidence to play boss. With their quick wit and verbal virtuosity, Jews know they can talk around and through their gentile employees and always remind who is smarter and who is the real boss. In contrast, if a gentile was boss, he might be loathe to hire smart Jews people because his position of authority might be challenged. Even when William Kristol played the servant role to master Dan Quayle, he was the real boss running circles around that potatoe-head. When Jews hire goyim, they sense the goyim as less intelligent or maybe of equal intelligence with the Jew. Less intelligent goyim will take orders from the Jews, and intelligent goyim will generally lose out in the game of personality with the Jews. It’s like Mark Levin usually has Sean Hannity under his thumb even though Hannity is the faster talker. (Though fellow Conservatives, media circus is always a battle of personalities.) It’s the difference between a fighter who throws flurries with minimal impact and a fighter who punches less but lands solid blows. But when gentiles hire Jews, they fear that their Jewish hirelings will run circles around them and eventually rise above them. Imagine how it must have felt for George W. Bush to be surrounded by his Jewish Neocon or Ziocon advisors. Even though Bush was technically the Boss and the ‘most powerful man in the world’, he must have felt like a dumbass in relation to his Jewish advisors who were smarter, quicker, more knowledgeable, and more shrewd. And it can’t be very pleasant for Obama to be in one of those conferences with high-powered Jewish advisors. Obama may know how to roleplay ‘commander in chief’ before the camera, but he must feel like a dumbass and houseboy before the Jews. Sure, Jews flatter him about his ‘staggering intellect’, but he knows he’s just an Affirmative Action baby compared to Jews who can talk like machine guns about things Obama knows nothing about. Just look at Obama’s foreign policy. It only serves Jewish interests, and dumbass Obama has to pretend there is some higher purpose behind it. Richard Nixon and Billy Boy Clinton were two genuinely intelligent gentile presidents who could hold their own against smart Jews, but then, both lost their minds, so maybe that tells us something about the dangers of working too closely with Jews. Because goy presidents have essentially become puppets of the Jews, the kind of people who still want to be president are really in it for celebrity and egomania than for the real power because the real power rests with the Jews and, to a lesser degree, their mini-me homo allies. Goy presidents must feel like the double in KAGEMUSHA by Akira Kurosawa. They get to play the role of ‘leader’, but they must follow the defacto commands of their Jewish and homo advisors. It’s no wonder that Obama appointed a lot of women to be around him. He feels so castrated by Jewish men that his manhood can only be assuaged by women advisors who cling to him like groupies, fans, or doting sisters.
 |
| Obama the Mulatto Monkey Pet of the Jewish and Homo Globalists |
 |
| The Dotkin ladies should maybe go easier on curry and onions. |
But, even this is inadequate as explanation of American Culture’s global dominance. After all, Brazil also has lots of blacks and produced who was one of the most famous international athletes of the 1970s: Pele the king of soccer, the most popular sport in the world. And Brazil also produced lots of musical genres that gained international currency.
Also, Europe too has been bringing in lots of Negroes from Africa and the Caribbean. So, France, Holland, UK, and some other European nations have their own great Negro athletes who are as good as any in America. So, how come America is still the dominant force in Global Culture? How come most French whites and blacks would rather listen to Rap(that originated in America) than create their own styles of ‘black music’? And even though cultural elites who listen to NPR have a knack for‘Afro-Pop’, how come it never caught on globally like the kind of music peddled by Rhianna the sizzling skank-ass ho?Assuming that American culture is globally popular because of its displays of macho power fails to explain the other side of the equation.
 |
| Rihanna, the nasty sizzling & smoking bitchass ho who should be spanked by Aunt Esther. She a heathen. |
 |
| Charlie Chaplin, once the most famous person in the world. |
 |
| Jacob Black troubled by his changes in NEW MOON |
 |
| Bella in full mastery of her powers in BREAKING DAWN Part 2 |
Anyway, given the vast popularity of all the super-hero blockbuster movies, there is no question that the popularity of American culture owes a great deal to its ability to project POWER with movies like 300, TRANSFORMERS, IRON MAN, DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the like. But given that American culture has been so dominant in the field of children’s entertainment with movies like UP and in women’s entertainment with the international popularity of TV shows like SEX AND THE CITY, there’s obviously something else that is happening. It seems Americans are better even at projecting weakness, helplessness, and victim-hood. Consider the world-wide success of SCHINDLER’S LIST where, for over two hours, we see pretty much nothing but helpless Jews getting killed left and right. Power or no power, American-made products are best at making people feel powerful emotions without much in the way of ambiguity. Even American use of irony and wit should be obvious to those who are ‘in’ on what-is-going-on. In our globalized world saturated with American everything, even non-Americans often ‘get’ a laughing reference to some celebrity and his/her latest troubles or scandals. The easy emotional or sensual accessibility of American movies may be seen as stupid, simple-minded, childish, and (shamelessly)manipulative, but they quickly raise the blood sugar — just like American fast food — , and most people want the sugar high. They go to movies and listen to music to ‘feel’ something, and faster and fuller the impact the better. Such responses are less likely with European ‘art films’.
To be sure, most of the films around the world are hardly meant to be ‘art’, and the bulk of them, especially in Indian and Hong Kong, play to mass audience. But Hollywood wins all-around because of production values, expertise, and money to promote products all over the world. It also helps that as America is the leader in high-tech and computers, the entire world communicates through networks based in America, and of course, they are skewered to promote American concerns over those of others. Perhaps, the other reason for the success of American products is the world’s fascination with the most powerful and richest nation with the biggest stars, celebrities, politicians, tycoons, athletes, and etc. So, even if most American movies aren’t much good or interesting, the world keeps watching because America is the center of power. Watching American Cinema serves as a window to the Main Feature of Global Wealth, Talent, and Power. It’s like even if things inside a rich man’s mansion may not always be interesting, you want to peek inside for the simple reason that it’s where the money, power, and privilege is. It’s like Kubrick’s fascination with power and privilege. It’s like K’s wandering around the Castle in Kafka’s novel. Thus, Hollywood movies offer a window — a very distorted one at that — for the rest of the world(and even to most Americans who are not privy to the real power in America). Notice how people around the world are more likely to see a particular movie if it has been remade into the American version EVEN IF the American version isn’t substantially different — and often much worse — than the original. A whole bunch of French films have been remade into American ones, and most people around the world preferred to see the American remake.
However one feels about American culture, it’d be hard to overlook the American mind-set’s advantage in athleticism, a kind of sports-centrism. It’s like what George C. Scott said in PATTON about how Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. (Even or especially urban ‘progressives’, despite their yammering about ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’, live to favor winning above all else. Look at Manhattan and San Francisco that grow ever richer even as they promote ‘social liberalism’. Actually, the main appeal of ‘Progressivism’ for many ambitious individuals is its association with rich people like Bill Gates and ‘cool’ celebrities. With the West having grown so rich and powerful under Christianity, the creed of self-chosen poverty, such paradox or hypocrisy shouldn’t be too surprising. There is also the problem of Jews, the most money-and-power-obsessed people, having been associated with socialist agitation and the Holocaust. So, the richest oppressors above us all carry the mantle of ‘equality’ and victim-hood. We have capitalist-Zionist Jews owning much of America but also Bernie Sanders the ‘socialist’ Jew running for President. And then you have blacks and homos on the so-called ‘left’. While it’s true that blacks did face discrimination in the past, their true nature turns out to be more crass, greedy, self-centered, and materialistic than most other races. And homos, the new darlings of the ‘left’ are so vain and narcissistic. It’s no wonder then that the ‘left’ talks one way, walks in another way.) Sports are one of the few things where the best of the best are celebrated and admired by the masses, by the greatest number of people. When it comes to most things, what is generally declared the best of the best generally attracts the elites. Best ideas in science and math are only understood by top scientists and mathematicians. We might browse the science articles of popular journals, but elite science/math is not something that excites most people. And most people would rather read Stephen King than authors deemed to be the best in the world. This has always been the case. There are exceptions to be sure: Charles Dickens and Jane Austen have been much much admired by literary scholars but also popular with the masses. But even today, there’s a divide between the world of serious literature and pulp fiction, with most readers preferring stuff like HARRY POTTER, HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT over the works of more serious or academic writers. Even in food, finest cuisines in the world don’t grab most people. For most people, Greek food means gyros, Italian food means pizza and pasta, French food means croissants, and Chinese food means sweet-and-sour-chicken-or-pork.
It’s not just a matter of expense. Items served in most high-end restaurants are not filling and satisfying like a big hamburger or ‘bigass’ serving of tacos and chili.
But when it comes to athletics/sports, the actual best and popularity are in sync. People want to see the best boxers, best runners, best soccer players, best figure skaters, best football players, best baseball players, and etc. There is the best and nothing else. Though Britain is credited with the invention and popularity of many modern sports, it was in America that sports really became a cultural event on the scale of Roman bread-and-circuses. In traditional Britain tightly controlled by upper classes, there arose the ideal of the purity of amateur sports that could only be afforded by the affluent or those patronized by the affluent. It was pay-to-play than play-to-get-paid. Professional sports were seen as tarnished because players were motivated by money, whereas amateur athletes did it for the love of the sports, spirit of competition, God & country, and respect for tradition of sports that could be traced all the way back to the Ancient Greeks whose spoils in the Olympics was nothing more than a jar of olive oil and a wreath for the head. Amateur athletes were deemed akin to soldiers who fought nation/cause or to lawmen who served justice. In contrast, professional athletes were seen as mercenaries or bounty-hunters whose real incentive was money. Since amateur sports were supposedly played in the spirit of higher idealism, sportsmanship and fairness were thought to be absolutely indispensable. Since respect for the game trumped any thought of material reward, amateur sports were thought to possess dignity that was lacking in professional sports. (Though this began as an aristocratic ideal, it was soon adopted by Communist regimes that claimed that their athletes competed for collective ideals than personal gain.) Of course, cynics couldn’t help but notice that it was usually the privileged who could AFFORD to play amateur sports. It’s like what Howard Hughes(as played by Leonard DiCaprio in AVIATOR by Martin Scoresese) says to the Hepburn Clan: "You don’t care about money because you’ve always had it." (It’s like Chelsea Clinton saying she doesn’t care about money. Of course, her parents are rich-as-hell through crony-government-capitalism, and she married the son of super-rich Jews.) The aristocratic and higher-born elements of Britain pontificated about the dignity of the game and shun the purse of professional sports because they were already loaded with money. Also, restricting certain competitions to amateurs narrowed the field, thereby favoring the affluent participants who were spared competition from social inferiors who might actually be hardier athletes. (There were echoes of this in BREAKING AWAY where working class ‘Cutters’ compete against privileged college students.) Thus, the talk of dignity and sportsmanship served the interests of the upper classes. But then, the notion of the purity of amateur sports was soon adopted by the Political Left, and communist nations were, at least for a time, able to field so many top-notch athletes in the Olympics. Since all athletes in a communist nation technically played for the State and the People, they could qualify as amateurs, even though, for all purposes, they were professionals whose livelihood entirely depended on athletic performance. If a great American athlete, upon turning professional, couldn’t play in the Olympics, a whole bunch of Russian, East German, and Cuban athletes kept on returning over and over and over to grab the medals. Also, as ‘amateur’ sports in communist nations became a matter of national and ideological prestige, all notions of sportsmanship and fair play went out with window. Soon, communist athletes were pumped with steroids and other substances. And in most cases, children from a young age were screened and effectively taken away from their parents to be raised as athletic properties of the state, but such abuses were overlooked by the ‘progressive’ community in the West for ideological reasons. (Even now, some ‘progressives’ in the West admire Cuban athletes who play for the People than for self-aggrandizement like in the West. They feel little sympathy for Cuban athletic defectors who claim to seek asylum in the name of ‘human rights’ but may be doing it just for material gain.) If the earlier forms of amateurism in sports were marked by elitism, the form of amateurism promoted by communist nations was associated with totalitarian unscrupulousness where winning overrode all other considerations.
 |
| From CHARIOTS OF FIRE. The aristo-athlete. |
 |
| Soviet weight-lifting great: Vasily Alekseyev |
Just as financial journalists missed out or ignored the troubles in Wall Street that led to the 2008 meltdown, most sports journalists have been willfully blind to doping in sports. If journalists are supposed to be the eyes and ears of modern democratic societies, how could they have missed the boat on Lance Armstrong for so long? (But then, consider how Jews get away with everything. Arnon Milchan — Todd bless him for ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, though — stole US secrets for Israel, but the US government won’t touch him. Israel can have 300 illegal nukes, occupy Palestinian territory, and kill bushels of women and children in Gaza. No problem. Jews on Wall Street can rob us of trillions, but no one goes to jail. Consider all the lies about Russia and Ukraine, the coup in which was illegally financed and executed by Jews and Homos who run the Globalist Order.And the minions of the Jews such as George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Obama are well-protected. Even though their illegal wars destroyed an entire region, they remain free, become president, or run for president with full protection from the corrupt ‘pressitute’ media. In this climate, what is ethics? Indeed, cheating athletes are just sign-of-the-times. And they are small potatoes. They don’t loot entire economies or destroy entire nations like Bush II, Obama, and Hillary.)
 |
| Lance Armonstrong: Cheat to Beat. Total scumbag. |
In a world where Jews flagrantly game the system and evade punishment for malfeasance, in a world where homo elites flaunt their power to redefine marriage to serve their neo-aristocratic vanity, in a world where black thugs rampage and maul but are only referred to as ‘teens’ or ‘youths’ — while a guy like George Zimmerman is railroaded as a ‘white racist’ who ‘murdered’ a ‘black child armed with only skittles’ — , in a world where the media were see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil when the Bush II regime lied through its teeth for an invasion of Iraq, and in a world over ten million illegals can break into America but be rewarded & favored as ‘undocumented immigrants’ than ‘illegal aliens’, it should hardly be surprising that cheating has become the New Norm, even the New Virtue.
From the Zimmerman-Martin case, every honest American should have realized that the Jew-and-homo-controlled media are more about distorting than reporting the truth. More about spinning than spilling the truth. And given that Jews control the government, Wall Street, Hollywood, media, academia, law firms, and other elite institutions, there isn’t even the ethnic balance of power of the past. Think back to a time when Jews had power in the media, Wasps had dominance over finance and the law, Irish had ‘machine’ power in city politics, Catholics had moral & spiritual clout, blacks had vocal power in matters of racial justice, and etc. Today, ethnic power is gone from big cities that are now playgrounds for Jewish and Homo globo-lawyers-in-love. And Jews now control most of the top banks and law firms. The GOP has been purged of ‘Arabists’, and every Republican politician shamelessly makes an ass out of himself by rolling over before Zionist power. (Even Donald Trump is ultimately a kisser of the Jewish Ass.) Even though Jewish Might rules America that rules the world, no one dares speak truth to Jewish power since he or she will be destroyed and blacklisted like Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, and Jason Richwine whose mention of higher Ashkenazi IQ ticked off many Jews who seek to ‘hide’ Jewish power. And Jews(who are intoxicated with the Cult of Holocaustianity, virulent paranoia, rabid hatred, and preening moral narcissism) are NOT going to tolerate any criticism of their own power.
At this point, Jews probably know that their power is so vast, corrupt, and conniving that if goyim were to get an honest glimpse of it, the whole edifice crumble like a house of cards. While Jewish Power is real in terms of social networks, they keystone that holds it all together is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white sanctity’ bound with Holocaustianity. This prevents an honest assessment and criticism of Jewish power. As we know from Anglo-American history and the fall of the Soviet Union, even the greatest of powers can be weakened, diminished, and brought low if its moral legitimacy is lost, leading to lack of confidence among its elites, lack of support from the masses, and confidence in its enemies. Jews know that honest criticism of Jewish Power is the opening, no matter how small in the beginning, that will grow bigger and bigger until Jews will be on the defensive 24/7. That is why Jews invoke ‘antisemitism’, especially via ADL and $PLC, to smother ANY criticism of Jewish Power. It is Truth Abortion. Kill the Truthful Child or Enfant Veridique before it is fully born and begins to grow into an adult. Just like King Herod ordered the killing of baby boys to prevent the One who would grow up to challenge his power, Jews such as Abe Foxman play the role of modern-day Herod to seek out and destroy any Enfant Veridique before it has the chance to grow into the Manhood of Truth. Abort the truth before it grows and gains independence consciousness. (The cult of ‘antisemitism’ comes in two forms, and paradoxically, they are two sides of the same coin. There is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white sanctity’. Holocaustianity, for example, doesn’t blame ALL whites. It blames the ‘antisemitic’ whites. Such whites are to feel crushing weight of collective guilt because their attitudes and ideas supposedly led to the Holocaust. But there is the other kind of whites. The GOOD whites, the noble whites. They are not burdened with ‘white guilt’ BUT for a price. They must love, adore, admire, and worship the Jew. In order for Schindler to own ‘white sanctity’, he must do everything in his power to save Jews. [Can anyone think of communist Jews in the USSR who stuck out their necks to save Ukrainians?] Or take the GOOD white goy soldiers in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. They needn’t feel ‘white guilt’ but then ONLY BECAUSE they lay down their lives to fight the mortal enemy of the Jews. So, the concept of ‘white sanctity’ operates on the premise that those who won’t admire, serve, protect, worship, and sacrifice themselves for Jews shall be burdened with ‘white guilt’. So, ‘white sanctity’ is really just another form of ‘white guilt’ because it is the abject fear of being tagged with ‘white guilt’ that drives whites to embrace the ‘white sanctity’ of serving, protecting, and worshiping Jews. Also, ‘white sanctity’ is different from Jewish Sanctity, Black Sanctity, and Homo Sanctity. Those three favored groups are sacred-and-special merely for being what they are and being proud of it. In contrast, ‘white sanctity’ is incumbent on GOOD whites admiring, serving, and worshiping Jews, Negroes, and homos. Whites are not sacred-and-special in and of themselves but only in terms of what they have to offer for the Holy Three. It’s no wonder that so many whites are so fiercely ‘anti-racist’, homomanical, and philosemite. They are desperate to stave off ‘white guilt’ by choosing ‘white sanctity’ that requires slavish adoration of Jews, Negroes, and homos. )
 |
| Abe Foxman, the modern-day Herod who stamps out all budding truths about Jewish Power lest they grow into the Manhood of Truth. |
 |
| Like the Jewish Fatso of JURASSIC PARK, Jews will violate any law and principle to get what they want. |
Jews in the media exploited both cases to highlight the supposedly ineradicable problem of ‘white racism’ when, in truth, the real problems that America faces come primarily from black thuggery and criminality, Jewish financial corruption and tribal supremacism(in both domestic and foreign policies), massive Third World invasion via an immigration system that is broken(which Jews say can only be fixed in by letting in tens of millions of more Third World immigrants to displace and overwhelm the white gentile population), and political correctness that banishes those who speak the truth AND rewards those who conform to official PC myths promoted by Jews. If we were to see the world with honest eyes and courageous hearts, we would see the full extent of Jewish corruption, collusion, and conniving at all levels of elite power structure throughout networks all around the world.
So, Jews are now allergic to the truth and go about browbeating anyone who dares to speak the truth. Jews denounce him or her as a ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘anti-Semite’, ‘xenophobe’, or whatever other bullshit term they’ve cooked up over the years. It’s like controlling dogs by saying, ‘bad dog!’. By hysterically abusing their media power to focus excessively on white ‘failings’ — according to Jewish Logic, even or especially courageous white truth-noticing-and-telling are demeaned as moral failings — , Jews render it near-impossible for people to notice and discuss the much more consequential issue of Jewish moral failings. (Jews are, after all, the most powerful people in America, thereby the world.) If your shirt is stained and the other guy’s shirt is totally filthy but if the other guy hogs the megaphone and screams nonstop to draw attention to the stain on your shirt, you will be the main object of derision. Much of socio-political morality is less about who-did-what than who-has-the-power-to-pontificate-about-who-did-what. It’s like Stalin and Mao could kill millions but still accuse OTHERS of moral failings while elevating themselves to the status of gods. It’s like Black Lives Matter thugs turn a blind eye to all the black-on-black and black-on-non-black violence while excoriating ‘white racists’ for all the problems in the black community. It’s like Jews can oppress Palestinians and dispossess white gentiles but act like they are the noblest and most helpless victims. Using Palestinians-as-a-metaphor, we need to exclaim WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS since Jewish Suprmacists(80 to 90% of the Jewish population) are the new Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos of the world with near-total control of the media, academia, law, finance, and politicians(who serve as their whores). In a way, most Americans are even more oppressed than the Palestinians because Palestinians at the very least know who their enemies and tyrants are. Palestinians know they are living under Zionist Occupation. Palestinians know they’ve been dehumanized, defamed, and dispossessed by World Jewry. In contrast, the great majority of white Americans and white Europeans don’t even know they are living the Jewish Supremacist yoke. Being (1) unaware of the tyranny over your people (2) believing yourselves to be free, and (3) hating the very forces that may liberate your people... those constitute the worst kind of tyranny. In this sense, white people are the most oppressed in the world. Not because they are materially badly off — most white people enjoy far superior living standards to the rest of the world — but because they are blind to the Jewish Supremacist tyranny all around them, infected with the Zio-virus in their hearts & minds, and hostile to the very people who would wake them up & raise their Eurosphere Consciousness. PC is like a mass cult where white children have been cast under the spell of the Jewish equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard(the Founder of Scientology) or Rev. Mhoon(of Unification Church). When these SJW-ized kids are informed of the truth about their identity, heritage, and culture, they shriek with rage, hatred, and disgust. They hate their own race & heritage; they think they can only be saved and redeemed through the PC cult of the unholy trinity: the worship of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. It’s like Red Guards in China were oppressed and brutalized under Maoism but embraced Maoism as their empowerment. Today, young people are exploited and soul-damaged by Political Correctness and Pop Culture, but they think they are empowered by idiot fantasies of destruction, rap gangsta attitudes, and self-loathing. (Even young people in Japan are feeling the disgust of living in a homogeneous society since Diversity is the New Culture. So, Japanese now have massive homo parades funded by Jewish globalists, and there is promotion of Japanese women using their wombs to produce black babies.) At the very least, Palestinians know they are oppressed. So, in a way, the more apt slogan for our time would be WE ARE NOT EVEN PALESTINIANS. At least the Palestinians know the power that oppresses them. That knowledge means they are at least half-free. They are not free politically and physically, but they are free in their hearts & minds because they have no illusion about which people are crushing them. Therefore, Palestinians at least have a chance of struggling for freedom and power. They are focused on the enemy that rules over them. They are shackled but they are not blind. They can see their oppressors. In contrast, white gentiles don’t even know the power that rules over them. They may not be physically shackled but they’ve been blinded. As such, they go where they’re led by the Jews who monopolize the Political Sight. If anything, even the American Right pledges to fight and kill all those ‘evil Muslims’ to protect and save Jews when it was the Jews who destroyed the Middle East(by using dumb white Christian soldiers), created a massive ‘refugee’ crisis, and pressured Western nations to take in all these hostile hordes radicalized by America’s Wars for Israel. A man in chains who can see who chained him is freer than a unchained blind man who doesn’t even know who blinded him in the first place.
Black hysteria owes to the same kind of dynamics. As we all know, one of the biggest — if not the biggest — problem of America is Too Many Blacks: Too many blacks robbing, too many blacks cheating, too many blacks lying, too many blacks fighting, too many blacks raping, too many black bullying, too many blacks murdering, too many blacks having too many babies out of wedlock, and etc. Most blacks are killed by other blacks, and even among non-blacks, much of the violence against them are instigated by blacks. So, what do the so-called ‘black leaders’ and celebrities do? In order to distract us from the reality of black rottenness and foulness, they bitch and whine about ‘racism’. When the alleged ‘racism’ of police departments are curtailed, more blacks end up being killed by other blacks. Even when blacks kill blacks, we are supposed to focus on the black victim than on the black perpetrator. Let’s weep for the dead black than be angry with the black murderer. (Blacks, as one of the unholy trinity that includes Jews and Homos, can never be held accountable for the evil that they do. They’ve been sacralized as the holy children of saint-prophet MLK, a thug-in-real-life who beat up women and laughingly bragged about it. It’s like Jews are never held accountable for Wall Street robbery or the war-mongering in the Middle East & North Africa that destroyed millions of Arab and/or Muslim lives. And homos are seen as pure-as-snow victims of the AIDS epidemic that was the result of too many homos buggering one another like crazed beasts. But because homos are holy, we must blame "Reagan’s Indifference" for not having come up with an instant miracle cure so that homos could go on indulging in the debauchery of fecal-penetrating one another to the Village People and the Artist Formerly Alive as Prince.) According to blacks, non-blacks taking precaution by locking their car doors in urban areas blighted with crime(usually by blacks) is an injustice whereas we should all just conveniently turn a blind eye to blacks robbing, raping, and murdering non-blacks. According to blacks(and their Jewish enablers), some white woman having muttered ‘nigger’ some thirty years ago is a greater transgression than millions of blacks in America acting like stereotypical ‘niggers’. To blacks, perceived or imagined ‘micro-aggressions’ against blacks are more grievous than often deadly black macro-aggressions against non-blacks. And never mind that most insults and attacks upon blacks are by other blacks. Never mind all the black mayhem and just fixate on Paula Deen’s Crime of the Century by invoking slavery and Jim Crow.
Jews and blacks are alike in their self-aggrandizing hysteria, and so are the homos. Now, what caused the HIV epidemic that led to the deaths of so many homosexuals and even non-homos who became infected by HIV-tainted blood donated by manic-ass-buggering homos? The fact is so many homo men went around fecal-penetrating one another like a bunch of degenerates, but PC-talking-points bleat that the true culprit was the ‘criminal negligence’ of the Reagan administration that failed to find a miracle cure for AIDS. A has grown sick and decrepit when it heeds the moral sermons of pushy corrupt Jews, stupid criminal blacks, and bitchy degenerate homos. But of course, the Jewish-and-homo-controlled Western media would have us believe that everything is just dandy in the Land of Obama, and it is Russia that is sick and vile for not allowing homos to take over Moscow to celebrate ‘gay pride’. Funny, isn’t it? Blacks holler endlessly about slavery & white racial oppression, Jews bitch about how Germans & collaborationist Europeans murdered Jews, and homos fume about how ‘homophobic’ society failed to save homos from the AIDS epidemic, but Jews get all hissy when Russians take an honest look at their history and mention the key role played by communist Jews in the destruction of Churches and so many innocent lives. It is how Jews rig the game that they play, yet American Conservatives believe there’s no higher virtue than crawling on hands and knees to kiss the ass of the likes of Abe Foxman and Sheldon Adelson.
Anyway, as George C. Scott said in the opening of PATTON — "Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooters, the fastest runners, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time" — , the American mind-set revolves around athleticism, and Americans love the individual in competitions with clear winners and losers. Though sports culture played a prominent role in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Castroite Cuba, the ideal was for athletes to train and compete for the People, whose spirit was embodied in the personage of ‘great leaders’ such as Hitler, Stalin, or Castro. Thus, no matter how great an athlete may be, he wasn’t revered for his individual glory but for his service, even sacrifice, to the entire nation. Though American sports wasn’t always lacking in collective spirit(especially in world events like the Olympics), the conventional American sports hero is the individual who demonstrates his superiority, gains fortune and adulation, and lots of sex. Thus, even though each city has its various teams, the city serves the team than vice versa, not least because athletes routinely go from one city to another for higher pay.
General Patton spoke of war not so much as a national or patriotic enterprise but as a sport game to win. And even though he mocks individualism — "Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating" — , he was essentially appealing to the individualist nature of American competition. He was telling the men that they must fight and win because it’s really about their individual worth as Americans. Instead of accentuating the glory of the nation and loyalty to the leader, he was appealing to individual pride of soldiers as members of the team. It sounds like pep-talk given by coach to players. Coach understands that the players need organization, discipline, and a game-plan but also need the fuel of individual ego and the lubricant of improvisation. So, even though soldiers must work together as a team than as individuals, the final product of victory is individual pride for each soldier his own individual American pride as ‘winner’ was at stake. (Speaking of Pride, how times have changed. The ‘Greatest Generation’ that lived through the Great Depression and survived World War II didn’t brag about their hardships, sacrifices, and achievements. They were defined by their humility. But Homos who’ve done nothing but buttfuc* each other think ‘pride’ is something they should own.) Patton was saying that it really came down to self-pride as soldiers than anything else. They grew up admiring the best and toughest athletes, and that’s what war was really about: individual men working as a team to bring home the trophy for self-glory. I doubt if any German or Russian general spoke to his soldiers in such manner.
In the case of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the fighting men had to surrender their individuality in service of the State or the Great Cause. But in the American case, a kind of paradox was at work because the soldier was expected to suppress his individuality to win as part of a team, but in victory he would reclaim the pride of his individuality. Thus, instead of surrendering one’s individuality, one sacrificed an element of it as a member of the team in order to ultimately arrive at larger sense of individual pride. Patton himself was quite an egomaniacal individualist(at least in the movie by Franklin Schaffner), which was precisely why he got in hot water with his superiors who found his sports-coach style unruly and troublesome. He was like the Knute Rockne of the American military.
However one may feel about sports, it has a clearer sense of winners and losers than most other human endeavor. Though we can generally tell who is the greater artist or greater musical composer, artistic criteria are, to a large degree, a matter of taste, opinion, fashion, tradition, and ideology, especially across different nations and cultures. And judging artistic/creative value or worth has grown ever more opaque and complicated with the rise of modernism and post-modernism that opened up a whole new cans of worms in the very meaning of what constitutes art. If a latrine or a photo of a Crucifix submerged in urine can be called ‘art’, what isn’t art and who decides? If something inane by Andy Warhol or Basquiat can be admired by cultural elites and sell for millions of dollars, how do we define the real winners and losers in art? Is it about who makes the most money for investors and corrupted curators? Who decides which works of ‘art’ should command the limelight? Who were the influential figures in elite culture that made the likes of Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons such major forces at art galleries?
While most sane people can be taught, guided, and/or persuaded to admire a work like CITIZEN KANE, SEVEN SAMURAI, VERTIGO, 8 ½, THE WILD BUNCH, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, or ANDREI RUBLEV — even if the greatness might elude them initially — , what becomes of the meaning of art when so many ‘educated’ fools can be convinced that something as insipid as JEANNE DIELMAN is a great film? In terms of cinematic expression, Akerman’s films are obviously zero(for anyone with a honest pair of eyes), but they are promoted in elite circles where much of discussion of arts/culture revolves around pseudo-intellectual sophistry than a meaningful core critieria. While not everyone might like CITIZEN KANE or VERTIGO, one would be blind not to notice its vision and mastery. Even if one objects to the content or the meaning(or ‘message’), one could still admire the cinematic craft. But when some scholars say that something dull and dreary by Warhol or Akerman is a great(even profound) work of art, most sane people are apt to wonder ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ But given the pressures of status-seeking and cultural vanity, many social-and-intellectual strivers just accept on faith the pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of the ‘creative community’. Now, if the cultural elites only did stupid things like champion the works of Warhol and Akerman, even servile status-seekers would likely see through them, but, as was said of the Devil in THE EXORCIST, ‘evil’ mixes truth with lies. If some people only say nonsense, people will eventually come to see them for what they are. The danger is that some people who espouse sane, insightful, and intelligent views may also espouse utterly insane and ludicrous views for reasons of ideology, neurosis, cultism, or intellectual conceits. (Intellectual-types are addicted to esoteric avant-garde-ism They crave the satisfaction of being way ahead-of-the-curve, e.g. Jonathan Rosenbaum claiming over and over that Jean-Luc Godard is twenty years ahead of everyone else, thereby implying that he too is part of special select since he ‘gets’ Godard’s latest offerings. Intellectual types are divided when it comes to the public. On the one hand, as pied-pipers, they want to bring more people to the well. They want to play the role of Moses leading the masses to the Promised Land. But they also want to feel special and superior to the hoi polloi, as if they have a special connection to history, justice, and/or intellectualism. So, they dread the outcome of the very thing they’re engaged in. They want more people to come to Culture but fear the threat to their own vaunted hierarchy when their special knowledge & influence are no long so exclusive within a limited circle. So, to ensure that a ‘safe space’ for themselves, they prop up the likes of Chantal Akerman who will never win over ‘everyone’. After all, whereas even a non-cinephile can learn to admire Fellini, Bergman, and Kurosawa, it takes a special kind of insanity or initiation process to belong to the ‘chosen few’ who get Akerman.) While some cultural or intellectual types are really nuts, pretentious, or hopelessly lacking in taste, some have a combination of stupidity and intelligence, of ridiculousness and sanity, of pretentiousness and sincerity, of tastelessness and fine sensibility. In some ways, such combination of positive and negative traits often do more damage. If Jonathan Rosenbaum, J. Hoberman, and Dave Kehr ONLY SAID stupid shit, people would eventually learn to ignore them and be spared of dumb ideas. But they wrote some of the best essays about important films. They gained deserved credentials as leading film critics and scholars. Unfortunately, they have certain fetishes, conceits, and delusions that defy taste, logic, sense, and/or truth. Kehr had the crazy tendency to praise anything by Clint Eastwood, and his knee-jerk auteurism(inspired by Andrew Sarris) often favored the lesser films of his favorite directors over fine films by directors Kehr didn’t care for. (According to Kehr, George Romero is the leading candidate of the ‘intellectual American film-maker.) Rosenbaum is clearly a neurotic grubberoon, and there is something slightly Robert-Crumbish about him. He is allergic to anything that is straight, healthy, and sane, which explains why he loves Joe Dante’s SMALL SOLDIERS that pits gung-ho soldier types against a race of grubberoons in SPARTACUS fashion. (On the other hand, he likes ZULU, the British film where a bunch of upright and hardy British Imperialists mow down a bunch of black spear-chucking savage jafro-jivers. Maybe it was because the film was directed by a leftist and reminds Rosenbaum of proud Zionists mowing down Palestinian Arabs. Like I said, Rosenbaum is nuts.) And Hoberman just loves anything that is Yiddish, obscure, experimental, or esoteric. Anyway, because they are so insightful about certain matters, the lesser-minded readers(especially young impressionable ones) come to trust them on just about anything, and I suspect that is how a total louse like Chantal Akerman became a holy cult figure among the millennial cinephiles. Uncritical readers figure that since Rosenbaum wrote so intelligently about Welles, since Kehr wrote so intelligently about Hitchcock, and since Hoberman wrote intelligent studies about cinema & history, they must be right about ‘artists’ like Akerman too.
What this proves is that even intelligent people can have the worst taste and delusions. Knowledge and insight don’t guarantee sanity and sense. Camille Paglia is a very well-read woman, but her idea of the greatest work of art in the past thirty years is the final duel in REVENGE OF THE SITH. She praises Eminem as a great artist. She expended much intellectual firepower on a fraudulent dirt-bag like madonna who would have done well to disappear after her first two albums(like Cyndi Lauper did). It’s like the writer-intellectual in LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND. He is highly intelligent and erudite, but when his closeted-homo-lust goes ‘boing’ upon seeing a handsome stud in a cheesy Hollywood sexy comedy, he makes much more of the actor and movie than reason and sanity should allow. It’s like Andrew Sarris’ fetish for certain compositions and camera movements were enough to persuade him to once declare LOLA MONTES as the greatest film of all time. Well, at least even that is a masterpiece compared to JEANNE DIELMAN.) So, some critics who admire real works of art and have written intelligent things about them might also say the most ridiculous things.
How could intelligent individuals capable of penetrating commentaries on art & culture espouse such crazy or moronic notions? Because even smart and insightful people can become blinded by vanity and narcissism. Every ambitious critic is a would-be intellectual, and intellectuals crave superiority of knowledge, understanding, and righteousness. To be sure, such obsession exists in all artistic and cultural fields. Even as Alternative Rock aficionados despair of the general state of Pop Music, they derive pleasure from their own supposedly deeper appreciation of music as personal art & expression, though to be sure, the Industry, in music and movies, has mastered the ‘science’ of recreating the semblance of ‘alternative music’ or ‘independent cinema’ — consider the Disney film the MILLION DOLLAR ARM that is a slickly packaged facsimile of the ‘tropes’ associated with indie slice-of-life films.
 |
| Jonathan Rosenbaum the Grubberoon |
 |
| Dave Kehr who looks like a Space Alien Dork |
 |
| J. Hoberman, a Jew with many fetishes |
 |
| Chantal Akerman in JE TU IL EL. The dumbass Jewish-Marxist-Feminist-Lesbian bitch spends the first 20 minutes walking around nude and eating from a bag of sugar. According to the likes of Rosenbaum, Kehr, and Hoberman, this is 'profound' stuff. I suppose if Amy Taubin walks around naked eating a candy bar, that'd be deep stuff too. |
According to this logic, if you say you admire CITIZEN KANE or SEVEN SAMUAI, you’re just a run-of-the-mill cinephile(and nothing special), but if you say you admire JEANNE DIELMAN, you are part of a select community. (Despite the intellectualism of such conceit, there is also the allure of faith. After all, even though arts & creativity are not an objective science, most people can be made to appreciate through a combination of analysis and emotions why a film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or THE GODFATHER is great. But no amount of intellectualism and emotional appeal can justify something as dull, dreary, and demented as JEANNE DIELMAN. So, there is a point where one has to take it on faith that a 3 ½ hour film about a woman peeling potatoes and polish shoes is an important work of art & culture. This shouldn’t be surprising since cinema is the substitute religion for many in our so-called Secular Age. But then, I suppose it could be worse, and indeed it has become worse, as the new main religion of the West is Homomania, the celebration of Sodomia.) Some critics — usually strong-willed egotistical Jews — set the template while most others, especially gentiles, are merely content to follow and nod in agreement. Jews have the combination of ego, will-power, and verbal skills to make even nonsense sound like profound sense. Jews are more confident and assertive in professing crazy nonsense than gentiles are in defending solid truth. Jews lead, others follow. (This is most starkly apparent when we observe the Jewish-American and East-Asian-American communities. Both groups tend to vote alike in elections and share similar views. But all these views and positions have been staked out by Jews. Asians just follow and imitate. Jews don’t need Asians to know what to believe and think, but Asians need Jews to define what is right and wrong. Asians cannot think for themselves and lack the vision/talent to forge their own world-views. Jews are leader-‘progressives’ whereas Asians are follower-‘progressives’. Jews define what ‘progressivism’ is, and Asians merely agree and follow. But the dynamics isn’t all that different between Jews and white gentile ‘progressives’. In almost every case, Jews set the template, white gentiles followed. We saw the same thing in American Conservatism Inc. Neocon Jews redefined what ‘mainstream conservatism’ should be, and the ‘cuckservatives’ merely and meekly followed. Sometimes, gentiles are so impassioned[as if from the bottom of their hearts] about certain causes but remain oblivious to the fact that the causes are Jewish concoctions. What they feel to be emanating from the bottom of their heart was actually implanted in their brains by the Jew-run media and academia. Take ‘gay marriage’, about which so many white gentiles and Asian-Americans are so impassioned, what with that bimbo-robot or bimbot S.E. Cupp even breaking down in joy of the Supreme Court(packed with 4 Jews) that made it law of the land. But did gentiles come up with this nonsense themselves? No, it was cooked up by Jews who have the combination of boldness, daring, cunning, intelligence, creativity, and power to turn even nonsense into the New Sense, indeed even the New Faith. So often, the Truth isn’t so much about what-is-real as about what-is-rapturous. It’s like Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET has the daring, cunning, intelligence, and verbal power to turn trash into treasure to would-be-investors who are ultimately taken for suckers. And even when people suspect he is a charlatan, so many flock to work for him because people admire those with the will, vision, and talent.) And so, worthless tripe like JEANNE DIELMAN got voted as the 35th greatest film ever made in the 2012 Sight and Sound Magazine Poll. Critics and scholars can be prescient or precious. When prescient, they grasp the significance of a work before everyone else. At their best, critics and scholars guide the public to appreciate worth beyond conventional criteria and/or mass preference. But critics and scholars can also be precious, vainly insisting they are privy to the importance of a work that, to honest and sane people, remains pointless and worthless. This isn’t to say that critics and scholars who champion or defend the likes of Chantal Akerman are necessarily crazy or dumb, but they are obviously preening and precious in their veiled egotism & elitism.
There are plenty of sane and decent people who’ve fallen for the Akerman cult — along with other phonies like Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Theo Angelopoulos, Jane Campion, and for the most part, Michael Haneke — , but it’s due to their lack of genuine honesty and courage to call out on bullshit, especially in our Age of Political Correctness. Reservations about a Marxist, lesbian, Jewish, and feminist film-maker-of-genius might get one labeled among the ‘preciousites’ as ‘reactionary’, ‘conservative’, or ‘conventional’.
 |
| ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Its greatness a matter of fact. |
 |
| JEANNE DIELMAN. Its greatness a matter of faith. |
Of course, athleticism doesn’t apply only to sports but any endeavor where the effect is immediate and obvious. For instance, you don’t have to intellectualize to find LOONEY TUNES and Rodney Dangerfield to be outrageously funny. Wit and humor can be ‘athletic’ and scored in terms of hit or miss. It may not be as precise as who wins the 100 m sprint, but successful comedies make a lot of people laugh. They deliver the goods and score the points. AIRPLANE! is a good example of a successful laugh-riot. To be sure, there are comedies like Jacques Tati’s PLAYTIME, a commercial failure, that require some degree of patience and aesthetic sensibility, albeit more as appreciation of their cinematic vision & imagination than easy laughter.
In contrast, there’s no need to think about AIRPLANE! It may be childish and stupid, but it really packs the punches. And Woody Allen was the great athlete of wit and humor in the early 70s. Whatever one thinks of Allen personally, it’s impossible not to laugh like crazy watching stuff like TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, BANANAS, SLEEPER, and LOVE AND DEATH. Even the more sophisticated jokes were plainly funny and didn’t fall back on conceits. We felt the impact intuitively and immediately, just like we know a KO in boxing or a triple axle jump in figure skating when we see one. And here was the main difference between Allen and someone like Godard or Bergman in the 1970s. While your average cinephile could see what was special about a 1950s Bergman movie or an early Godard film, the films of Godard and Bergman had gotten so esoteric, personal(bordering on private), and confusing by the early 1970s that critics and experts were necessary to explain their meanings and their potential worth as works of art or something or other. Were the early 1970s films of Godard and Bergman difficult or confusing because they were so deep, profound, ahead-of-the-time, intelligent, intellectual, or some such, OR did Godard and Bergman fall into a funk and wallow in solipsism to fool others(and themselves) that they were grappling with thorny and important issues? In contrast, the early 1970s comedies of Allen don’t need any kind of justification. They are among the funniest movies ever made. They are like KO’s in boxing, like perfect landings in gymnastics. They may not be cinematically innovative or necessarily original even in wit, but the fact is Allen was making the hoops and adding up the scores.
 |
| TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Complete Riot. |
 |
| LOVE AND DEATH. Total Hilarity. |
Much of Bergman’s final output dealt with issues of ancestry, family, and history. An artist who’d mostly made films about modern neurotic individuals detached from past and history reached back into his childhood and family. Bergman had made films about parents and children before — WILD STRAWBERRIES, VIRGIN SPRING, AUTUMN SONATA, etc — , but it with FANNY AND ALEXANDER(Bergman’s THE GODFATHER in a way) that a sense of something deeper and bigger began to emerge. It wasn’t just about parent-as-individual and child-as-individual but a saga that added up to a larger sense of history connecting, by implication, everyone from Bergman’s own children and grandchildren to Bergman’s parents and grandparents .CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS was a sign that Allen too might move in that direction but he didn’t. In the end, Allen discovered that the Bergman way was not his way.
 |
| CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS |
 |
| FANNY AND ALEXANDER |
The ‘athleticism’ or athletocentrism of American culture drives Americans to prove their worth in the most blatant way. Though the Hollywood ‘pitch’ — do-or-die on a proposed project in a matter of minutes — has been oft-ridiculed, the advantage(at least from the perspective of competition) is that the American product is more likely to be a winner with the masses. Most audiences of entertainment don’t seek deep meaning or truth. They want have a good time or feel easy sentiments(often gushily mistook for passion) in no uncertain terms. So, even though FORREST GUMP and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are shamelessly manipulative, they made millions feel the sweep of emotions and sob & smile in generic rapture.
While a great film, a genuine work of art, can have powerful impact on the audience — think of BICYCLE THIEVES, FORBIDDEN GAMES, SEVEN SAMURAI, I VITELLONI, TIME OF THE GYPSIES, SIBERIADE, etc. — they almost always offer something to think about, something to discover. There remain veins of gold to be mined, which is why lively discussions of Shakespeare’s works continue to this day. In contrast, a movie like FORREST GUMP or SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION might wash over you one time — maybe not even that — , but a careful viewer simply wouldn’t miss all the cheap manipulations planted throughout. And there’s no reason to revisit such a movie except for sociological interest or tawdry know-how on mass manipulation. Even so, given the fact of mass taste, there’s no denying that FORREST GUMP and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are impressive cultural-athletic feats in working over an audience. They know what buttons to push in the field of mass psychology and ‘pathosology’(the science of pathos — ‘bathosology’ might be useful too). Whether one thinks such buttons should be pushed in such manner is beside the point when it comes to the issue of commercial success in terms of giving the audience what they want. As crowd-pleasing feats, both movies are grand slams, no question about it. Same could be said of TOY STORY, a movie I detest but nevertheless could understand its mass appeal.
Many Jews are heavy hitters in the field of cultural-athletic or culturathletic competition. A great quarterback has to assess the situation, know the strengths and weaknesses of his own team and the opposing team, and devise and execute plays that will gain the greatest yardage. Jews in popular culture play the game the same way. They assess the situation in real terms of ‘what do the audience want?’, ‘what kind of talent can we assemble?’, ‘where to we get the money?’, ‘how do we promote the product?’, ‘what buttons do we push?’, and ‘how do we hook the audience for more?’
 |
| SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. We know that prisons are now filled with muscled Negroes who rape 'white boys' in the ass, but Hollywood gives us a white boy learning wisdom from a Magic Negro. This movie is well-made tripe that pushes all the right buttons but falls apart on every level if you think about it. On the other hand, some might say it is a slyly subversive movie about Jewish Power. Though the prison warden is a Bible-Thumping Christian, he looks like a money-grubbing Hollywood Jewish mogul who cooks the books for maximum profit. |
 |
| FORREST GUMP. White Gump tries to save Black Gump. The best formula for racial harmony is for most men to have 70 IQ and low testosterone. A world of white gumps and black gumps will get along like the muppets. Of course, blacks are less likely to be gumps than grumps who beat up white boys who end up with bumps(on their heads). Still, given blatantly anti-white films like MISSISSIPPI BURNING and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES, a film like FORREST GUMP was praised by some Conservatives and jeered by some Liberals as not being 'angry' and 'committed' enough. After all, Pat Buchanan liked it. |
 |
| MONEYBALL - Fat Jew who can crunch numbers know best. In politics, there is Nate Silver. In JURASSIC PARK, there is the fat Jewish guy who looks like Abe Foxman. |
 |
| No Amount of White Power Ideology could beat Jesse Owens in the Olympics. Owens established the fact of racial differences and black superiority in sprinting, just like Joe Louis and other black boxers established the black superiority in fighting, which is why so much of the racial violence in America is black on white/non-black. Blacks are tougher/better fighters and more aggressive by nature to boot due to dynamics of evolution. Power of Evolution trumps hopes of Social Revolution. |
We need to look back to history for answers. In the first half of the 20th century, blacks were better behaved than in the second half because they feared the united force of the white community in both the South and the North. So, there was less need for Jews to fear blacks. Black fear of white power made them behave better, and this meant acting better with Jews as well. Also, especially with the horrors of WWII and Jewish involvement in leftist causes, Jews sympathized with blacks. (Also, Jewish sympathy for blacks at the expense of white gentiles who are vilified for ‘racism’ is a dirty means to cover up Jewish anti-black prejudice that was and still is considerable. Blacks remember many instances of Jews who exploited them and sucked them dry in sports, music, entertainment, organized crime, and etc., and indeed, there’s long been a Black School of History that made Jews out to be the special blood-suckers of the black community. This tradition is carried on by Louis Farrakhan to this day. While it’s true that many Jews did rip off blacks — but then, many Jews ripped off other Jews, and many blacks ripped off other blacks — , there is also the issue of envy and resentment that blacks have toward any group that does better than them. Anyway, Jews value the symbolic unity between Jews-as-Holocaust-People and Blacks-as-Slavery-People, and it just won’t do for the Narrative to point out that Jews in the past had often been just as ‘racist’ as any other white group. So, Jews make a lot of noise about ‘white racism’ to cover up their own against the black community. Of course, if white gentiles were to point out Jewish transgressions against blacks, it would be deemed as ‘antisemitic’.) And even when many blacks began to get unruly in the second half of the 20th century, Jews had less need to fear blacks since Jews were smarter, more successful, could afford to move to nice/safe areas, and enjoy the privileged life. Though Jews had no love for urban black thugs, Jews nevertheless perceived white gentiles as their main rivals, and therefore, Jews exploited the moral issue of black plight to morally blackmail the white community, all the while aiding and abetting the oppression of Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, of course. (Back then, before gaining total supremacy in all elite areas of American Power, Jews faced Wasps who were above them and blacks who were below them. Even though Jews feared black crime, they knew they could always move away from it. Just make enough money and move to a better neighborhood with few or no blacks. Jews could flee from blacks but not from whites, especially Wasps, because the white elites possessed what Jews wanted. For Jews to get what they wanted, they had to deal with whites at the upper echelons. Jews could climb above the blacks in the ghetto but had to climb into bastions of white elite power. Jews merely needed to take flight from blacks, but they had to take the fight to the Wasps in order to be King of the Hill. So, the main Jewish struggle was against white elite power to gain dominance over big industries and big institutions. Jews thought it would be an epic struggle, but as it happened, the deracinated Country-Club-ized Wasps gave up the fight all too easily and became pathetic collaborator ‘cucks’ of the Jews. One reason for the sudden collapse of White Elite Power was Jewish control of the academia and media totally demoralized White Power and White Prestige. For white elites to keep their privilege, they had to appear repentant for their historical ‘sins’. Today, Jews keep peddling the cult of ‘white guilt’ not so much to gain power/dominance, which is firmly in their hands, but to secure it for all time lest the white masses realize that the white elites are more than willing to sacrifice white mass interests to keep their own privilege as ‘cucks’ of their Jewish Globalist masters. For most of American History, white masses took it for granted that white elites were looking out for them, and this had indeed been the case. But, white masses had been kept in the dark about the Elite Revolution — a revolution that happened quietly within halls of power — whereupon Wasps surrendered prestige and dominance to the Jews in both Liberalism and Conservatism. Disney is a good example of how a once proud Wasp-held company passed into the hands of what are essentially Jewish kiddie-pornographers. It’s like a sports team keeping the same name and symbols but having a new owner and entirely new coaching staff. As such, white elites went from representing the white masses to serving Jewish Globalists. Look what the likes of Tony Blair, David Cameron, and the Clintons must do in order to keep their white elite ‘cuck’ privilege. The Donald Trump Campaign exposed the nature of the Silent Elite Revolution. The huge discrepancy between white masses supporting Trump and white ‘cuckservative’ elites trying to reassure their Jewish bosses that they have things under control is hilarious to behold.) So, more than any white group, affluent Jews could safely remove themselves from dangerous blacks while, at the same time, making the most noise about white ‘oppression’ and ‘exclusion’ of blacks, made all the easier because Jews came to dominate most of mainstream media shaping mass perceptions. Indeed, notice how the national Jew-run media say almost nothing about the racial profiling policy in NY city — known as ‘stop and frisk’ — but scapegoat George Zimmerman not only as a ‘racist white’ guy but as a racial profiler. Just like Israel can have the most restrictive immigration policies in the Free World while European nations are expected to open their borders to millions of Muslims, Africans, and Asians, rich Jews in ‘liberal’ cities can resort to various draconian controls against dangerous blacks, BUT a lower-middle class Hispanic guy like George Zimmerman is smeared and attacked for the mere ‘transgression’ of noticing patterns such as the fact that young black males commit the bulk of the crime in America. It’s the Jewish Way to play dirty.
 |
| George Zimmerman the 'white Hispanic' |
 |
| Favored Policy of 'liberal' and 'progressive' Jewish-Homo-dominated New York: STOP AND FRISK THE NEGRO |
To be sure, not all Politically Correct types are the same. If smart Jews use Political Correctness for what are ultimately tribal Jewish-Supremacist objectives — to morally browbeat and intimidate the white population(as most smart Jews know full well about general differences among the races and about the Jewish control of media and academia and much else) — , white gentile Liberals are generally brainwashed dummies who earnestly worship Political Correctness like the true believers in George Orwell’s 1984 really loved Big Brother. They are clueless about the true nature of the Jewish agenda, and this consciousness has something to do with consciousness rooted in Christianity and Northern European temperament. Christianity fostered the mind-set of earnest faith — different from the more ironic and troubled manner of faith among Jews — , and Northern European temperament, having developed in the cold, tends to be more ‘straight’ and ‘pure’. (Christianity has been the paralyzing venom of guilt-and-conscience injected into white consciousness that eventually made it possible for Jews to take over the white body and soul. Of course, Jews didn’t consciously create Christianity to weaken white people. If anything, Ancient Jews feared Christianity and did everything to suppress, even eradicate, it. And pagan Romans detested it too. Sometimes, the true character of something is revealed only by the long arc of history. It’s like the Selfish Gene according to Richard Dawkins. It operates without the conscious awareness of the organism. It is a sub-strategy than a conscious or willed strategy. Consciously, most Jews didn’t see anything good about Christianity. They saw it as heresy, as a threat. Also, as Christianity morally and spiritually empowered Christian converts against Jews who came to be despised as the killers of Christ, it could even be mortally dangerous to Jews. But because the core ethos of Christianity was pacifism and self-abnegation, everything white Christians did to maximize and further their own power, wealth, and privilege could be turned against them eventually. Jesus wasn’t a proud warrior like Muhammad who justified the use of violence and conquest. Jesus urged people to give up all wealth, turn the other cheek, and repent. So, in the long run, everything that white Christians did to increase their power could be used as evidence of their moral failing and spiritual betrayal of God and Jesus. Without this element in Western Civilization, Jews could not have taken control over the white body and soul. The long reach of Christianity’s sub-strategy has come into view only in the 20th century. It was the Achilles Heel of the West, especially after something like the World War II. For a long time, Christianity seemed the elixir-like injection of power and glory into the Western vein. But that was only when the West acted against the true spirit of Christ, indeed only with the perverse alliance of warrior deed and spiritual creed. Once the alliance was disentangled and Christian ethos had to survive on its own, it offered little else but Western Guilt for all its historical ‘sins’ of having betrayed the spirit of Christ. Jews found this useful, but then, Jews don’t want to take ‘white guilt’ too far. After all, Jews still need white Christian Soldiers to fight the Good Fight against Muslims, Russians, and Chinese. If white gentiles were to go fully and totally into turn-the-other-cheek mode, they wouldn’t be able to fight Wars for Israel and Wars for Jews. Without white gentiles as their military muscle around the world, Jews wouldn’t be able to carry out their globalist agenda. So, even as Jews re-jiggered Western Christianity to feel endless guilt about Jews and Negroes, they also remade it into a homomaniacal faith where white folks are partially redeemed if they fight fresh wars against anti-homo Muslims, Russians who don’t allow homo ‘pride’ parades, and Chinese who don’t allow homos on TV shows. Jews re-engineered Christianity so that homo sinners need not repent and atone before God; instead, god and jesus must serve the vanity of homos, the main allies of Jews.) Because of their earnest nature, Northern Europeans could be the most devoted Christians(Lutherans), the most devoted nationalists(modern Germans), the most committed class-ists(the British), the most devoted statists(Swedes), the most devoted ‘progressives’(all over Northern Europe today). Jews prefer to think and lead. Northern Europeans prefer to believe and follow. If a Jewish maid served a rich gentile lord, she would be angling for ways to undermine his privileged status and would be personally offended if he said, "come here and suck my dick, Jew bitch" But if a Northern European maid served a rich Jewish lord, she would try to serve dutifully and would meekly comply if he said, "come and suck my dick, shikse whore". While Jews can be as nasty and virulent as Nazi Germans, it’s unlikely that Jews could worship a Jewish Hitler like the Germans did with the real Hitler. Jews may passionately SUPPORT certain causes and movements, but they generally don’t like to SERVE them, whereas countless Germans became completely and mindlessly devoted to Hitler. They surrendered their minds and souls to Der Fuhrer. If a Jewish Leftist serves himself, a Northern European Leftist serves others, especially the Jews(and increasingly the homos, the people favored by Jews as their #1 ally. If you want to please Jews, it isn’t enough to please them; you must also appease the friends of Jews. Because American Conservatives are so slavish to Jews, it’s only a matter of time before they too bend over to be buggered in the ass by the homo agenda. If it pleases Jews, it must be good). Jews think, "We deserve the power" whereas Northern European types feel, "we need to serve the power."
If you wanna know the true nature of the Jewish personality, look no further than the mug of the vile and hideous creature named Rachel Abrams.
Anyway, White America did, at times, disingenuously invoke ‘dignity’, ‘nobleness’(if not nobility), ‘seriousness’, ‘sobriety’, ‘civility’, and ‘maturity’ as a means to safeguard white power and privilege from would-be competitors. Thus, even if person A was more talented than person B, person B could be favored because he was said to possess more poise and dignity as a man of civility and honor. Indeed, this is invoked even in sports, as when a player is penalized for unsportsmanlike behavior even if he didn’t commit an obvious foul. So, even if the player is the best in the game, if he acts too much like an arrogant jerk, he could be called out of the game. So, even though many blacks Jazz musicians were playing instruments more creatively and expressively than white American musicians in third rate imitations of European classical music, the Boston Brahmin often favored the latter over the former since it had more ‘dignity’ and ‘sobriety’. Of course, Jews were no dummies and recognized the sleight-of-hand that was being employed by white elites. So, Jews came up with stuff like Marx Brothers movies where zany Jews run circles around stuffy and less bright Wasps seeking to maintain superiority through the demeanor of ‘dignity’, ‘honor’, and ‘class’. And this was one reason why lots of Jewish relished the jiveass act of Jack Johnson. He didn’t merely defeat the ‘white boy’ but mocked the entire edifice of white cultural norms of superiority. He didn’t just beat white guys up but acted as clownish and unsportsmanlike in the ring as possible. He not only violated the white man’s face but the white man’s norms. It was as if he not only beat the white man but spat on his cultural foundations and raped his wife and daughter who went from fear and horror to jungle fever-ism of ‘if you go black, there’s no going back’. Jews loved this. It was as if the sheer athleticism of pure merit — dignified or not — was whupping and humiliating the pompous ass of white gentile elites who’d invoked ‘higher standards’ to protect their lesser talents — in improvisational music & sports relative to blacks AND in intelligence & verbal skills relative to Jews.
 |
| DUCK SOUP - Marx Brothers - Two Zany Jews drive a lower-class white goy crazy. |
 |
| DUCK SOUP - Marx Brothers - Two Zany Jews drive a upper-class white goy crazy. |
 |
| Jack Johnson taunts and destroys white man Jim Jeffries before going off to hump more white women who've lost respect for the loser white male. The appeal of 'progressivism' among white males is in allowing a Narrative of magnanimity whereby 'good' & 'repentant' white males willingly chose to accept defeat out of historical atonement. In other words, they didn't just lose but CHOSE to lose out of conscience. It offers a sense of power, indeed even over the Negro who whupped them. It also makes the white male feel morally empowered in his self-willed decision to 'do the right thing'. But in truth, he is just a loser who got his ass kicked by blacks who also steal white women from white men. All this 'radical' and 'revolutionary' posturing by white 'progressive' males is really just pathetic. It is a dishonest refusal to accept their own pathetic defeat at the hands of black savages. Also, by rooting for blacks who beat whites, these 'progressive white males' fantasize that some of that badass blackness would have rubbed off on their white-bread skin. |
Jews and blacks took it another step — though, to be sure, the rough-and-tumble populism of Andrew Jackson had already laid down the groundwork — and separated talent from ‘dignity’, especially because too many Negroes naturally felt like jumping and hollering like wild baboons — they simply couldn’t hep theyselves as 100,000s of years of evolution made them savage and aggressive — and too many Jews looked in the mirror and saw hook-nosed and wavy-haired characters who didn’t look classically ‘dignified’. Indeed, Albert Einstein’s image became iconic not only for his genius but his symbolism of substance free of style. He didn’t have to look the part of a respectable scientist to be the greatest mind of the 20th century. (The variation of this theme is found in AMADEUS where the childish and vulgar Mozart has the gift that the more respectable court composers do not.) So, even though German gentile scientists may have dressed better, acted more professionally, and exhibited finer manners, it was scruffy Einstein who made the biggest difference in science. Of course, the negative effect of such outlook is the fanciful fallacy that genius = slovenliness, which is why there are so many untalented geeks who think they are so brilliant because they rarely shower and can’t be bothered to get out of bed in the morning. Just as ‘dignity’ can be invoked to mask lack of talent, casualness can be fronted as conceit of ‘misunderstood genius’ when, in fact, most slovenly ‘bohemian’ types in arts & tech are imitative hacks with only the surfeit of originality. Similarly, just because Muhammad Ali acted the clown as a great boxer doesn’t mean acting the clown will make one a great boxer. But over the years, too many fighters in the ring seem to think they can improve their fight by showboating and putting on an act. And even though the likes of Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, black Jazz musicians, Albert Einstein, and the Marx Brothers often mocked the culture of respectability and ‘dignity’ as disingenuous justification for white power and privilege, they couldn’t have made their mark without the support, even if grudging, of a white society that was serious, sober, and civilized — and defined by standards of conscience, fairness, honor, and objectivity(however imperfectly it was practiced). Jews in Germany were able to achieve so much because most Germans worked hard at maintaining a clean, orderly, and efficient society. What would Einstein been able to do in black-run Zimbabwe or Detroit? He would have had a hard time just getting someone to come and fix his toilet. Jews may mock and beat up on Wasps, but Jewish success in America owed everything to the laws, social order, organization, and sober attitudes instilled in all areas of life by the Wasp elites. Suppose all the Jewish immigrants had gone to places like Mexico and Venezuela than to Anglo-American dominated United States. How would Jews have fared under a social system and cultural order(or disorder) as established by the reactionary Hispanic elites and with a population made up mostly of mestizos or mulattos who toss garbage all over the place and cling to superstitions. A people whose concept of economics is little more than exploitation, expropriation, bribery, and kickbacks?
Anglo-America had its share of corruption too(scandalous at times), but the idea was nevertheless to create real wealth and then steal some of it, whereas the prevailing idea in Latin America was to steal the wealth even before it was created, which is why Latin America did such a poor job of creating any wealth. It’s like you gotta let the cow grow big and fat before you milk it; you don’t milk it before it’s able to produce milk. Of course, the African way is kill it and eat it right away and expect other nations, especially rich white ones, to provide the free milk. Anyway, Jews have been milking America of much of its milk. The fact is there never would have been such bountiful milk if not for the pasturing groundwork of sober and hardworking Wasps, but all Jews ever do is hiss, bitch, and whine about white America. (And of course, some white goyim do likewise to satisfy their radical narcissism of playing edgy armchair bohemian revolutionaries.) Even though Jews preferred to immigrate to Anglo-America than to Latin America — incidentally, weren’t Jews ‘racist’ in favoring whiter America than racially more diverse Latin America for immigration destination? — and reaped great rewards by building successes upon the foundations of Anglo-America, Jews exploit the resentments of Latin Americans against the ‘yanqui’ and ‘gringo’ to subvert and weaken White America.
Just think, Anglo-America provided far more opportunities for Jews(to gain wealth, influence, and power) than Latin-America ever did, but American Jews, with their great leverage, are now trying to Latin-Americanize North America to undermine White American Power that is perceived as a potential challenge to the permanence of Jewish supremacist power. Gratitude simply doesn’t exist in the Jewish vocabulary. (Also, Jews are like a vampire parasite that goes into frenzied delirium when sucking on the blood of the goy host that they can’t stop even if they wanted to. It’d be like expecting a mosquito to take a sip of the blood. A mosquito will suck as much blood as it can, indeed to the point where it’s nearly bursting with blood. Jews are no different. They are so ecstatic about sucking so much wealth and grabbing so much power in the world that they can’t stop. They will even risk war with Iran and Russia to have more. They will even risk rousing the ire of right-wing patriotic parties in EU and US by pushing for more Diversity Supremacism in order to expand Jewish power.)
 |
| Jews are like a blood-sucking mosquito. A mosquito will not and cannot stop until it's about to burst with the blood of the host. Same with Jews. Jews are so ecstatic about sucking on the blood of the gentile world that they will go on and on and on, even if it threatens their well-being and maybe leads to another kind of Holocaust situation. Look at Jewish behavior in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, State Department, Law Firms, and etc. Jews will even bring the world to brink of war with Russia and China in order to stay on top and suck more blood from rest of humanity. |
Anyway, few people are ever consistent and prefer to mold reality like a ‘playdoh’ clay toy, which is why Jews, who were at the forefront of free speech movement in the 1950s and 1960s, are today at the forefront of speech control movement. (It’s often been said that the Left went from free speech rights to hate speech policing. There is some truth to this in the sense that the 60s college radicals invoked free speech rights in order to do as they pleased on campuses. But this overlooks one crucial fact. The radicals were in fact pushing for a kind of Speech of Intimidation or Free Screech that would shut down civil discourse/debate and enforce only their own views. The seeds of PC were there in the beginning of the so-called Free Speech Movement. Free Speech works like traffic. It needs rules and regulations in institutional settings. When it comes to Free Speech, there shouldn’t be any limits in what is said or conveyed. But there should be rules in HOW it is said. Likewise, when it comes to traffic and travel, there shouldn’t be limits on where we want to go. But there has to be rules on how we get there. We must obey traffic signals. We must travel at certain speeds in certain places. We must obey the rules; that goes for each and every driver. Free Travel doesn’t mean everyone gets to ride like a maniac as in ROAD WARRIOR or STAGECOACH. That be like post-apocalyptic scenario or like cowboys and Indians chasing/shooting one another. A person who breaks all traffic rules in the name of Free Travel is messing up the true meaning and process of Free Travel for everyone else. Free Speech works the same way. We should be able to express any view, but there has to be rules of discourse, of agreed-upon manners, rational methodology, shared principles of logic and honesty, and etc. Academia must uphold these standards. Academia should allow the pursuit of any truth or idea, but it has to uphold the proper processes of research, debate, discourse, and discussion. The Free Speech Movement threw a monkey wrench into academic and intellectual standards. It was about the freedom of students to be obnoxious, disruptive, intimidating, thuggish, and impatient without any regard to proper process of discourse whatsoever. Their idea of speech was taking over spaces and screaming and demanding stuff right away OR ELSE. These students on occasion even occupied buildings and even held deans hostage. It was less about Free Speech than about Fright Shout. They were unwilling to sit down and argue their points with mutual respect shown to the other side that disagreed. They simply wanted to scream and shout until the other side backed down out of fear. It was Mob Radicalism. And it is this mentality that has taken over today's American campuses. Just look at today’s debating styles. Blacks need not play by agreed-upon methodologies. They merely need to shout, dance, strut, rap, holler, and act like loony apes. It’s like sports. It would be pure barbarism UNLESS there are agreed-upon rules and do’s and don’ts. Otherwise, boxing matches will turn into kick-in-groin and gouge-out-eyes contests. Everyone will be biting, kicking, and tearing off limbs in football. There has to be sportsmanship. A boxer is free to do as he pleases WITHIN established rules that goes for both boxers. A boxer who kicks the opponent in the groin in the name of ‘free sports’ is missing the point. Jews and blacks are not big on sportsmanship, a sense of honor rooted in aristocraticism of Europeans. Jews love to transgress and subvert, and blacks love to jive and ugabuga holler.) When Wasps were the elites, Jews demanded total free speech protection to say whatever they wanted, but now that Jews are the elites, they want to use Speech Control Laws(aka Hate Speech Laws) to suppress criticism of Jewish power, of course in the name of protecting ‘vulnerable’ minorities. But then, on the issue of Israel and Palestinians, Jews want Zionist-imperialist ‘hate speech’ to be protected while they do their best to suppress criticism of Zionism as ‘hate speech’, even if the criticism comes from Palestinian-Americans whose families have been crushed and/or murdered by Zionist occupiers. Every group except white gentiles seems to favor self-pitying & self-righteous speech over the self-critical and self-abnegating kind. Chinese bitch endlessly about the history of Western and Japanese imperialist encroachment upon China but get incensed about critical speech about China’s treatment of Tibet. In this they are like the great majority of Jews who get all hissy about criticism of Zionist treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Negroes are utterly silent about the high levels of black-on-white violence and crime in America but bitch and holler about Trayvon Martin as some innocent victim of ‘white supremacism’ even though George Zimmerman is a Hispanic-American and even though blacks themselves have voted for the Democratic Party that did most to open the floodgates to Hispanic immigration. The nature of ‘free speech’ changes from group to group, situation to situation, with each side saying "We believe in free speech but not hate speech", which really means "Free speech for me, but not for thee." After all, ‘hate speech’ is a subjective concept. What is ‘hate’ to one group is justice to another. Zionism may be historical justice for Jews, but it is imperialist hatred to Palestinians. And who should decide which groups should be especially protected and on what criteria? Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Palestinian-Americans? Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Christian Conservatives or White Nationalists? No, Jews will only support ‘hate speech’ laws of their own devising that favors and protects. their own interests. So, just as Moses’s staff could turn into a deadly Cobra, a sword can become a crutch, a crutch can become a snake, a snake can become a gun, and so on. In a perfect world, people would be consistent, but in the real world, the Name of the Game in America is invoking ‘justice’ to essentially further special group interests, and any group that fails to understand this will lose power. Whites having lost sight of this truth, is it any wonder that white gentiles have lost the most power in the past several decades, especially as they’re the only ones who are incessantly held accountable for moral/ethical consistency?
Indeed, whites used to have the most power when they understood the malleability of ideals and principles. Jews and their parasitic allies say whites were hypocritical in the past, but all powerful peoples have been hypocritical because the very nature of power is hypocritical. The Hypocrisy of Power is evident in the Affluent White Liberal Community. It doesn’t serve White Power as a whole, but it sure safeguards and even increases status and privilege for those fortunate white gentiles who’ve mastered the Rules of the Game. For instance, privileged white Liberals rail against the ‘evil’ of ‘white privilege’, but such posturing only increases their own personal privilege as ‘good whites’ deserving of position and influence. While they don’t care about the power and interests of the white race as whole, the likes of Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews sure love their own individual privilege — justified by their own protestation against ‘white privilege’, which made them the favorite darlings of Jews who own the media. In a world where group-white-power isn’t allowed, individual-white-privilege is still availed to those who play by the Rules of the Game. So, if you’re a white goy and want to rise in the Jewish-controlled elite world, be sure to pontificate about the ‘evils’ of ‘white privilege’. It signals a collaborationist willingness to play fetch with the Jewish Globalist Supremacist Master. It’s just a variation on the rules of Old Imperialism. (Globalism is, after all, worldwide Jewish Supremacist Imperialism. The mass migrations happening all over the world are the product of Jewish Globo-Imperialist machinations, and white people are helpless to resist since they are under Jewish Globalist domination. Jewish Masters use white gentiles to destroy the Middle East & North Africa and then force Western Nations to take in those ‘refugees’ displaced by Jewish-Globalist Foreign Policy. White people may think white ‘leaders’ are looking out for them, but in fact, most prominent whites are collaborationists of the Jewish Globo-Empire than courageous representatives of their own people. They are so gutless that they don’t even stand up to the homo agenda because it happens to be the pet project of the Jewish Globalists.) If you were an Asian-Indian in the British Empire, of course, you praised the British Imperialists for spreading and sharing light of progress and civilization. Thus, certain collaborationist Asian-Indians were promoted and showered with wealth and privilege by the British overlords. Today, collaborationist white gentiles play the same game at the feet of their Jewish and homo masters, but most whites are blind to this truth because they are accustomed to America being ruled by whites for whites. As long as the myth of eternal ‘white privilege’ is sustained(despite the fact that whites have been reduced to servants of Jewish, homo, and mulatto elites), many people will carry on with the impression that ‘decent progressive whites’ are working with ‘oppressed and marginalized minorities’ to end the unfair system of ‘white privilege’ when, in fact, the two biggest privileges and powers in America today are found in the Jewish community and the homo community as the mini-me partner of the Jewish community.
 |
| George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham: Privileged White Gentile Cuckservatives of Jewish Globalist Supremacists |
 |
| Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo: Privileged White Gentile Cuckerals of Jewish Globalist Supremacists |
Anyway, if blacks generally like things that are obvious and immediate — like rap music that makes them wanna hump-pump-thump to the music — and not least because they are more primed than other races for fuc*ing, fighting, and hollering, Jews not only want to win ‘athletically’ in the world of wit, humor, and technology(mental gymnastics) but gain prominence in areas where matters of quality and worth are open to interpretation and intellectualization, ranging from genuinely penetrating discourse to the worst kind of fabulist sophistry. There is a mystical side to everyone, and of course, there is some of this among blacks too, though it tends to be sensual than intellectual. For example, Negroes love stuff like voodoo and have turned even Christianity into a kind of voodoo disco circus. Needless to say, Jewish mysticism was far more intellectual and cerebral. Even though Jews came to value their achievements in areas with obvious winners like science, math, high-tech, humor, and the business, victories in such fields weren’t fully satisfying to Jews who aspired for meaning beyond what could be rationally measured and objectively quantified. (Jews who aspired for truth and meaning beyond the rational and objective could be in genuine pursuit of profundity or disingenuously rationalizing their objective failure in life with quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo.) As demanding as the hard sciences are, there are empirical facts and logic that connects everything that has been verified as true. And even though business and economics are not hard sciences, winners can be quantified in terms of sales, volume, and efficiency. Though success in business is no easy task, making money is still making money and nothing more. In contrast, when the Rabbis ponder the meaning of God, there are always truths beyond truths beyond truths ad infinitum; the subject is inexhaustible and could never be quantified by human reason and calculation.
In this sense, Jews were different from the Ancient Greeks. Even though both people were highly competitive, the Greeks, who invented logic, thought they could determine winners and losers in every endeavor, even in the arts, which is why there were annual competitions in drama. Though film industries today dole out awards like Oscars and Emmys, we don’t believe that artists should create primarily to compete with other artists in cultural olympics. Ancient Jews were not competitive in that sense, with clear winners declared over losers. On the other hand, those who studied to be a Rabbi weren’t merely acquiring skills for fixed duties but to become scholar-thinkers who pondered and possibly accessed the deeper meanings of God. Thus, if most pagan priests basically carried out ritual sacrifices with animals — and sometimes even with humans — and didn’t think much about the what there doing and why, Jewish Rabbis were expected to think endlessly about the truth of God. But since there was no clear or obvious way to quantify the true essence of God, there was lots of room for mysticism and spiritual philosophizing, and this tradition was carried through into the modern era by writers like Franz Kafka and musicians like Bob Dylan whose BLONDE ON BLONDE has an allurement of both totality and impenetrability. A song like "Visions of Johanna" allows for full immersion into its space, but you aren’t sure of the brew swirling all around. The feeling is total, but the sense is uncertain(as with David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD). It’s overwhelming yet also disassociating, thus disturbed than euphoric. You can’t surrender to the music and let yourself go, as with many powerful Rock songs. It has enough of the power of Rock to wash over you(unlike Modern Art that generally allows mental space in favor of careful poring over the details for purpose of intellectualization), but instead of rapturous waves you get a lot of flotsam and debris of a mind teetering over the edge. The effect is paralyzing than pleasurable, resulting in moody paranoia, a feeling of intoxication and drowning albeit in a lucid state of one’s dissolution.
Maybe, it’s not surprising that so many modern Jews took to modernist/abstract art. Though representational art could be impressive, one could easily tell what it’s about. In contrast, the meaning of modernist/abstract art had to be pondered intellectually. The pondering, thinking process, mattered as much as the image on the canvas. And in this ‘game’, one could never tell the sure winner from the sure loser. Though lots of mental lifting could be applied to theory, analysis, and speculation, one couldn’t really quantify that one was ‘better’ than the other except in the most opaque and quasi-mystical terms. If it’s a matter of judging representational art, one could say that the painting that is closer to reality is the better painting or the winner. If it’s a matter of impressionist art, one could say the ‘better’ painting is the one that best stirs up beatific responses. I suppose we could apply some degree of ‘athletics’ with Picasso also, as his art was filled with wit and ingenuity. But what is one to say about someone like Mark Rothko, whose paintings mostly looked like soiled diapers?
 |
| Robert Motherwell |
Granted, a work can have value and meaning even without ‘acrobatics’ or ‘athletic’ qualities — Jean Renoir was not a showy director like Hitchcock, Kurosawa, or Welles, but he made his share of masterpieces — , but when a film offers precious little but then pretends to impart profound truths that can only be discerned by those-in-the-know of the Emperor-Has-No-Clothes variety, it’s time to throw the towel. It just so happens that many Jews, what with their intellectual vanity, often fall for stuff like this, and not because they are dumb — many highly intelligent Jews fall for it as well — but because they hanker for mystery and profundity. (One of the appeals of snail-paced ‘art films’ among intellectual Jews is it allows their minds work on the film than the other way around. With so little happening and so slowly, the viewer can interpose his or her own ‘profound’ thoughts on the material. They get to appreciate the film as a mirror or mind-screen of their own thought process. It serves the intellectual vanity of the viewer. But then, I suspect there are some Jews who encourage such ‘art cinema’[with zero box-office prospects] as a model for other nations because, on a subconscious level, they don’t want other national cinemas to compete with Jewish-dominated Hollywood. Jews are experts at giving bogus advice to others. Surely, Jews are trolling when they advise Republicans to welcome immigrants as ‘natural conservatives’. And Noam Chomsky, for all his criticism of Zionism, diverts attention of the pressing issue of Jewish power. So, the last person any national cinema should look to for advice is someone like Jonathan Rosenbaum who will urge them to make more films like those of Chantal Akerman and Hou Hsiao-hsien.)
 |
| SLEEPER - Woody Allen with Celery and Bananas. Funny but not deep. |
 |
| JEANNE DIELMAN - Woman peeling potatoes for three hours. Very very 'profound'. |
When film theory is sensitive to the actual art of cinema, criticism and judgement are dependent on genuine artistic worth of what’s on screen, certainly true with the works of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, and Stanley Kubrick. Even when the works are less showy, grand, or spectacular, as in the films of Bresson and Rohmer, one’s personal theory addresses emotional responses, uniqueness of vision, or the quality of acting. Thus, theory is in service of what can be discerned and admired as unmistakable talent on screen. But when a naked woman walks back and forth in a room eating from a bag full of sugar(as Akerman does in JE TU IL EL, the ONLY way to justify such rot is by theory-detached-from-actuality-on-screen). The appeal of such highfalutin theorizing to critics of certain disposition is that it makes them feel like gods who, like the extraterrestrials in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, are beyond the ‘conventional’ norms of discourse and understanding. Their ‘wisdom’ as critics is independent of evidence on screen. Whatever pops into their minds trumps whatever is on the screen. So, if someone showed a blank screen for two hours and if these critics ‘saw’ profundity within the fields of their elevated consciousness, the work would have ‘value’. (How else did Andy Warhol get away with his atrocities with certain critics?) When critics watch the films of Welles or Mizoguchi, they are writing in service of great artists whose vision and genius are evident to even novice lovers of cinema. Critics can offer insights on the great works of real masters, but they are always at a disadvantage since they, as reverential critics, are in service of artistic genius. But even as critics seek out great art to defend and promote, they feel a certain resentment as the critic must play a secondary role to the artist. After all, master directors don’t make films about critics; instead, critics write papers about film. However, when critics watch a film by Akerman, they gain the advantage because only the game of theoretics can justify such drek. Akermania cannot exist without critics. (The culture of ‘art film’ suffered a setback when Abstract Criticism took hold in certain quarters. Criticism independent of actual evidence of artistic merit meant that critics could turn anything into ‘art’ by the way of theoretic Midas Touch. Like the value of money became divorced from gold standard, art theory was severed from demonstrable artistic merit. Artistic value became a matter of what certain well-positioned critics said. So, if these critics said Akerman is a truly great artist, the evidence or lack thereof on the screen no longer mattered. If the critics said so, it must be so. And in time, no-talent asses in film schools decided to imitate the styles of these films favored by the critics, and Art Cinema became ever drearier in both US and Europe[and even in parts of the Third World]. Thankfully, much of the film community appears to have emerged from this cultural rut, but one of the alternatives, the rise of Tarantino-ism, has been hardly better. Abstract Criticism may have won over many acolytes in the academia and ‘experimental’ circle, but most audiences, even in the Film Community, didn’t care to see another Akerman, late Godard, or Hou Hsiao-hsien despite all the critical bleating in their favor. There was a polite and obligatory assent to such boredom in the cultured/intellectual community, but people were privately muttering under their breath how bored they really were. So, when Tarantino came along with a new or revamped kind of Indie film-making, the film community was ecstatic with its spirit of fun. It’s like Camille Paglia was like a breath of fresh air after the likes of Susan Sontag became overly abstract and arcane. But the New Vulgarity, though initially liberating, substituted hype and hysterics over real meaning and substance.) No matter how intelligently a critic or scholar may write about a work like CITIZEN KANE, SANSHO THE BAILIFF, or BARRY LYNDON, he knows he is the bitch and the film-maker is the master. But when a film critic or scholar turns an anthill like JEANNE DIELMAN into mountain, he knows he’s in command since a film like that would be NOTHING without the critical baloney cooked up by the likes of him. The illusory or make-believe profundity has to be concocted in the mind of the critic. Furthermore, the relationship between a film critic and someone like Akerman is almost incestuous because Akerman wasn’t foremost an artist but an intellectual theorist herself who merely used cinema as a platform for precious radical posturing. Thus, it becomes a case of a critic with a pen admiring a critic with a camera, and of course, this trend took off especially with Jean-Luc Godard(and Jacques Rivette) who started out as a film critic and made films in the manner of a thinker and intellectual. Still, Godard up to around 1967 was still interested in the artistic and expressive aspects of cinema, and there was a balance of the poetic, philosophic, personal, and political, but his radical purism eventually got the better of him and, beginning in the late 60s, he began to make movies devoted only to ideas and agendas, leading many of his former admirers to wonder why he doesn’t just quit cinema and go back to being a critic. While cinema can represent ideas, the means must be poetic, expressive, and/or sensual. Chris Marker’s SANS SOLEIL is stimulating and tantalizing — regardless of whether one ‘gets’ it or not — , whereas most of Godard’s films beginning in the late 60s are chores to sit through. Medieval torture couldn’t have been much worse. (It takes a beardo-weirdo like Richard Brody to actually enjoy something like DETECTIVE.) When a film is so utterly dependent on critics and intellectuals to justify and explain its greatness, the critic or intellectual has been made equal — or even higher — in status than the artist. Thus, theory, instead of serving the practice of art, comes mainly to serve itself. It goes from the view that critics and intellectuals exist to revolve around artists & art to the view that artists & art exists to revolve around critics and intellectuals. When discussion of art is focused on genius( readily demonstrable in the works), the critic or intellectual is the junior partner, but when the discussion focuses on ideology and/or theory, the critic becomes as or even more important than the artist. (This partly explains why the Art World has become so utterly corrupt. Since artistic worth is measured by fanciful theory or conceits of critics and insiders, success is less about making great work than gaining the attention and approval of the right kind of people. It used to be that commercial culture was seen as corrupt, whereas the Art World was seen as an oasis of truth, vision, integrity, and originality despite lack of material reward. The romantic cult of the Starving Artist or Writer sticking to his vision. But then, precisely because there is so little material reward for most in the Art World, the only hope of any success is to be noticed by certain critics, curators, promoters, and/or academics. So, artists will go to any length to gain an inch of favoritism with the insiders and well-connected. This means sucking up to Jews, homosexuals, feminist harpies, PC, and intellectual poseurs whose position in the culture scene owes more to connections than merit. As corrupt as commercial culture may be, success is measured by popularity. Commercial popularity is often be vulgar, but it still offers a more objective standard of value than what goes in the Art World where value is decided upon by some quasi-conspiratorial committee of neo-Warholites.) Though critics were instrumental in bringing to attention the works of real artists like Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Kubrick, serious film lovers could readily appreciate them without excessive elaboration on the part of the ‘cinerati’(the literati of cinema). In contrast, the only way most individuals are going to appreciate stuff like JEANNE DIELMAN or dull films of Hou Hsiao-Hsien is by relying on film intellectuals who make lavish claims for them(that can hardly be substantiated). Of course, such claims(to be taken on faith premised on the brilliance and profundity of certain critics who are objects of cultist devotion) favor theory over what is being theorized. I mean what is there to appreciate in a film where a woman shines shoes, grinds coffee, and peels potato for 3 ½ hrs before she finally stumbles upon liberation by getting an orgasm and stabbing a man to death? (Besides, the message was trite many-times-over by the time the film came out. The idea that bourgeois life consists of orderly and systematized repression of natural instinct where even sensuality has been rendered into commerce, a kind of institutionalized prostitution, was oft-repeated old hat. For Bunuel, it was the stuff of throwaway gags. For Godard at his most piquant, it was a way of teasing out certain factoids about modern capitalism. But for Akerman, it is the Greatest Discovery Since the Invention of the Wheel or Potato Peeler. Eros + Massacre. But then, according to Nagisa Oshima’s IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES and Bernado Bertolucci’s LAST TANGO IN PARIS, the end-result of total immersion into sensuality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either. One guy gets strangled and has his penis cut off and the other guy ends up shot dead.) It’s clearly the product of a sick demented Jewish lesbian-feminist-Marxist-decadent-bohemian mind.
And what kind of cinematic satisfaction are we to derive from dull Taiwanese films that drag on seemingly forever with boring individuals who sit around doing nothing? (They seem to be equally clueless even when they’re running.) At least Takeshi Kitano, who often employs static moments, knows when to cut(like a manga writer) and has a deadpan sensibility that imbues scenes with oddball humor and sensibility, kinda like Jim Jarmusch in his earlier films. Hou, in contrast, seems to think he’s a pure and uncompromising artist simply because he’s mulishly sticks with something even when it has no expressive effect whatsoever. It’s like a meal consisting of nothing but white rice, a quasi-ascetic denial of anything that resembles fun and liveliness. But then, I’m sure Hou carries on with the precious knowledge that there will always be some critics and intellectuals who claim to be privy to the muted depth and profundity of his ‘vision’ that is more pigeon. The only truth his films impart is there are boring people in Taiwan. But if you’re one of those theoretic critics who claim to see beyond all others(even most serious film lovers), then you can feel equal with the artist(like Hou) since his works can only be properly appreciated through intellectual rationalization. The critic feels flattered as a co-creator since theoretics is inseparable from the aesthetics in the works of Akerman and Hou. What goes by the name of Critical Theory should really be called Uncritical Theory(or Ideological Theory) because the (self)justification relies on sidestepping the issue of actual artistic or creative evidence — signs of genius and inspiration — in favor of spinning ideologically charged discussions around it. Now, it can be of interest to discuss the ideological, political, and/or historical component(be it explicit or implicit) of art because culture, after all, doesn’t exist in a socio-economic vacuum. Also, a work of genius may be deemed harmful or deleterious to some people. This argument has certainly been made of Richard Wagner(especially by Jews, of course). And even though Liberals or Progs prefer positive portrayals and spins of black culture & creativity, one could make social, moral, and ideological criticism of Jazz, Soul, and Rap as having a dangerous and corrupting side. Just like the moon has a dark side, everything has a dark side. As art, music, and entertainment have the power to overwhelm and override our rationality and self-control, all great works of art or entertainment are dangerous. Therefore, criticism necessarily creates a rational space between art and audience in order to inspect the machinations of effects and responses for good or ill . A Rock song with an apish message about sex and drugs can even make a member of the 700 Club want to dance and shake his buttocks. A Hollywood movie promoting hedonism and greed can allure even a diehard communist into paroxysms of fame-n-fortune-fantasies. The Internationale or the Soviet anthem can uplift even the spirits of a diehard capitalist or right-winger who loathes communism. Even Jews get swept up when they listen to Wagner’s operas. And I recall watching DAS BOOT in a theater full of Jews who came to care for the Germans trapped in the damaged submarine. Art can make us empathize and sympathize with others, but this means with ‘bad’ people as well as with the ‘good’. Think of how much we’ve all come to ‘love’ the Corleones in THE GODFATHER series even though they are part of a crime organization. But the father-son bond between Vito and Michael affects us more than the fact that Michael ordered the murder of a prostitute in THE GODFATHER II, his one deed that is absolutely unforgivable. (In EYES WIDE SHUT, we don’t know what really happened to the prostitute who most likely died by overdose like Ziegler says. In THE GODFATHER PART 2, we see everything from the inside, and there is no doubt as to the nature of what the Corleones are capable of. To be sure, it is wrong to see THE GODFATHER II as about a man gaining the world and losing his soul. Except for the murder of the prostitute, Michael did everything he was supposed to. He was no better or worse than other gangsters, and even the legitimate figures are tainted in their own way. If anything, it is not Michael who betrays others but others who betray him. Of course, each person has his or her reasons. Pantangeli thought Michael double-crossed him. Fredo felt slighted as an older brother who’d been passed over and used as an errand boy. Connie is bitter about the death of Carlo. And Kay feels Michael is married to the mob than to her. But through all this, Michael did what he was supposed to do, and in his own way, he remained true to those around him. If he couldn’t fulfill his promise to Kay, it wasn’t due to lack of effort. He did all he could to go ‘legitimiate’. Michael’s soul grows cold but isn’t lost, at least not in the Faustian way by conscious decision. He didn’t betray anyone in the family for self-gain. He did it for the good of the family. Even the killing of Carlo was necessary, and it had the blessing of his father Vito. It was family members who betrayed him. Michael’s flaw is a natural lack of charm. He is too sharp, and those around him fear getting cut. He lacks his father’s glow that others could bask in. But different men have different natures. The most intriguing is the relation between Michael and Tom Hagen. Hagen is intelligent and capable. Michael respects him. But Hagen is of the family and not of the family. He’s not a Corleone by blood and no Sicilian. Also, his lawyerly mind favors business over the ‘personal’. When Michael calls Hagen a brother, it is touching but also uneasy. It’s as if Michael has to drive this point home to strengthen their bond, something that wasn’t necessary with his father or brother Sonny. Tom Hagen never betrays Michael in any blatant way. And it was Tom who first lent support to Michael’s plan to kill Sollozzo the Turk and the Irish police captain. But, despite all that, Michael can never get over the fact that Hagen favored ‘business’ over the ‘personal’ when his father was shot. It was the subtlest kind of betrayal[wrapped in loyalty]that even Hagen and others weren’t aware of. Only Michael and later Vito became aware of its meaning even though, most likely, there was no explicit discussion of the matter. It was something they surely sensed.) Given the power of Art and Entertainment over humanity, critical thinking about their social and political influence is most necessary, but it should belong mainly in the history and social studies departments. Humanities, in contrast, must primarily be about the appreciation of sublime talent of true artists, the rare gems of genius and vision. How many Botticellis, Beethovens, Kafkas, and Kubricks have there been in the entire history of man?
Though social and ideological discussion do belong in the humanities, they should play second fiddle to the appreciation of beauty, power, originality, eccentricity, singularity, and individuality that are the hallmarks of great works of art. If the discussion of genius and talent become secondary in the humanities, the theory of art becomes disassociated from the practice of art.
To be sure, Critical Theorists seek connections among theory, art, and society, but the problem is Critical Theorists, as post-modernist intellectuals, don’t have a firm grasp of social reality themselves, especially they usually happen to be children of privilege whose life experience revolves around the cloistered world of academia and bohemia, or acabohemia. While there’s an advantage for creative and intellectual people to cluster around places like Greenwich Village or Austin, Texas, the downside is they coalesce around others who are just like them. When people who are ‘different’ come together, they come to be ‘same’ in their ‘differece’, which is why there’s so much cultural, stylistic, and ideological conformity among the ‘different’ persons in the ‘hipster’ communities. If to be ‘different’, you must dig Warhol and Akerman, you bet that 99% of ‘different’ people will agree with the ‘radical’ consensus, which is why the film community is almost uniform in its social, political, and cultural leanings. Since homomania is the latest big thing, everyone in the film community is required to sing hosannas to homos(and even trannies) as often as possible. Anyway, Critical Theory is mostly about theory uber art and theory uber reality. For all its critique of society and reality, the tools and lenses are theoretically fixed to the truisms of neo-Marxism, feminism, queer studies, ‘subaltern’ studies’, black studies, Jewish perspectives, victimology, and the like.
 |
| GHOST WORLD - PC art teacher who stumbles upon heroism of artistic freedom only to lose it in favor of careerism and peer pressure. |
At the most extreme, there are religions or cults like Jainism. And Buddha himself advanced this idea to the point where he advised people to withdraw from emotions and desires wedded to the world that is but an illusion and instead focus on truth within the mind. Once this truth is unlocked and revealed, ego itself would unravel & vanish, and the soul would return to the perfect void of Nirvana. For a victorious people, such world-view would have been pointless. Why conquer the world and gain control if indeed everything is just an illusion of the mind? But for elites facing loss and defeat, theology-as-mind-theory was enticing as balm assuring them that defeat, like victory, is merely an illusion in world that is an illusion. So, there are no real winners and no real losers. Also, the Brahmin possessors of this wisdom might find priestly roles in the New Order. Loss of political power might be compensated with spiritual, philosophical, and cultural prestige.
So often when a people face defeat, they turn to religion, faith, or theory(or fantasy if childish). Even if they can no longer control the world, they can control ideas and beliefs. Paradoxically, Christianity was strengthened in Europe with the Fall of Rome. Though Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion, it had yet to acquire the theoretic depth and complexity until Rome was destroyed by Barbarian Invasions. With the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, Christian elites were forced into theoretic reevaluation(as their own refuge from the fallen and violent world), and this led them to formulating a deeper and more powerful kind of Christianity. In contrast, Eastern Christianity continued in the Byzantine part of the Roman Empire, and its institutional stability had no need for the creativity and intellectualism that developed in the West as counterpoints to the collapse of the old order. In the East, Christianity could go on in the mode of business-as-usual. In contrast, Western Christianity went through a prison-writing phase that lent it greater theoretical complexity. Consider all the great leaders who were humbled, regenerated, and re-emboldened by their prison experiences. Though down on their luck, the silence of the prison walls gave them opportunity to think deeper and harder about what-is-to-be-done. In this sense, whenever the Tsarist authority sent men like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin to prison or exile, it was like sending them on sabbaticals, especially as Tsarist authorities were relatively benign — they provided certain radical prisoners with their own homes, books, writing material, and time to meet with friend, family members, and colleagues — compared to Soviet communists who took no chance with their prisoners and herded them like cattle in the Gulag. Of course, not all people are creative or intellectual when they are down-and-out. Jews and Hindu elites were. So were the Bolshevik leaders in Russia. In contrast, through the long stretch of oppression under the Hispanic elites, the indigenous folks of Latin America did precious little contemplating about what-went-wrong and precious little formulating of what-is-to-be-done to crawl out of the hole. But when Jews were down on their luck over the centuries, they never stopped thinking, never stopped formulating the idea of what-is-to-be-done.
Anyway, the French found themselves in a similar rut after WWII. The French had cultivated a grandiose outlook and highfalutin style(often bordering on arrogance) over the centuries, but those modes seemed hollow without the power to back up their claims now reduced to mere conceits. (Even when the French began to temper their cultural confidence/supremacism and show appreciation for OTHER cultures — as just as remarkable, if not more so, than French culture — , they retained the narcissism of the French sensibility that claimed to understand what it was about the OTHER cultures that made them so unique and significant. So, even if other cultures had precious elements in them, it took the French archaeologist, anthropologist, and/or scholar to pan the gold, to properly analyze and articulate what was truly special about them. In this way, even the modern French resolve to abandon their cultural arrogance was affected with the French strain of overweening self-regard. So, even if other cultures had the stuff of genius, it apparently took the critical brilliance of the French gimlet eye to evaluate and explain its true worth.) Pomposity is impressive as long as you got the power, which is why French Kings at their height were so admired by French masses. But when French monarchy went bankrupt and lost the confidence of the elites, its grandiose air seemed ridiculous than regal. Then, it’s not surprising that the masses were laughing when the King and his family were executed. He seemed a sad clown than a tragic figure. Republican France, organized as a unified nation of the people, was a power to reckon with, and it wasn’t long before Napoleon’s new imperial-populist army assured France’s position as the greatest power in Europe — the neighboring states went from trying to crush the French Republic to trying to defend themselves from it — , and, once again, the French had reason for pride, grandeur, and even arrogance if for a new set of reasons.
The eventual fall of Napoleon didn’t spell doom for French power because the European monarchies that regained power still regarded French Civilization with awe and respect. They never felt they were at war against France itself, only against the radicals who’d usurped power. If anything, the monarchies were eager to see Old France restored as the sun of Europe once again. Especially as the monarcho-aristocratic system in Europe was essentially an extended family, non-French kings and aristocrats had no wish to see France wiped off the map or destroyed; they merely wanted the ‘rightful owners’ — the French aristocracy — to regain power and rule in concert with other European kings and noblemen. Though the French revolutionaries tended to see the war in nationalistic terms, the European aristocrats did not. They saw it as a war waged by dangerous revolutionaries on kings and aristocrats, French and non-French alike. They saw it primarily as a class war than a war among nations or states. Thus, there was no particular anti-French animus per se among the European kings and aristocrats who battled against Napoleon’s armies. They were opposed to the politics of new France, not to the culture of France. Thus, there was a sense of universal brotherhood among European kings and aristocrats, and non-French aristocrats aided French aristocrats to retake power in France. To be sure, the idea of ‘aristocratic universalism’ seems contradictory, but then, aristocratic elites in Europe had more in common with one another across national borders than the masses of unwashed folks across nations/kingdoms. After all, it was the aristocrats who had the privilege and material means to travel and see the wider world, to become educated and refined in the common elite culture that included French language, French cuisine, French attire, French perfumes, French dances, French drama, French philosophy, and etc. Though European elite culture drew ideas and fashions from all over, France was the epicenter of high culture, and no European aristocrat, even during the hellish yrs of Napoleonic wars, wanted to see France destroyed. France during the Revolution and the Napoleonic period was seen as a sun gone bad, and its stability had to be restored so it could once again shine a steady light on Europe than flaring madly and scorching everything nearby.
To be sure, Napoleon and his armies offered a counter-argument of mass universalism that included all the peoples than merely the elites, but it was a near-impossible task to pull off within the revolutionary time frame. For one thing, unlike the elites, most masses in most states — yet to form into modern nation-states — only knew local languages, cultures, and customs. Thus, if an elite Pole, elite German, elite Russian, and elite Frenchman might dress similarly, communicate via Lingua Franca, and share similar values and attitudes, and often intermarry within the caste — after all, even the tyrannical Catherine the Great was a Germanic Francophile immersed in progressive French ideas, even if for parlor conversations than implementation in her own domain — , masses of unwashed folks across cultural/national borders had little in common(and most of them had never ventured more than a several miles beyond their place of birth and hearth). Also, if French revolutionary leaders(mostly bourgeois or former-aristocratic) possessed some refinement, the average French soldier of Napoleon’s army was likely an illiterate boor consumed mostly with issues of fear and hunger, therefore behaving more like a member of an invading army than a liberating one, looting and raping in conquered territories. Thus, paradoxically, there was more a spirit of universalism among the European aristocrats than among the European masses who were divided culturally and linguistically. Besides, as Napoleon made himself emperor, he rather warmed to the institution of privileged classes. Even as his army crashed through borders of kingdoms and statelets, he rarely incited local folks to take up pitchforks and upend the social order as had happened in France under Robespierre. Instead, wherever and whenever possible, he preferred to make a pact with local rulers and aristocrats, i.e. the privileges of those submitting to his authority would remain intact, more or less, even as the Napoleonic Code became the law of the land. Perhaps, Napoleon’s dominance would have been better served had he exterminated the entire aristocratic class wherever he went, but he had no stomach for that; he preferred to turn them into allies. It was surely more pleasing for a man of Napoleon’s ego and stature to hang with fancy elites than hang them from trees. He may have been the People’s Emperor, but the hoi polloi were still unwashed boors with crude manners. But then, look around at our world, and it seems some things don’t really change. We speak of mass global culture, but in actual practice, there is more universalism among the global elites than among the global masses. In other words, British elites don’t mind inviting African elites and Indian elites to cocktail parties and making polite chatter about the ‘finer’ things, whereas the British masses are more likely to grow anxious about seeing their streets fill up with African ruffians, hostile Muslims, pushy Hindus, and pesky Gypsies. Perhaps, one reason why globo-elites tend to be more dismissive of theories of racial differences is that they tend to have more in common with each other than the masses around the world. For one thing, there is just a small number of elite colleges in a handful of nations that draw in the ‘best and brightest’ from around the globe. As many of the elites around the world have been educated in places like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge, they've formed closer bonds with one another than with the ordinary people of their own nations. If elites are made up of smart whites, smart Asians, smart Middle Easterners, smart Africans, and etc, then they will rub shoulders with smart people of all colors and abide by PC dogma that posits race has nothing to do with intelligence. If smart whites hang with smart blacks, they will likely think, "white or black, smarts all around." Thus, he can overlook the general differences in IQ among the races. While there are plenty of smart blacks, PC dogma willfully overlooks the fact that whites are more likely to be smart than blacks. Indeed, to an elite white person with keen eye and honesty, it should be obvious that even in elite circles, whites(and Jews) have the advantage over smart blacks. It’s like Olympics track-and-field brings together the fastest competitors of all races, but even so, blacks produce many more faster runners than other races. (Brains are like muscles. They are elastic to a point. Suppose a person who doesn’t ‘work out’ can bench-press 150 lb., but then he takes up weight-training, and he is able to bench-press 200 lbs. So, he’s gained 50 lbs in additional weight he can lift. But MORE exercise will not mean more strength. Eventually, he will reach his limit no matter how hard he exerts himself. Same goes for intelligence. Mental training with memory and logic will expand the perimeters of intelligence. A person who, under normal circumstances, has an IQ of 100 might raise it to 110, but it’s unlikely he will go beyond that no matter how much he trains his mind.) Of course, there was a time when the elites had been more discriminatory and judgmental of other races, but then, it was when the elites of a nation were overwhelmingly made up of one kind of people. Thus, American elites used to be mostly Anglo-Saxon or Wasp, and precisely because they lived in a world of their own, they could speak more freely about matters that might sound upsetting to other groups. But due to globalization, the elites of various nations(especially in the West) have grown more mixed. In the West, the dominant elites are Jews than white goyim. As Jews gained ever greater access to white spheres of power, white elites became ever more sensitive about their own utterances lest they give offense to Jews, especially as Jews tend to react nastily(with stinging wit) to perceived slights and attained media power to shape public opinion and incite public outrage. (Unlike in the old days prior to rise of democratic culture, even the elites had to appear as though sharing in the broader views of the population, though, to be sure, what passed for ‘public opinion’ was mostly of concoctions of the media elites. Notice how even something as tawdry as ‘gay marriage’ came to define the ‘values’ of the majority.) Especially because powerful Jews equated antisemitism with the bogeyman of ‘racism’, it increasingly became difficult to say anything that Jews might find offensive(though one had to be pro-Israel against the oppressed Palestinians, which goes to show how elastic right-and-wrong can be in the warped domain of devious media). As Jews gained in power, it also wouldn’t do for Wasp elite-types to flatter Jews-as-fellow-whites while putting down other races(with the exceptions of Palestinians and whatever people Jews happen to dislike at the moment) because Jews figured that white dislike for the Other could eventually come back to Jews. Thus, in consideration for Jewish elites(out of admiration, sympathy, or fear), Western elites forbade any Tom-Buchanan-like(GREAT GATBSY) discussion of race and racial differences and, if anything, competed to score Philo-Semitic and/or Diversity points. (Nowadays, it’s especially advantageous to praise homos to high heaven as Jews regard them as their closest partners-in-crime.) If high society in the past measured their worth by how exclusively white(especially Anglo) they were, the new elitism measured value by its gushing celebration of Jews, homos, blacks, and token non-whites. Thus, the New Elitism could be exclusive and inclusive at the same time. You could hang around the ‘best and brightest’ and the ‘rich and privileged’, but at least you’re not ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’. The fact that exclusion based on status/class and attitude(having the correct PC views) is perfectly okay in the current order is proof that Marxism is dead as a Western ideology. Globo-Proggism favors the super-rich person who is for ‘gay marriage’ than the working class fella who is for traditional marriage. Though many on the Alternative Right refer to the new leftism as ‘Cultural Marxism’, it could just as well be called ‘Cultural Capitalism’, ‘Progressive Elitism’ or even ‘Progressive Conservatism’. In this sense, some version of conservatism will always be around because those with power & privilege pull strings to conserve their place in the hierarchy. Because equality never ever prevails, conservatism(as politics of hierarchy) will persist as long as humanity exists. (Granted, no single hierarchy lasts indefinitely, just like no mountain lasts forever. Just like geology manifests both in pressures pushing land mass into mountains AND pressures[gravity] pulling mountains to sea level, humanity is driven both by forces that build hierarchy against equality AND forces that undermine hierarchy for equality. Just like there is no single geological force, there is no single human nature.) Even communist systems ended up with new hierarchies, new dogmas, new icons, new rituals. It too became ‘conservative’. (Or maybe, it’s more accurate to say all systems are essentially fascist in the sense that fascism has been the most nakedly honest ideology on the dynamics of power and the psychology behind those who seek it. If all systems are ultimately fascist, then the real difference is between gangster-fascism and humanist-fascism. Gangster-fascists feign respectability but only care about power. Indeed, the denial of their own fascism is merely a sign of their criminality. In contrast, humanist-fascists, in accepting the dark side of power, do their best to humanize fascism as an animal that must be tamed to suit human needs. Another difference is between pornographic fascism and natural fascism. The former, in admitting that power is fascist, revels in power as the ultimate nihilistic high, whereas the latter believes power must be manage with care precisely because it can so easily burn out of control. It’s the difference between a crazy gunslinger and a sober gun owner.) Though hardly a great film, GOODBYE LENIN amusingly and even touchingly depicts how communism in East Germany had evolved into a kind of conservatism. Under communist rule, a good number of East Germans found meaning in Party dogma as redemption and faith; they also became attached to communist brands in food items and consumer goods, especially as such products hardly changed under the moribund communist economy known more for stasis than ‘new brands’. The mother has come to cling to communism as her brand of conservatism. Despite communism’s rhetoric of progress and change, her fondness for the East German system has to do with the feelings of security, certainty, sense of place & belonging, sense of continuity, and etc. And her son goes out of his way in filial devotion — a conservative sentiment of family — to maintain the illusion that communism is still alive and well in East Germany to please his mother. No matter the ideology, it must maintain order, which necessitates hierarchy that enforces a new conservatism. As no social order can survive for long with excessive chaos, even those founded on radical principles inevitably become the New Boss with its Iron Dogma. Thus, new social orders and their hierarchies re-institute the principles of conservatism. Therefore, conservatism can never go away as a principle force in history. Trying to totally rid the world of conservatism is like trying to dry oneself with water.
In a way, WASP conservatism has been replaced by Jewish conservatism — or BUGS(Busy Urban Global Semites) conservatism — , that is IF we define ‘conservatism’ as a system of hierarchy, stability, and social control/order to maintain continuity of power. Even though American Jews are ideologically associated with ‘progressivism’, they are ‘conservatives’ in their zealous preservation of ethno-power and privilege. Furthermore, their promotion of Homomania was a masterstroke by reorienting progressivism to favor the rich, especially as homos are among the most narcissistic, privileged, and well-connected groups in America. Because the new ‘progressivism’ is mostly about providing more pillows to cushion the vanity of rich homos, former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg could implement massive stop-and-frisk racial profiling against blacks. After all, if the favored groups of new ‘progressivism’ are Jews and homos, why not get tough on black crime to make life easier for rich Jews and fancy homos in gentrifying NY?
Of course, just as the conservative principle of history can never go away — it rears its head over and over no matter the regime or ideology — , the liberal principle of history will always be with us as well. The Chinese, for one, contemplated history in terms of dynastic cycles, whereby a new regime would come to power promising change and justice, only to grow rigid and repressive, then decadent and soft, whereupon social unrest and/or political crisis paves the way for a new power promising justice and order, before it too succumbs to the same cyclical logic of history. That said, matters of substance really do change in history — most nations and peoples are agreed that slavery is no longer justifiable — , but the general dynamics and structures of power remain much the same, which is neither 'good' nor 'bad' but just the way it is. Then, it’s hardly surprising that communism became a new conservatism for many East Germans. Even as most welcomed the fall of communism and withdrawal of the Soviet empire, they also faced the anxiety of adjusting to the new order as the East was swallowed up by the West. The old or the new-old certainties were gone, and former East Germans had to scramble for a new identity and ideas. Oddly enough, even though LIVES OF OTHERS is certainly more critical of communism than GOODBYE LENIN is — some have criticized GOODBYE LENIN as overly nostalgic of communism — , it could be construed as the more anti-conservative film. After all, while GOODBYE LENIN mostly overlooks the ideological dogmatism of East Germany, on the emotional level it is about attachment to the past, the reluctance of letting go of the-world-I-once-knew, and in this respect, its appeal is not unlike that of the French film AMELIE, which basks in cultural nostalgia of France that is no more.
 |
| LIVES OF OTHERS - Low-Status Male Wanker |
If in the past, France and Russia saw eye-to-eye because Germany was regarded as the main rival/enemy of either, they now share something in common as fellow ex-imperial-losers pressed upon by the overwhelming weight of America. France was once a great world empire, and at its zenith, French grandeur, pomp, and arrogance were more than justified with the power to back them up. Bomp justifies pomp. Even after France’s ignominious defeat to Bismarck’s Germany, its empire continued to expand overseas and in diplomacy. Indeed, even through the dark years of Occupation during WWII, the French Empire was intact. But soon after WWII, France began to lose its empire piece by piece, especially as every new loss emboldened other parts to sue for independence as well. Thus, by the mid-1960s, France had retrenched into nationhood devoid of imperial grandeur. The sense of grandeur that had once seemed impressive just seemed comical. A rich snob may be a jerk, but at least he has money to back it up; in contrast, a poor man putting on a rich man’s airs is just a sad case. It’s like a showboating athlete lacking in class but victorious in the ring can back up his arrogance; victory validates vanity. An inferior athlete who does likewise is just a clown. Worse than losing is losing while acting like hot stuff... which is why Muhummad Ali’s loss to Larry Holmes was doubly humiliating. Sadly, old habits die hard. Like Imperial France, the Soviet Union was a mighty Russian empire, the OTHER superpower that gave Americans nightmares during the Cold War, especially with US troubles in Cuba and Vietnam at a time when the nation was rocked by all kinds of social, cultural, and racial problems(ironically unleashed by rapid rise in prosperity). Alas, it was the Soviet Empire that collapsed almost overnight, with the much shrunken Russia a mere shell of its former self. In the mid-90s, the Russian economy was estimated to be smaller than that of Switzerland. And yet, just like the French, Russians suffered withdrawal symptoms from the loss because they’d been so used to Imperial grandeur-and-prestige, be it premised on Czarism or Communism. This may account for a certain degree of mutual understanding between the French and the Russians, a feeling that doesn’t seem to exist between France and US or between Russia and US. (Also, keep in mind that, in the late-modern era, neither France nor Russia was a premier power in the world. At best, they were top-contenders or the first-runner-up. France was overshadowed by UK and then Germany. Russia was seen as inferior to Germany, and then, even after victory in WWII, it was the OTHER superpower than the FIRST, the title that belonged to the US.) As French and Russians are different in so many ways, they probably wouldn’t get along as close neighbors, but the distance(and German Power) between them and similar trajectories of imperial decline made them understand one another in ways that Americans simply couldn’t understand. Though America reeled from setbacks like the Vietnam War, it never experienced anything on the scale of what France and Russia went through. It’s oft-been noted that American Empire maintains its reach by concealing its imperial ambitions(and of course, by throwing a lot of money around). The US has imperial networks all over Latin America, Middle East, Asia, and Europe, but their nefarious dealings and intrigues are masked behind the benign-sounding rhetoric of defending ‘liberal democratic’ values around the world. The US prefers to pull economic strings and ‘nudge’ the world with threats than officially claim other territories as ‘part of the American empire’. Thus, it is an invisible empire, indeed all the more effective and ineradicable because of the invisibility. And of course, Jews play the same game, which makes the New Empire doubly invisible as neither the US nor Jewish Power admits to its imperial ambitions. The American empire — or defacto empire — is now a Jewish-American Empire because Jews have supplanted the Wasps as the ruling elites of America, with homos as their main allies, which is why the American Empire is so tireless in spreading Homomania all over the world. It is a deviously brilliant way to spread the tentacles of Jewish-American power. As every nation has its share of homo population that feels alienated from mainstream society, homos everywhere are likely to form alliances with homo-pushing Jewish-controlled America; as such, homos gayly serve as loyal agents of the New World Order. Another factor is that homos, wherever they are, tend to be more ambitious than average people in striving for status and privilege because homos amorally love fancy things and seek to use wealth/power/privilege to gain improved standing in societies where homosexuality is generally disdained(or even strongly condemned). Nihilism comes naturally to many homos. In this light, all this global promotion of the ‘gay’ agenda by the Jewish-American Empire isn’t just a benign outreach for greater tolerance but a means of networking via homo-globalists to spread and secure the might of the Jewish-American Empire, to which the World Gayry is most loyal. Besides, Jews know that homos around the world are less likely to feel patriotic and race-ist since homo ‘sex’ cannot produce children. When a white man and white woman have white children together, they are bound by their shared whiteness into racial (sub)consciousness. The sense of continuity through reproduction reinvigorates feelings of connectedness to past and future of race & culture. Homos stick their penises into the fecal holes of other men and don’t produce life. A white homo can bugger a white homo to no life’s avail. A white homo can bugger a black or yellow homo, and again, no kid. So, the homo sense of loyalty is generally less fixed to race or nationality, thus making them very useful to the Jewish-American Empire. It is why rootless Russian homos are eager to work with globalist Jews to undermine what is uniquely Russia. Globo-Homo consciousness makes homos around the world identify mainly with their own vanity for adulation and privilege. When a nation begins to openly celebrate homosexuality, it is yet another trophy for the Jewish-American Globalist Empire.
Anyway, just like the elites of the Asian-Indian subcontinent turned spiritually inward upon losing political power, the French intellectual class withdrew increasingly into the domain of fancy theorizing as France’s vaunted place faded from the world stage. French power became like an emperor with no clothes, or more precisely, clothes with no emperor. There was the grandiloquent legacy but growing ever more hollow, especially sealed with the retreat from Algeria, the most prized imperial possession. If a nation can no longer measure its power in terms of economic dominance, military might, and international influence, it has the realm of image and ideas to fall back on. French ‘power’ turned into a kind of parlor game of perfumed bluff and house of cards. It seemed intricate and daunting to outsiders(who might indeed be dazzled), but one 'false move' could expose the charade or collapse the flimsy edifice.
To be sure, France remained a wealthy nation — if anything, France became a true industrial power only AFTER World War II — and continued to play a significant role in world affairs, especially in parts of Africa. Also for a while, France used its leverage to stave off Anglo-American hegemony over Continental Europe, but then, despite French posturing as the dominant political player on the mainland, the viability of Western European autonomy really depended on Germany, the only economy that was comparable in heft to the US and USSR during the Cold War. Franco-German alliance was the only hope for European independence from the two superpowers, but it was an uneasy and unnatural partnership. German economy was considerably bigger than that of France, but France had the political upper-hand because of the outcome of World War II in which Germany was defeated not by France but by USSR and the US. On the one hand, France needed a close alliance with Germany to construct and sustain a continental Europe that could be independent of both American and Soviet power, and yet, France was also leery of such prospect because, without American presence and Soviet threat, Germany could once again emerge as the dominant power in Europe. France was caught between a rock and a hard place. It wanted to maintain its dominant political position over Germany to bring about European autonomy but also understood that German subservience to France could be guaranteed only by US occupation of Germany as a defeated and defanged nation. France wanted the US out of Europe but also worried being eclipsed by German political resurgence(enabled by a bigger population and economy) in the absence of Americans. After all, Germans had easily defeated France in 1870, would have defeated France in WWI if not for British-American intervention, and totally humiliated France in 1940. German ‘good behavior’ after World War II had nothing to do with fear and awe of France and everything to do with total surrender to the US and USSR.
One thing for sure, France was no longer a world power. Worse, in the new era of mass consumer culture(where pop culture increasingly reigned supreme), the French began to lag in cultural influence as well. (The French had three ways of coping with the onslaught of America-dominated pop culture: 1. Enjoy and imitate. 2. Reject and denounce. 3. Enjoy but intellectualize, thereby turning ‘pop culture’ as cryto-high-culture. Via the power of interpretative ‘discovery’, the French could make a ‘claim’ on the culture that they themselves didn’t create.) Even though France had been economically eclipsed by UK and Germany in the latter half of the 19th century, its cultural prestige was still something to behold and regard as the peak of Western Civilization. (British may have been tops in literature, and Germans in music, but in comprehensive across-the-board achievement the French were most impressive.) But increasingly in the 20th century and especially after World War II, American mass consumer culture via movies, pop music, and TV gained dominance on all five continents, not least in France where an entire generation of French cinephiles(among whom were Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard) became obsessed with American cinema. So, even France, with its rich cultural life and artistic heritage(ranging from folk culture to high culture to mass culture[of the socialist kind going back to the Revolution and of the capitalist kind expanding with technological advance]), couldn’t hold back the American tidal wave. And French pop music became increasingly modeled on the American and, in some ways(even insultingly), the Anglo-British pop: The general rule had been that, while Anglo-Brits were masters of literature and landscape paintings, Continental Europeans, especially the Germans, Italians, and the French, dominated music and all the other arts; however, with the British Invasion, the UK became for awhile, incredibly enough, the world center of popular music with everyone from Beatles to Pink Floyd.
Disingenuously or not, the French sought partial ‘ownership’ of American culture by claiming to appreciate and understand it better than the Americans did. So, even if Americans made it, they weren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate the full extent of its beauty, depth, and meaning, instead treating it as disposable entertainment with no lasting value. Thus, the French laid partial claim to Jazz, certain ‘obscure’(or ‘neglected’, ‘forgotten’, or ‘persecuted’) American writers, musicians, and movie-makers. From the French perspective, Americans have the primal energy to create startlingly new forms of expressions but lack the intellectual finesse, sensibility, and training to truly realize the full implications of what they created. In other words, Hollywood gave the world John Ford or a Howard Hawks, but it took the French to explain why they were real artists(and maybe even thinkers).
 |
| Francois Truffaut and Claude Chabrol, big admirers of Alfred Hitchcock |
 |
| Rediscovered Angkor Wat - Cambodia |
Furthermore, with the ebbing away of Christian dogma, the rise of new methods of science & inquiry, and the revival of neo-pagan strains via Romanticism — most potently in Germany — , northern Europeans began to search for their own lost and forgotten indigenous folklore and cultures that had long ago been burned and buried by the coming of Christianity. Such endeavor could be archaeological & scientific OR inspired & creative(embodied by soul-archaeo-artists like Richard Wagner)... or both, as in the case of ‘creative’ psychologist Carl Jung.
Renaissance revived the ‘lost’ glories of Ancient Greece and Rome, but it took centuries later for a similar revival of the indigenous cultures of Northern Europe, especially those of the Germanic Barbarians. (Ironically, if ‘backward’ Medieval Europe stumbled upon the highest achievement of the Ancients in what later came to be known as the Renaissance, the fast-advancing Modern West reconnected with its(and the Other's)primal-and-primitive roots. Like a teenager who is at once fast-maturing into rational adulthood and turning into ‘wild animal’ by carnal energies, the West in the 19th and 20th century moved simultaneously in opposing directions. In science, technology, and industry, it became ever more sophisticated & rational, advancing exponentially, but in culture, manners, and aspects of philosophy, there was a lurch toward the primal and animal. This return to nature and rise of primitivism had many facets, from highbrow sensibility to lowbrow vulgarity. Romantics were steeped in poetry, philosophy, and history. They idealized the natural and spontaneous from the perch of high culture. Even as they rebelled against the Age of Reason, they were products of Enlightenment and its stress on reason and education. They were sophisticates who valued the reinvigorating power of the primitive and natural, not vulgarians who shamelessly wallowed in the muck. Whether it was visionary English poetry or Wagner’s operas based on Germanic barbarian myths, Romanticism was a transcendent sublimation of the natural/primitive into high culture. In contrast, the conquest of America, even as it vanquished indigenous savage cultures, had a somewhat vulgarizing effect on white pioneers who struggled against nature to expand civilization. Even though indigenous savagery and nature quickly gave way to towns, cities, and roads, the American Western Narrative of adventure and struggle had a neo-barbarian element. In one way, white man was ridding the New World of Red Savages to make way for civilization, but in another way, he rediscovered his true ‘pagan-warrior’ self away from the confines of overly controlling civilization, especially of Old Europe. He was both a civilizing force and a liberated barbarian. If European Romantics mainly kept to elite society and dreamed of idealized primitivism, artists like Paul Gauguin actually ventured among the primitives and captured their essence on their own terms. As for Vincent van Gogh, his personal ‘Tahiti’ was in the soul-struggle between creative order and mad chaos. Blackness also played a key role in the ‘primitization’ of the advancing modern West. If African Art became the object of fascination for the intellectual avant-garde[perhaps best exemplified by Pablo Picasso], ‘black music’[especially as developed in the US though in Brazil too] increasingly became the standard by which the Modern West expressed itself soulfully and sexually in the manner of the neo-savage. The 21st century has knowledge and technologies unimaginable in early times, but the main cultural thrust of the globo-West is now Rap, Twerking, Bumping-n-Grinding, and white women trying to sound black in vocals.) And the rise of nationalism all across Europe in the late 19th century encouraged every people to dig into their own cultural roots, folklore, and myths to distinguish themselves in blood-and-soil terms from others. Such ethno-historical endeavors led to exciting rediscoveries(as with people retracing their genealogy), but in some cases, ‘tradition’ had to be ‘invented’ or ‘appropriated’ to establish a sense of national distinctness. Christianity was problematic as premise of national identity because nearly all of Europe was Christian(and the Faith was spreading all around the world). Therefore, themes of pre-Christian paganism became useful in forging new national consciousness in some cases, and it was especially true in Germany, which would inspire other peoples to do the same. (What had been the source of German shame in the eyes of Christianity & more advanced European Cultures[especially Northern Italy, France, and Great Britain] reemerged as a source of pride in the era of Wagner and Nietzsche. Modern Japan, which came to model itself on Germany, also chose to emphasize its paganism as the mythic root on which the tree of modernity would grow, a huge contradiction in terms. Under communism, anti-Christian Russia emphasized certain aspects of pagan past in the construction of a new order of worker-warriors. Sergei Eisenstein’s ALEXANDER NEVSKY is like Marx meets Wagner.) But this barbarian renaissance or ‘barbarissance’ was bound to be more problematic than the Renaissance. It was kinda like releasing the long-repressed fury of the Titans from captivity. The earlier Renaissance restored ideas and expressions centered around Reasons, Logic, Light, and Order. Europeans were rediscovering a 'lost' civilization that had been arguably more sophisticate, accomplished, and advanced than their own. It was like the return of Sun after long cold winter. Thus, Renaissance inspired Europeans to be more rational, scientific, tolerant, and sophisticated(though it also laid the groundwork of the religious rebellion & reaction that would lead to horrendous wars; one wonders if the core driving energy of Martin Luther was less spiritual purity than repressed Germanic-barbarian fury that wanted to sack Rome once again, just like the main fuel of Martin Luther King Jr. was less moral idealism than the repressed Afro-energies of ‘muh dick’; it’s somehow fitting that a German and a Negro makes a pact in DJANGO UNCHAINED: Neo-Barbarian + Neo-Savage? Also, in regards to the American Western Narrative, Germans were as likely to identify with the Red Indians as with White Cowboys because their own ancestors had been the Teutonic ‘Indians’ at war with the Imperial ‘cowboys’ of Rome).
 |
| Valkyrie by English Illustrator Arthur Rackham |
 |
| 8 1/2 by Federico Fellini. Film-Maker not merely as director but CREATOR and the attendant neurosis of being regarded as a god-like figure with 'something to say', hardly a problem with Hollywood directors who were seen(and saw themselves) as honest craftsmen than as artists, especially ‘modern’ ones. |
Anyway, modern art was less about reliable craftsmanship than rushes of creativity, a notion mocked by the anemic Andy Warhol who called his studio the Factory. This caused many problems for the modern artist and would eventually prove fatal, especially as the world realized it didn’t really care all that much about seriousness in art and intellect. In contrast, modern science gained more in prestige and power because its worth could always be supported by results, especially in relation to new technologies based upon new discoveries. Because science has to work within the laws of nature, a scientist could not be regarded as a god(though as a prophet maybe, as Einstein was presented to the public). A scientist observes, discovers, and calculates; he doesn’t create. But because the world that the scientist studies is real, his work will always be relevant. In contrast, once the public tired of modernism and its bold claim to originality, it turned into a parlor game of curators, insiders, and investors. Also, the limits of modernism could be seen in its dwindling impact on the larger society. Despite architecture becoming more ‘intellectually’-conceived, modern buildings hardly advanced or improved the hearts & minds of peoples who worked or lived there. Furthermore, Modernism eventually came to develop its own schools, standards, dogmas, and even neo-traditions.
Still, at his peak in the first half of the 20th century(a world without TV), the Modern Artist was a mythic figure seemingly possessed of the will to break free, biting into every forbidden fruit and unlocking mysteries of creation within the psyche. Granted, unlike the Romantic artist, the modernist was both a myth-maker and myth-destroyer, the icon of iconoclasm whose bold originality also served as an act of desecration of all standards and values. He was an anarcho-god. The Moderns reveled in unprecedented freedoms to try everything under the sun, and the best of them pushed art to a whole new level. While the conscious mind of each and every person could be informed, instructed, and/or indoctrinated toward a state of consensus — consider all the genteel English ladies taught to paint landscapes in the same style and all the gentle Japanese ladies taught to arrange flowers in the proper manner — , the subconscious zone of each and every person has its own unique storage of dreams, demons, and muses; this was the hidden well that had to be tapped in order for the modern artist to become his true self. In conscious ideology Picasso was like any number of his compatriots but in creativity, truly one of a kind, a molder of his own universe.
To be sure, the god-cult of the artist predated the rise of modernism and had already gained currency with Romanticism, and perhaps Richard Wagner was the most revered among them all, not least because of music’s power to sweep aside rational defenses and overwhelm the soul with the force of sensuality and spirit. Literature, sculpture, painting, and architecture could sway and inspire but were primarily filtered through the mind, whereas music flowed directly into body and soul. Indeed, Western classical music has roots in Christian church hymns and choir, just like black soul genre has roots in black gospel(but then, spiritual music is a sublimation of sensual pagan energies, so in a way, secularization-sensualization of spiritual music has come full circle). As Romanticism was more about mythology and heroism than psychology and alienation, the Romantic artist took in the grand sweep of things. Romanticism peered through the telescope at faraway mountains and stars. Modernism probed into the microscope at the germs embedded in every fabric of being. Romanticism was panoramic whereas Modernism was paranoid. The Romantic god-hero-artist was drawn to themes and subjects deemed ennobling, uplifting, inspiring, and visionary(though often dark and chaotic). In contrast, the Modernist could be as much a demon-pest as a god-hero. In the Ring Cycle, Wagner re-imagined the Germanic hero Siegfried slaying the dragon, saving a damsel in distress, and dying tragically for love. Wagner refashioned old myths through his god-genius and made them his own. Though he didn’t invent the sagas, it was as if he created a whole new universe around them that effectively ‘completed’ and fulfilled their true potential that had escaped the imagination of the original authors and narrators eons ago. In Mary Shelley’s FRANKENSTEIN, man plays god, and things come to a bad end, but there is still the element of mythic heroism & tragedy, and there is always an element of nobility in tragedy. Dr. Frankenstein may be a victim of hubris, but what a dream he had. But take a modernist story like METAMORPHOSIS by Franz Kafka that is bereft of noble heroes, arch-villains, tragedy, and redemption. Instead, a seemingly 'ordinary' man wakes up one morning to discover he is a giant pest splayed helplessly on his bed. Modernist Kafka was remarkably original in creating his own universe that even inspired the term ‘Kafkaesque’, and he was ‘god-like’ in that respect. And yet, he was working less in the mode of god-artist than demon-artist. Gods inhabit the realm between heaven and earth, the world of light. Even when Romanticism was gloomy and morbid, the gods and heroes did battle with the forces of darkness. But, the dark realm in modernism is the subconscious, and the artist’s imagination creeps and crawls in and out of it not to destroy the demons but to be among them. As a demon in the darkness, he feels at home in that part of his psyche where all the secrets are buried, hidden, and stored. He accepts the sordid and chaotic as the natural elements of mental sewage; memories, dreams, and values also decay and are part of the process, just like food that enters the mouth and turns to feces. He feels at home in strangeness because rapid industrialization, urbanization, secularization, and alienation of society have made the strange the new normal than a threat to a stable order(which has become but a memory). He feels at home in this dank septic world where bits and pieces of psyche crawl around like bugs in avoidance of the light of reason. One might say the dilemma in METAMORPHOSIS is the character wakes into consciousness while trapped in a subconscious state. It’s as if he turned into a bug in a dream but forgot to change back to human form as he awoke. Even though both Shelley and Kafka dealt with dark themes, the difference between Romanticism and modernism become clear when we consider their works. (This is also true when we contrast Edgar Allan Poe and Franz Kafka. Even at his most morbid and gruesome, there is a sense of poetic pathos and angst in Poe’s works, whereas absurdity rules in Kafka’s realm, a world so lacking in unity of meaning and truth that tragedy is rendered impossible. Even if a character in a Poe story is utterly paranoid, he at least has the conviction & assurance of his fears, as in "The Tell-Tale Heart". In Kafka’s story, the character is denied both objective certainty of reality and subjective certainty of unreality. He is neither in reality nor in a dream, or he is in both. Tragedy is impossible without a sense of certainty, real or imagined, for tragedy dwells on sincere depths of emotions. And despite its agony, tragedy is reassuring in its conclusiveness as to the true lessons of life.) For Shelley, darkness haunted the human heart, the source of danger and madness but also the heroic driver of awesome ambitions. Dr. Frankenstein isn’t merely a man of rational science but a hero obsessed with making the impossible possible: Turning death into life, like Lazarus raised from the dead. For Kafka, darkness dwells in the perplexity of the modern mind, and there is no overarching idea or emotion to clear the labyrinth of its mental rats and roaches. Traditional Jews were no strangers to mysteries and contradictions, but at the end of the day, they had comfort in faith in God. Modern Jews, having abandoned God and realizing the limits of reason, were faced with mysteries and contradictions multiplying exponentially in the new era. In Kafka’s world, it’s as if dark elements of the mind must remain hidden lest they be seen as pests that need be eradicated to maintain the order of Bourgeois Authority & Respectability. Dark elements must be ghetto-ized like the Jews. Perhaps, Jews were drawn to psycho-analysis because they recognized the subconscious as a metaphor for Jews as the sub-culture. Just as the subconscious must be repressed for containing too much raw ‘vulgar’ data & drives, Jews-as-subculture had to be suppressed because, what with their ‘money-grubbing’ ways and less moralistic religion of Judaism, they embodied the grubbier realities of Western Civilization whose hidden workings belied its air of piety and dignity. But then, the paranoia of persecution/prosecution goes both ways in THE TRIAL. Is it about the conscious mind being ‘tried’ by the subconscious or vice versa? Or is it both? As Romanticism gave way to new movements that culminated in Modernism, something suggestive of both began to appear. DR. JEKLL AND MR. HYDE was a case in point, sort of like a hybrid of Shelley and Kafka, pushing beyond the former and foreboding the latter.
Anyway, as France continued to slide(relative to other major powers) in the areas of economics, technology, military power, political might, mass culture, and even elite culture, French Thought began to withdraw further into the realm of theory where intellectuals felt safest as masters of their own interpretations and prescriptions(though often too unrealistic and solipsistic to be applicable to the real world). Even when French took up radical or revolutionary politics — its main theme calling on European radicals to make common cause with the Third World to resist capitalist-imperialism flowing from US as the New Metropole — , its leaders and would-be leaders tended to become lost in highfalutin theoretics. For example, even though real Maoism raging in China was a thoroughly anti-intellectual movement, French radicals under the leadership of Louis Althusser borrowed it to serve as the basis for ideas that had nothing to do with the Cultural Revolution that was tearing China apart. (In a way, the appeal of radicalism/communism to the French was as a neo-Reformation as the French had missed the boat of breaking free of Rome in the Reformation. France remained Catholic, and this became a point of pride but also frustration. There was obviously the grand glory of the Church, to which France belonged. But as France became the most powerful and consequential kingdom in Europe, its Catholicism kept it subservient, even if only symbolically, to Rome. Even as top dog, it had to pretend to bow down to another dog, like the Shogun in feudal Japan had to pretend to serve the Lord-Emperor; at least it was all in the family among the Japanese as both Shogun and Lord-Emperor were of the same people. Had France adopted Protestantism, its sense of civilizational mission would have been more independent and daring, and, furthermore, the monarchy and nobility, being relatively freer of church authority, would likely have been more flexible in its political and social policies that, in turn, might have prevented the French Revolution. As a Catholic power, France modeled its politics on the absolutism of the Roman Church, whereas Protestant politics tended to be more independent and localized. Protestant German states were autocratic but less dissentious partly due to the absence of top-down authority that came to dominate French politics.) And then, there was the burden of legacy. Especially in the modern age, we cannot underestimate the impact of people’s frustration with the weight of history, especially as progressive politics tirelessly impugns than appreciates all that came before and especially as Pop Culture promotes impatience and ‘instantaneity’(and contempt for whatever isn’t ‘cool’). As wondrous and grandiose as tradition & heritage may be, they can also feel like a drag. In a way, a civilization that obsesses over heritage implies that the Golden Age was in the past, and there is little left to do in the present than to live in the shadow of giants. Such attitude can have a dampening effect on creativity and spontaneity, which is French freedom became more decadent than independent. (However wild, libertine, and 'anarchic' decadence may be, it always exists in the shadow of tradition and authority, of which it is a decaying product. It represents not the promise of new sprouts but the putrefaction of over-ripened fruits.) Why bother to do something new when you’re told that everything has been done already and that tradition is the repository of all that is best, all that is worthy of being known and shown? It’s like young people today feel the best of Rock Music has already been created and cannot be bested, and so, there’s nothing left but to bask in past glory. As tragic as civilizational destruction is, the ritual sacrifice of ‘forgetting’ may clear the ‘dead wood’ for new inspirations and explosions of creativity that birth a new civilization. (Many bemoan the rapid decline of Christianity in the West, but sad as that may be, perhaps it has run its full cycle, and the time has come for a new vision or faith to arise and take its place. After all, I highly doubt if Globo-Homomania concocted by satanic Jewish Supremacists could long serve as a meaningful substitute for Christianity.) The problems of the burden of civilization were evident in traditional Hindu India and pre-modern China. It’s like a person with lots of possessions will have a hard time moving to a new place if he clings dearly to all his property. On the one hand, there is the pride of property, but on the other, a sense of being owned by the property than owning it. It is then no wonder that Christianity broke free from the burden of Judaism, and Buddhism from that of Hinduism. Just like an plane with excess cargo has to dump much of it overboard to take flight, a culture that is ‘over-burdened’ with tradition and heritage feels hampered by the past, especially if the once-glorious heritage has come to be regarded as irrelevant or even embarrassing in fast-changing times that favor fashion over tradition.
 |
| The Burden of Legacy. Hindus and their Strange Ways. |
Anyway, despite the international fame of men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus(who, like George Orwell, became more ambiguous in his views, at least in the eyes of the Stalinist Left, though it’s possible Sartre latched onto a particularly hard-line radicalism as moral compensation for his physical ugliness vis-a-via Camus who was considered quite handsome, at least for a writer-intellectual), French politics could never again truly capture the imagination of the masses or the world because intellectualism goes over the heads of most people. Even Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal, whose ideas and views were more accessible, had limited appeal even in their heyday. (Even among the common French, one wonders if their reverence for intellectuals and writers had more to do with French power and glory than genuine understanding or interest in the ideas expressed. As long as France was regarded as a great power and cultural sun of Europe, even people who had no real love for artists, writers, and thinkers were likely to associate such figures with Respect and Power. Anything associated with Power seems grander, even if it claims opposition to the existing Power. As France faded as a world power, anything associated with it had less appeal, especially if it was a matter of ‘faith’ for most people, i.e. as most people aren’t all that educated or intellectual, they aren’t going to appreciate ‘great thinkers’ and ‘big ideas’ in their fullness. Rather, they blindly accept the elite consensus that certain figures and ideas are ‘important’, a mind-set that is most effective when the said figures and/or ideas are associated with Power.) Indeed, if not for the impassioned topicality of the Algerian War and the Vietnam War(and the War of History to finally deal with the ghosts of WWII), French radical intellectuals would have been far less relevant and compelling because their ideas went above the heads of most people. As long as the Vietnam War raged, people on the Left looked to radical thinkers to articulate ‘intelligent’ denunciations of it. Jean-Luc Godard rode on anti-war radicalism as well(though he seemed to be calling for class war during his Maoist Dziga-Vertov Group period), which is why some people showed(or pretended to show) interest in his increasingly political cinema. Without the war to latch onto, his films would have seemed self-indulgent and solipsistic. Notice how Godard increasingly became a cult within the cinephilia community without ANY relevance whatsoever to the larger public beginning in the early 70s. During the period of the Algerian War or Vietnam War, you could at least convince yourself that partaking of a Godard film was a form of ‘participation’ in a discourse about the state of world affairs torn asunder by American imperialism and neo-colonialism. The idea was that, as Hollywood and Big Movie Industries everywhere were defined & dominated by the bourgeois producers and entertainers(or the odd artist who cared more for Art than the World), their products either conveyed the ideology of the dominant power or flattered the mindless masses with their own familiarities, prejudices, and comfort zones. In contrast, Godard and others created a niche for themselves as radical, independent, and committed film-makers that somehow managed to capture the imagination of the larger public, something denied to most experimental film-makers who never made a dent outside their tiny like-minded community. But minus the hectic atmosphere of Third World wars, history wars, and generational conflict in the late 60s and early 70s, someone like Godard, especially in his Maoist phase, would have been ignored as a crank and crashing bore. During crazy times, people are always looking for someone to speak for them, which is why Bob Dylan was hounded by so many to be the ‘spokesman of his generation’, an offer he flirted with before declining and hiding. As Godard became the name most associated with the uncompromising spirit of the New Wave, he was the one to whom committed people turned to as the revolutionary film-maker. Unlike Dylan, Godard put himself out there, but because his new methodology of anti-cinema was so off-putting and torturous, even most radicals lost interest(while politely pretending not to).
It’s no wonder that ideology and politics have often served as crutch for artists who either lost their muse OR never had real talent in the first place. What is there to say about the worthless works of Chantal Akerman apart from the fanciful notion that they are associated with feminism, Marxism, queer politics, Jewishness, and etc. Without such associative crutches, there is nothing to see, nothing to ‘think about’. It’s like any bullshit artist can pile up junk in an art gallery and relate it to ‘patriarchy’, ‘consumer capitalism’, ‘racism’, ‘objectification of the female’, or some such, and there are likely to be some suckers, collaborators, and of course buyers.
When French ideas and intellectualism — increasingly difficult, opaque, fanciful, or impenetrable — had been directly or indirectly associated with world events(if only in opposition to them), they still commanded a certain respect. Indeed, an entire school of American academics devoted itself to expertise in the latest French theories, vulgarized versions of which came to influence American academia in the 1970s and 1980s as boomer radicals gained entry into institutions. But as the world regained balance and stability, culminating in the closing of the Cold War, French ideas came to exist in their own bubble. (With the Western Left’s disillusionment with the Soviet Union following Khrushchev’s ‘secret speech’ in 1956, the remaining leftist eggs were placed in the Third World basket, only to become a bigger basket-case. Tragically, much of revolutionary Third World sunk into deeper poverty and repression, the biggest blow being the madness of Khmer-Rouge Cambodia. [Jim Jones cult-community disaster was a microcosm of all that went wrong with Third World movements guided by radical ideas emanating from whites-who-would-be-gods, in some ways more dangerous than white colonialists who would be kings.] Increasingly, leftist theory was a miserable predictor of real-world practice. This was especially damaging to the French for their tendency toward excessive theorizing, indeed as if their mental webs constituted a world of their own truer than reality itself. Actually, even conspiracy theorizing, the national sport of Turkey, came closer to hitting the mark than philosophical theorizing. After all, real power tends more to conspire for advantages than adhere to abstract principles. Surrealpolitik was no way to go. ) Michel Foucault the homo-leftist Nietzschean applied his ideas to the Iranian Revolution in the 1970s, but they proved to be utterly inadequate and irrelevant to real events and powers on the ground. But then, there was something ridiculous about a homo-pervert French aesthete-intellectual, so very much the product of capitalist bourgeois culture, trying to play any kind of role in events where Fundamentalist Islam was taking center stage. (Though leftism was anti-capitalist and more closely aligned with ‘gay’ issues as a matter of minority rights, it was capitalism that paved the way for homomania. [Problem with ‘minority rights’ is it depends on the nature of the minority in question. We tend to think of minorities as ‘marginalized’, ‘excluded’, and/or oppressed, and it’s understandable why leftism would be protective of vulnerable minorities whose plea for justice may be denied by the majority. But, what if the minority is highly intelligent, driven, powerful, and/or privileged and have decisive advantages over the majority? After all, the British imperialists dominated as minority-overlords in their colonies. And the Indo-Aryan Brahmins that ruled India constituted a caste minority. Indeed, in terms of class, an economic minority always dominates over the majority because the upper-ruling class is always much smaller than the lower classes that make up the great majority. And even communism that set about destroying the upper-class merely ended up replacing it a new uber-class with power and privileged denied to the members of the ‘proletariat’. When a minority group is poor, backward, and powerless, minority rights is a viable leftist issue, as is certainly the case with American Indians. But ‘minority rights’ for Jews and homos have come to mean minority privilege that favors them over all other groups. Just ask the Palestinians and decent Christian bakers who’ve been hounded by homo perverts who demand ‘gay wedding’ cakes. Blacks are a problematic minority because, in some ways, they do have a legit narrative of oppression & discrimination AND many blacks remain mired in poverty, but much of their current problems are due to biology — blacks are naturally savage and destructive — , and there are too many cases of blacks brutalizing and tyrannizing other races through thuggery, violence, and crime. Anyway, when we compare Palestinian-Americans and Jewish-Americans, it’s obvious that the generic notion of ‘minority’ is close to useless. We don’t have a case of white Christian majority oppressing Jews and Palestinians as fellow minorities but one of Jewish minority elites lording over white cuck-dog majority to oppress the Palestinian minority. Jews are the minority uber-class, whereas Palestinians are the minority unter-class. Jews bitch about ‘white supremacism’, but what is far more dangerous is White Submissivism. It is because the white majority submits to Jewish minority supremacism that white people blindly serve the Jewish hegemonic project for the 21st century of turning all the world into Vacation-Land for Jewish Lawyers in Lust. At any rate, never confuse minority elites with minority subalterns. It’d be like conflating white minority overlords with the Untouchables in India under British rule.] The ambiguity of homosexual politics was emblematic of contradictions within any ideology. There is the perennial question, "Should certain ‘problematic’ groups sacrifice their distinct egos & peculiar interests, especially if disapproved by the ideology, for the sake of universality?" Because leftism was anti-capitalist and pro-worker, it was innately for virtue[of the honest laborer] against vice of capitalism that was associated, fairly or not, with greed, extravagance, decadence, and narcissism. After all, virtue was the ONE THING that the working class could claim ownership of against the rich. The rich were better-dressed, better-housed, better-educated, and so on, but those advantages didn’t necessarily mean they were better or more virtuous. Leftism posited that workers struggled for basic necessities and rights against the rich who were either stingy or spoiled. Naturally, leftism regarded homosexuality with distrust if not outright disgust because homosexual expression & practice were often excessive and degenerate. To be sure, there was another kind of leftism, anarchic than communist, that derided the bourgeoisie as uptight, conventional, repressed, unimaginative, and hypocritical. Against such hypocritical priggish pigs gorging on greed while affecting respectability, radical degeneracy would be a ruthlessly honest weapon in exposing the false virtues of the bourgeoisie, like in the Luis Bunuel film THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE. From the anarchist perspective, bourgeois morality was never genuine because it was premised either on repression/compulsion, in which case it wasn’t a matter of individual conscience/choice but of social pressure, OR of appearance/facade, in which case it was really a game of mutual pretense, as with the characters in Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME[though the humanism of Renoir was understanding and forgiving of human foibles among rich and poor alike]. The ‘sincere’ bourgeoisie merely folded under social pressure while the cynical bourgeoisie mastered the game of deception to be 'accepted'. The communist left, with its positive vision of a future led by the proletariat as a historical force of virtue, was understandably queasy with the anarchist implication that the natural state of mankind is degeneracy which should be embraced as the ‘honest’ warts-and-all condition of truly liberated humanity. Between those extremes of positivity and negativity, there was the humanist-left. In its acceptance of mankind’s ineradicable flaws and foibles, the humanist left was less naively idealistic and judgmental than communism was, but it also opposed anarchism’s shameless tendency to wallow in a state of chaos as true liberation, the kind urged by the character who espouses the Man-in-Disorder in Lina Wertmuller’s SEVEN BEAUTIES. The humanist position was that man is not perfectible but should nevertheless strive to be MORE, like in the Sisyphus myth despite the futility of existence. At any rate, because homos in the past felt constrained by the existing capitalist-bourgeois system, they made common cause with radicals that included communists, and some communists supported the homo agenda as a destructive toxin against capitalism. Yet, the fact was homos enjoyed the most freedom in capitalist-bourgeois systems, indeed even when homosexuality was a criminal offense. In their heart of hearts, homos in the West must have known they had the most freedoms while their ilk didn’t fare so well in communist or Third World nations. But because their preening vanity was butt-hurt over the lack of total freedom, many homos joined with the ideological left against existing norms & values and found themselves allied with communist nations and the Third World against ‘bourgeois capitalism’. That was Tony Kushner’s shtick. As allies of communists and Third Worlders, the crucial question was, "Should homos repress their ‘degeneracy’ and ‘decadence’ — often associated with capitalist excesses of hedonism and vanity — and work for the Common Good[as with the homo dancer-prancer in HAIL CAESAR! by the Coen Brothers] or should they take over & reprogram the Leftist Ideology into a form of Idolatry and make ALL THE WORLD bend over to Homomania?" At least in the West, we witnessed how it went FROM homos repressing their homosexuality to serve the Common Cause TO all of humanity being ordered to bow down before the Holy Homo. Jewish leftists faced the same dilemma and followed the same trajectory, though, if anything, they set the template that was followed by homos than the other way around. Currently, Leftism is about All The World suppressing their own identities and interests for the glories of Jews, homos, and blacks.) Men like Foucault realized that real history has almost nothing to do with intellectual parlor games of French thinkers, a revelation that made France culturally and politically even less relevant. Almost all the neo-Rousseauean French radical intellectual dreams of the Third World came to worse than naught. The reality was one nightmare after another. The spread of methodologies such as Deconstructionism in the American universities was perhaps the last hurrah of French intellectualism, but who now really cares or talks much about Foucault or Derrida? Though one can trace some of today’s Big Ideas to French sources, the dominant ideologies or ‘idologies’ such as multi-culturalism, the gay agenda, pop-culture-ism, Holocaustianity, diversity-mongering-ism, and etc. owe more to Jewish control America in the furtherance of ethno-supremacist power. And these ideologies, ‘idologies’(as they are more about blind worship of certain ‘iconized’ groups, figures, and/or symbols than about coherent adherence to logical set of ideas & values), and movements have spread all around the world because they’ve been formulated to allow for easy & instant ‘conversion’, which scores another win for soda-pop Americanism over wine-and-time Frenchism. Instant-Ideology or ‘Instalogy’ has come to rule the day. It’s like it’s so much easier to convert to Christianity than to Judaism. And it’s easier to become an ‘American’ than a ‘European’. While Jews made it difficult as hell for any goy to convert to Judaism or become an Israeli citizen(as difficult as it is for K in Kafka’s THE CASTLE to find himself a way in), they did everything to break all the locks in the Goy Castle, thereby allowing for easy Jewish entry. It’s no wonder Jews hated the Wasp Country Club with such virulence. It once had locks against Jews. Even as Jews have railed against power and privilege, they’ve also been most attracted to them, and their ultimate goal was to become the new key-holders of the Castle Keep. Consider how Jews once used Free Speech to unlock all the gates, but once they gained access to the uppermost and innermost sanctum, they’ve installed new locks of ‘hate speech’ that circumvents the principle of Free Speech that speaks truth to power. With Jews, you lose. They play dirty.
French academic leftism, increasingly obfuscatory and self-referential, was difficult to grasp, even by those who’d spent years poring over the texts. In contrast, most American leftist causes can be summed up in a few slogans, songs, ditties, sermons, and etc. Just flash loaded images of a mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse, regurgitate cant about ‘hate’, link ‘pride’ to everything made fashionable by the Jewish-controlled media, add ‘victim’ to every other sentence, call everything ‘racist’, and etc., and presto, there you go. It may be dumb, but it’s infectious because it’s so easy, and of course, much of current French politics, like counterparts in Sweden and Britain, takes its cues from not only the Jew-run American academia but by American popular culture controlled and shaped by Jews. (More than anything, Jewish control of taboos is crucial because even the best, most curious, most honest, and most courageous minds infected with certain taboos will find it nearly impossible to ‘go there’ due to social, moral, ideological, and psychological reasons. The Jew Taboo, linked with Holocaust Cult or HoloCult, makes it impossible to speak truth to Jewish Power and expose how it promotes agendas and policies most harmful to the West. Furthermore, because ‘normal’ and ‘respectable’ people tend to stick with official or prevailing taboos, the type of people who step out of line and blurt out the truth tend to be of more extreme personality and ideology. Thus, speaking about Jewish Power becomes associated in the public eye with the 'far right' or 'extreme voices'. Though being normal is generally good, its preference of moderation and avoidance of controversy often prevents crucial discussion. Furthermore, the prevailing normal isn’t always natural but could be artificial, like foot-binding in China and Homomania in the West. The ruling elites can impose their artificially chosen ‘new normal’ and make it ‘respectable’, whereby many and even most naturally normal people comply and go along because, after all, it is normal for most normal people to follow the leader and seek approval from the reigning authority. It’s like, because dogs with their pack-mentality are normally servile and eager-to-please, they can be made to do just about anything. A dog can be made to befriend a rabbit or maul it to death. As the normal mode of the dog is to seek approval of the master, it will do whatever that may please him. Even if the dog naturally wants to kill and eat the rabbit, it will choose to befriend the bunny-wunny IF the master demands it and profusely praises the dog for doing as 'nudged'.) One can understand why Americans had to seek ways to deal with issues of diversity since America was filled with various racial and ethnic groups. Americans had to find a way to make whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and other live together in relative peace. Also, there were various ethnic differences among the races, and these inter-group problems had to be resolved, both from above and below. Americans had to find a balance between having a common culture agreed upon by all AND a particular sense of ethnic/racial origin for each group. Thus, an Irish-American would have some things in common with all other Americans, but he'd also maintain his sense of Irish identity and heritage. But, one wonders why Europe needed an ideology like multi-culturalism when most European nations, especially in the aftermath of WWII, were overwhelmingly homogeneous. Sweden, for instance, was nearly all Swede. Americans had no choice but to seek solutions to diversity because they had so much of it, which could be a curse or blessing, sometimes both at once. Thus, something like multi-culturalism was meant to be a fix than a goal for Americans, at least not until Open Borders lunatics figured the only proper way to make America more American is by making it less traditionally American, i.e. importing endless millions of peoples from non-white nations and then turning them against ‘racist’ whites, especially conservatives who still cling to a sense of America as an extension of Western Civilization. But why would a nation like Sweden need multiculturalism when it didn’t have the problem of diversity to begin with? Sweden had near-perfect harmony as a homogeneous society. It had no reason to solve the problem of diversity since it didn’t have any. But notions of multiculturalism — though not called that at the time — began to infect Europe as an ideal(whereas homogeneity was denigrated as a curse lacking in 'vibrancy'). Thus, Europeans adopted multiculturalism not to resolve the problem of diversity but to create the IDEAL conditions of diversity, with the naive and foolish conceit that Diversity could only be a blessing and never a curse. But then, on the chance that Diversity did devolve into a curse, maybe Europeans deserved it as collective retribution to atone for the ‘historical sins’ of ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’. As the Americas, both north and south, were created through conquest of native peoples, slavery of blacks, massive immigration from all parts of Europe and even non-European nations, they had to search for ways to surmount the problems of diversity that led to divisions, distrust, and inequalities. Diversity could be a blessing in some respects, but it was more often a problem. Europeans, for some reason, fixated mainly on the assumed blessings, and even those who suspected the cursed-side of diversity generally remained mum out of fear of being called a ‘racist’, ‘Nazi’, or ‘xenophobe’, the fate of Enoch Powell when he warned against increased immigration-invasion to Britain from non-white nations. (Maybe Diversity was seen as a panacea by white Europeans who associated World War I, World War II, Holocaust, and Communism with mostly white Europe. After all, the great European disasters happened when the Continent was almost entirely white. Granted, lots of great things happened too, but people tend to be more traumatized by tragedy, and maybe the European subconscious thought that the presence of lots of magical non-whites would temper and tame white European craziness. Why were non-whites considered magical and noble? Because the New Narrative, especially after WWII, was of virtuous & saintly non-whites resisting ‘racism’ and Imperialism and all the other Evils associated with the West.) Due to the legacy of WWII and the evils of Nazi’s radical racism — and also due to the history of racial exclusion and discrimination under the old European imperialist system — , even conservative Europeans who feared massive immigration dared not oppose the program. Also, radical anti-racism(just as dangerous as radical racism) that became vogue among European intellectuals and media elites spread the notion that there were no racial differences and that any number of Pakistanis could become perfect Englishmen and any number of Africans could become perfect Frenchmen. Also, just like America’s involvement in the bloody Vietnam War led to America’s taking in lots of ‘Boat People’ and some Laotians as redemption and penitence, former imperialist European nations such as Britain, France, and Netherlands felt partially responsible for the problems in their former colonies and took lots of people seeking refugee status. The French were especially partial to those coming from Algeria out of both ‘guilt’ and self-flattery: Guilt because the problems of post-colonial Algeria could be traced to French rule & the devastating war AND Self-flattery because Algerian migration to France implied that, given a choice, Algerians DO prefer French rule over independence. But, if imperialist legacy impelled some nations like UK and France to take in refugees and immigrants from former colonies, why would a nation like Sweden, which had no overseas colonies, embark upon multiculturalism and let in tons of black Africans and Muslims? Was it due to ‘guilt’ of Sweden having been ‘neutral’ during WWII and grown rich via business with National Socialist Germany? Was it due to the uncomfortable truth that Social Democrats in Sweden actually had much in common with National Socialists, even on racial matters? Was it because ‘Aryan’ and ‘Nordic’ became virtually synonymous in the public imagination with Racial Supremacism due to both Nazi and anti-Nazi propaganda, a factor that made Swedes ashamed of blonde hair and blue eyes, so often depicted as evil ‘master race’ tropes in Hollywood movies? Did Swedes and other Europeans envy the vibrant creativity, excitement, and energy of American culture that bubbled up from the mixture of white, ethnic, black, Jewish, and other strains? Did Europeans begin to feel ‘lame’ and ‘square’, especially as all the white European athletes seem to get clobbered by superior black American ones? Did liberalized European women develop jungle fever & mother goose syndromes and hanker for the Other as both stud and poor child? Because European media were overwhelmingly leftist and liberal — and since conservative media tended to be timid and cautious out of fear of being labeled as ‘racist’(especially by nasty Jews) — , the European media mostly showed and celebrated only the fun and thrilling side of American Diversity. The media emphasized fun musicians and athletes. As for news of black violence and crime, European media conveniently rationalized the dilemma as the result of white ‘racism’ and ‘social injustice’, a view that over time became paradigmatic. Thus, many Europeans came to see American blacks as either fun/wonderful people with great creativity, expressiveness, charisma, athleticism, & sex appeal OR as a noble-saintly people oppressed and exploited by an evil ‘white racist’ America, which accounted for race riots and the like. Swedes probably indulged in a bit of ‘moral narcissism’ in believing that they, as good-wonderful-progressive-tolerant people, would succeed where Americans and other Europeans had failed. Apparently, Americans failed because of the history and legacy of slavery. The French and the British were tainted by imperialism and colonization. But Swedes, pure as snow, would show the world how everyone can come together, share the same values, attain the same wisdom, and live in harmony in a social-democratic utopia. In the safety and security of their homogenous social-democratic near-paradise, they swallowed whole hog the ‘anti-racist’ drivel about the equality of races & wonders of diversity and assured themselves that all the problems of non-whites could be fixed by whites being good to them. According to this perverted Neo-Rousseauean view, non-whites(esp blacks) didn’t need agency since they were innately good. If they were ‘bad’, it was because whites did them wrong and damaged their innately good nature. Unlike non-whites, whites did have agency to be either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. If whites acted ‘good’ and didn’t mistreat non-whites, the whole world would be a paradise as whites would have chosen to be good and non-whites would be naturally good. If there was a problem, it was because some whites still used their agency to choose the ‘bad’. So, all problems must be fixed by rooting out more ‘badness’ among whites. Such logic presupposed that black American problems were solely the product of ‘white racism’. And, Black Africa was mired in dysfunction because of legacy of European Imperialism. Supposedly, blacks were just as capable of living peacefully and productively in modern-prosperous nations, but white history had dealt the black race a bad hand, and that’s why Sub-Saharan problems seemed intractable. But, if blacks were given a chance under the generous rule, support, and guidance of the ‘goodest’ whites in the world, they would be just as successful as any European people — such delusion is all the more ironic since Europeans failed to close the gap between Northern Europe and Southern Europe for over two centuries; if such a narrower gap could hardly be closed, why did they think they could close the much bigger gap between Europe and black Africa? (By the way, if the contention is that Algerians and Africans cause problems in France due to traumatic legacy of imperialism, why is it that Poles get along rather well as workers and co-habitants in Germany? After all, Poles suffered more under German rule than the Algerians under French rule — and Poles were under Imperial domination of Russia and Prussia-Germany for longer. And Chinese were humiliated by British imperialist invasion, especially with the opium trade[dominated by Jews], but Chinese aren’t causing the problems that blacks and Pakistanis often do in Britain. And the French-Vietnamese War was one of the bloodiest colonialist wars, but Vietnamese community in France isn’t the source of the kinds of problems caused by the black African and, to a lesser degree, the North African community. Ottomans ruled over Greeks over centuries, and many Greeks still harbor a certain bitterness, but I don’t recall hearing much about Greek residents and workers in Turkey causing much trouble for the Turks. So, this tendency of rationalizing the problems of black African communities in France is mostly excuse-making, a cottage industry in its own right. In America, for instance, there are a million excuses for black failures, and the PC industry keeps cranking out new ones to divert attention from the most crucial facts — blacks are most problematic because they are less intelligent, physically stronger, emotionally more aggressive, and more psychopathic personality-wise — that, if admitted and understood, may undermine the entire PC edifice. Lately, the PC cottage industry of excuse-making would have us believe that blacks fail in schools because they don’t talk enough. The sophistry keeps chugging along, and as long as Jewish-run institutions like the New York Times lend stamp of approval to ever new defective batches of excuse-making, even intelligent people will keep on being fooled, because, after all, smarts aren’t necessarily synonymous with honesty, factuality, and/or integrity. Also, in all elite-circles, the mentality isn’t much different from that of the stock-broker in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. For any salesman, if the choice were between truth and profit, he will invariably choose the latter even if he has to lie through his teeth. Elitism, at least in the socio-economic sense, isn’t about leadership and nobility[of mind & soul] but privilege and status, and those in elite circles will say and do ANYTHING to keep and expand theirs, especially in a capitalist system such as ours since no one’s privilege is secured by blood-lineage as in the Old Days. It can only be secured by credentials, money, connections, and approval. An aristocrat still retained his title & status even if disapproved by his peers. But even a rich man can lose everything if he runs afoul of the System in the capitalist US. So, if Jews at the top enforce their brand of globo-homo Zionist PC as the official ideology, most socio-economic elites and wanna-be’s will say-and-play along.) Anyway, the kind of philosophical political culture for which the French had been famous has pretty much vanished from the world, indeed even from college class rooms. Today’s politics and ideologies can be summed up with slogans(college educated women yelling ‘muh vagina’), street theater, campy antics(campolitics), hysterics — it’s apparently yet another War on Women if some chubby privileged brat at Georgetown University cannot obtain free birth control pills — , TV shows, attitudes, stand-up comedy routines, etc. Of course, such antics had been part of past political culture, but nevertheless, on both the right and the left, there was still a serious philosophical culture of patiently developed ideas and systems of thoughts to support a certain worldview. It’s like Paul Gottfried remembering Frankfurt School academics as serious thinkers even if he eventually came to disagree with them. But what passes for intellectual culture in the present? Articles in magazines get dumber and dumber. Too many film critics have succumbed to yammering about superhero comic book movies and/or have politicized criticism to such a degree that their views come across as agit-prop(or crit-prop) that, furthermore, cloud their judgement, as when established critical consensus praised the New STAR WARS for being ‘woke’. Something as stupid as Lena Dunham’s GIRLS or ridiculous as LOST is considered ‘intelligent television’. Even the Nobel-prizing winning Turkish writer Orham Pamuk is full of praise of American TV shows, comparing them with the works of Charles Dickens. Camille Paglia says the duel in REVENGE OF THE SITH(aka STAR WARS III) is the greatest work of art in the past thirty years. Naomi Wolf is considered a public intellectual(though, to be sure, she has gained a degree of gravitas over the years in rejecting the Imperial Narrative). The two most prominent black ‘thinkers’ are Cornel West and Michael Dyson, jive-ass hucksters who are all about self-promotion-and-aggrandizement(though West did have the integrity to call out on Obama’s phoniness). The spiritual figure of our age is Oprah Winfrey, and people are expected to have ‘intelligent’ conversations with a dummy like Tavis Smiley. Chris Nolan’s DARK KNIGHT is treated like an important cultural event, even a work of art. News shows are now mostly propaganda hour, and the media have become downright surreal, trying to persuade viewers that George Zimmerman is a white guy who murdered an innocent cherubic black child named Trayvon Martin nibbling on Skittles. With such idiocy, trashiness, childishness, and shamelessness, even much of intellectualism has turned into a clown-show. Also, the rise of Political Correctness and its culture of taboos & conformity(over controversy) has made it difficult to sustain integrity, honesty, and courage. Following WWII and the demise of Nazism & the revelations about the Holocaust AND prior to the explosive problems of racial tensions & conflict in America and Europe, an honest intellectual could really believe that race doesn’t matter so much and maybe-just-maybe all races could be raised to the same level with serious effort. Thus, if intellectuals were wrong about race and racial differences back then, it was more out of naivete and ignorance than fear of political correctness. But after so many decades, it should be clear by now that racial differences are real and account for persistent social problems, especially pertaining to blacks, but because of the consecration of PC, current intellectuals are FORCED to be dishonest, FORCED to ‘not know’ what they, in their heart of hearts, know. We can forgive a white liberal in the 1940s, 1950s, and even in the 1960s for believing that black conditions could be vastly improved with federal aid and support because, after all, blacks had been denied equal opportunity in America. But after so much physical evidence of black thuggery in muscle power, black impulsiveness in emotions & drives, black aggressiveness in behavior, and black psychopathy & inability to empathize with others, and black megalomania, one would have to be especially dishonest or delusional to keep on insisting that the racial problems in this country mainly owe to the legacy of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’. It’s not Jim Crow but Radio Raheem(of the movie DO THE RIGHT THING by Spike Lee), the kind of which are all too common in black communities all over America. The fact is there are too many Negroes who act like ‘niggers’, and the problem is that many Negroes carry this savage gene that makes them stronger, more aggressive, more impulsive, more self-centered, and more psychopathic than other races. This is so obvious, but political correctness forbids honest discussion of race and the location of black problems in genetics, and so, we are left with praising everything black(and even making up fantasies about black genius) and making excuses for black problems by blaming external forces that supposedly continue to ‘punish’ blacks. The idiot critic Andrew O’Hehir at Salon wrote that Detroit was destroyed because it was punished by white ‘racists’ who didn’t dig Motown. Right, white flight happened because white people couldn’t stand Diana Ross & the Supremes and Smokey Robinson. In truth, most whites, even liberals, left Detroit because blacks got brazenly dangerous and aggressive, but O’Hehir blames the fall of Detroit on whites who were apparently appalled by Four Tops’ "I Can’t Help Myself". But conservatives are hardly better for they too play by the PC hymnal. So, we are told that Detroit was ruined by Liberalism, socialism, and the Democratic Party. If so, why are white cities and states under Democratic rule doing so much better than Detroit? Why are San Francisco and Manhattan, two very Liberal cities, among the richest places in America? Or consider how Ann Coulter blames black behavior on the Democratic Party, as if blacks are going to act much better if they lived under Republicans. So, how are blacks acting in Texas? Or channeling Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter says blacks learned to be violent by emulating the Scotch-Irish hillbillies of the South, as if black Africa was an Edenic paradise of Afro-hippies. Political Correctness makes people dishonest(and dumb), and dishonesty ferments into hallucinations, such as kids at Oberlin College spotting the KKK not unlike how people used to see UFOs all the time in the 1970s.
That said, American culture has still been directed more toward the value-judgement of "where’s the beef?" or prove-it-before-I-approve-it mentality, whereas the French became more besotted with the "What is the ‘beef’?" or theory-over-reality conceit. Americans loved 007 movies and JAWS because they delivered the goods, the thrills, the beef, the kind that most movie audiences wanted. Good or bad, their value as popular entertainment was undeniable. Most people, high-middle-low, could at least acknowledge that the best of Hollywood provided bang-for-the-buck. The fun was concrete, not a conceit. Also, American political values and thought focused on pragmatic matters of solving real problems(though not always honestly). The proposals could be foolish and disastrous, like the Great Society Program, but they could still be debated in terms that could be understood by most people. In contrast, French political philosophy, despite its stated intention of ‘changing the world’, often had little to do with any recognizable or realistic worldview. Though there were leftist intellectual Americans who were sympathetic to Red China, few if any took Maoism as a serious intellectual idea as Althusser and his followers did. American political culture could sometimes be provincial and blind in its missionary zeal, but Americans still preferred matters on the ground to theory in the air.
Paradoxically, at least in certain respects, the elitism of French culture — political, intellectual, and social — made it less meritocratic, whereas the populism of American culture made it more so. Even if most of what Americans obsess about tends to be ‘stupid’ or ‘dumb’, the winners could still be judged in terms of apparent appeal and obvious success. HAPPY DAYS and SANFORD AND SON were no great works of art, but they did win fair-and-square in the popularity contest of mass culture. They offered jokes and laughs, and millions of Americans tuned in. Like American sports, the winners were decided in an obvious and open manner, ‘athletically’. HAPPY DAYS and SANFORD AND SON became culturally significant on the basis of something other than intellectual argument or conceit. (There was a direct-impact-ness about American culture that could be shamelessly and immediately understood and enjoyed by everyone. It’s like Robin Williams in MORK AND MINDY expressing his amazement at the idea of pie-in-the-face. Stupid maybe but simple and effective as comedy trope. It may be that the French have been lacking in slapstick because it’s a direct form of humor; it’s as if French have an allergy to spontaneity; everything has to be ‘ornated’, designed, or furbished before it goes from point A to point B, and this can be discerned even in the direct-seeming BREATHLESS of Jean-Luc Godard, which, upon closer inspection, is more about refracted realities than raw realities, the kind in SHADOWS by John Cassavetes. Like the pie in the face, there’s Beavis and Butthead going ‘boing!!’ It’s stupid but ‘pop genius’ in its purity and simplicity. And it’s more than mere clownishness, which usually isn’t very funny and may be why circuses went out of fashion. There’s too much heavy-lifting and wastefulness among clowns to squeeze out laughter. In contrast, all Beavis has to do is giggle and say "boing!!" They do little and you laugh a lot, whereas the figures of Fellini’s CLOWNS do a lot but you laugh little. And of course, the best American comic talents have great sense of timing, and timing is central to athleticism as in sports; in boxing, how hard you can punch is secondary to knowing when to dodge and punch. But there is more to Americanism than directness per se. The appeal is in the directness that comes with flexibility that, in turn, comes with a personal sense of integrity and honor. This paradox is perhaps most evident in the character of William Holden in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI.
The danger of intellectualism or ‘high-mindedness’ is it can rationalize just about anything, creating verbal or ‘logical’ equivalents of M.C. Escher’s paradoxical mazes that appear to make sense but don’t. It’s the pedigree or appearance of sophistication, complexity, and/or depth that fools so many people, as in the story "Emperor’s New Clothes". Corrupted or self-deluded intellectualism pontificates that JEANNE DIELMAN is a profound masterpiece, and sadly, there are plenty of fools(who lack sense if not intelligence) who nod along in awe of theory(since the evidence is hardly onscreen). A form of vanity, it can make smart people even dumber than dumb people at times. One virtue(minor as it is) of dumb people is they generally accept their low intelligence & subpar taste, thus lacking pretensions to otherwise. In contrast, smart people are eager to show off their knowledge and win approval of their peers(and superiors). So, if someone deemed brilliant, profound, and/or important were to say, for vain or specious reasons of his/her own, that JEANNE DIELMAN is a great work of art, then smart people who want to seem smarter may well fall in line with the explanation despite evidence to the contrary onscreen that exposes Akerman as an empress with no clothes, actually plain enough in the first third of JE TU IL EL where she mopes around nakedly doing nothing but eating sugar from a brown bag. (Some Jewish intellectual in Seattle urged people not to use terms like ‘citizen’ and ‘brown bag’ because they are ‘racist’, and it takes a smart dummy to fall for such tripe. In many cases, smarts are less committed to facts and reality than to premise and logic. Smarts often work like noses of bloodhounds, especially as intelligence has greater ability to concentrate on an idea or task. Just like a bloodhound supplied with a scent becomes obsessed with it and ignores almost all else, intelligence that is ‘scented’ with a certain premise obsessively uses logic to prove or fulfill that premise than looking at the larger world and realizing that maybe the premise itself is faulty. Also, intelligence is innately lonely and alienating because logic is amoral and doesn’t teach right or wrong. Logic alone is without compass. So, intelligence hungers for a sacred premise to serve. This is why Jewish identity has been so important as a gravitational center of Jewish genius and brilliance. Like Bob Dylan sang, "You Gotta Serve Somebody". He meant God, but secular Jews must serve something too, and it is Historical-Identity. It is also why so many white intellectuals crave something like PC that presents them with a sacred premise on which their reason can operate with a sense of righteous calling. They would feel lost without it as intelligence and logic alone cannot determine good and evil, sacred and profane. Therefore, intelligence, though the greatest instrument in search of truth, can also be the biggest obstacle. In the end, it’s not gullible dumbness but stalwart intelligence that stands in the way of truth. Not all Prog Elites obsessed with Trump Derangement Syndrome & Russia Collusion Hoax are liars and frauds. Rather, they’ve been fed the premise that Trump is ‘literally Hitler’ and Reactionary Russia is resisting holy Globo-Homo; therefore, all their intelligence is committed to turning the globo-sermon into a sacred edict.) In the sickly world of cinephilia, it’s come to a point where mentally ill brat-flake Akerman can be lauded for profundity, brilliance, and depth simply for munching on sugar from a brown bag in the nude for 20 minutes; of course, it helps that she was Jewish, neo-or-post-Marxist, feminist, and lesbian. Lots of ‘intersectional’ points in one woman.
Once people spiral into excessive theorizing, they construct mazes that frustrate exiting back into reality. It was a key reason for French culture’s — high as well as low — downfall into irrelevance and oblivion. The passage of time exposed its obvious lack of value. (Also, purity-spiraling of extreme radicalism and intellectual abstraction, mainly motivated by anti-Americanism, made French Thought increasingly less appealing and accessible even to elites and peers. Unable to compete with American Power in the Center of Politics and Culture, the French carved out their own puritanical niche in the radical peripheries of ideology and philosophy, which increasingly became of no interest to anyone but handful of mental-vegans in the academia whose careers were sustained by incestuous mutual support and flattery.) When the value of something seems opaque or dubious, it has to be rationalized by theory, as is the case with much of Contemporary Art, the value of which can’t be demonstrated except by disingenuous verbiage that combines academese and radical-chicanery. (Incredibly however, so many people have been convinced or at least cowed by the theoretic notion that ‘gender is just a social construct’, and therefore, men with wigs are ‘women’ and should compete with women in sports. I suppose a theory, no matter how imbecile, can be effective and ‘popular’ with the backing of mass media, mass education, mass propaganda, and schlocky pop culture, especially in a world of moral and spiritual vacuum that hungers for some, any, meaning. Also, unlike French thinkers who were fixated on World Events, the so-called LGBTQ lunacy is fixated on celebration of homegrown homo and tranny celebrities, and the sheer entertainment value has had ‘idolic’ appeal to countless twits and morons weaned on Pop Culture and PC.) This new elitism differed from the traditional kind that could be fancy and precious but came with evident value. Whatever one thinks of ballet, there’s no denying its grace and beauty. French perfumes, like them or not, are indeed special scents. Same could be said of French cuisine and the Versailles. One can readily understand why French literature, represented by Hugo, Stendhal, Balzac, Zola, Flaubert, Proust, and others, had worldwide influence. Even if one may not fully grasp the significance of a film like HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, LA JETEE, JULES AND JIM, or ALPHAVILLE, one could recognize the originality and poetry. There was real substance underlying the style. (Style has been more critical to French culture than perhaps to any other, but it was justified as essential only in meaningful relation to substance.) But when French cinema began to produce the likes of Chantal Akerman(and other creative vegans, zombiesque depressives, ‘dourpusses’, and ‘glummeristes’), an even worse trend following Godard’s self-imposed descent into madness(not unlike Jack Torrance in THE SHINING and Bobby Fischer’s nuttery), it was all emblematic of an intellectual culture lost in a tailspin. Spinning round and round, the world is a blur and the only certainty is one’s state-of-mind disassociated from a barely recognizable world; it’s as though the blur of theories took precedence over cold assessment of the real world. (Perhaps, reality became too ‘triggering’ to the Franco-centric ego accustomed to regarding itself as the Sun of the World. In perverse similarity, Jewish Power is now obsessed with being the center of the world, BUT unlike the French who radiated glory & might, Jewish Power seeks to hide itself despite being more powerful than French power ever was by several magnitudes. As such, Jewish Power is more like a black hole than a sun. It is a darkness than a light unto mankind, sucking in all facts and truths that dare illuminate the true nature of the Jew and his power. If the French became detached most from reality in their loss of power, Jews are most devious about reality in their height of power, and that makes Jewish Power immeasurably more dangerous.) Ideas were no longer connected or in service to the real world but spinning a web to form their own cocoon. Not surprisingly then, it took the more practical Americans to vulgarize French theories into applicable forms in the ‘athletic’ game of power. Thus, when American academia boiled down French Deconstructionism into manifesto of attack-the-white-male-and-undermine-white-pride-and-institute-neo-puritanical-political-correctness-in-all-colleges-government-organizations-and-businesses, then one could define ‘heroes and villains’ declare ‘winners and losers’ in the good ole American tradition of winner-takes-all. Furthermore, as the US is a global power, its vulgarized versions of foreign ideas could be instantly re-exported as mental fast food: McCorrectness. Then, it’s no wonder that so much of current European intellectualism is as vulgarized as American academics. In summary, American Intellectuals, enthralled with all things ‘European’ and sophisticated(as Europe has oft-been admired for being more ‘progressive’ than America), adopted certain European ideas, especially French; but then, Americans, in their sports-centrism of seeing the world in terms of winners-and-losers, simplified European ideas into easily understood Political Correctness, and then, this vulgarized ideology was shipped back to Europe, with the result that Sorbonne University and Oberlin College might as well be one and the same. They both wave the ‘rainbow gay’ flag, have slutty ‘feminists’ fools, yammer endlessly about ‘diversity’, obsess over TV shows as the fountain of intelligent culture, and espouse the politics of hip-hop as the sound of progress.
 |
| The Future of Europe. Welcome to Jungle and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs as weaker white males are wussified and cucked. |
 |
| Justin Trudeau, the globalist shill and cuck agent of Zionists Supremacists who control the media and banking in Canada. Leader of the Free World indeed. |
Also, those radically committed to The Truth paradoxically become the biggest liars. In their minds, the world is divided into forces of goodness and forces of evil. For sure they are on the side of Truth, therefore their enemies, rivals, or critics MUST BE wrong and evil since only one side, their side, monopolizes the Truth, the meaning of which can be molded by whim or fashion. It’s like the ancient Jewish monomania that there is only one God, therefore all other gods must be false or demonic. Such arrogance leads Progs to think that "the discussion is over and debate is no longer warranted; they are right, that’s that, and everyone better just comply and follow." (If capitalists seek monopoly control over markets of goods, PC elites seek the monopoly over market of ideas, icons, and idols. Via the power of money & networks, monopoly capitalism even finances & enforces Monopoly Intellectualism. Google and Facebook, both Jewish-owned, collude with ADL and Zionists-Supremacists to censor, deny, or shadow-ban critics and opponents of Jewish-Globalism. For a time, Alternative Right Blog was censored even if it hadn't violated any of the terms of service. And Jared Taylor has been censored by Youtube and Twitter; worse, so-called Jewish Liberals, instead of defending free speech and contest of ideas, demand that more voices be suppressed by defaming their views as 'hate', 'white supremacist', or 'nazi'.) Such contempt goes back to a time in history when, more often than not, the forces of Enlightenment were indeed generally closer to the truth because the forces of conservatism/reaction blindly clung to tradition, customs, or religion. In contrast, the forces of Liberalism were pro-science, pro-reason, and pro-empiricism, even if not perfectly or ideally so. Back then, the Right was more likely to close its eyes, whereas the Left was more keen to open its eyes. The current so-called Left is resting on the laurels of the past that is no longer relevant. PC is the product of Liberalism and harks back to the Enlightenment, but it is, like Marxism, closer to a secular religion with dogmas and taboos, and as such, prohibits cautious, serious, and honest thinking, at least in certain key areas of social sciences and humanities. PC demands that we close our eyes to certain truths no matter how obvious they are. We must be train ourselves to be like yogis who sit on cactus but pretend to feel no pain since physical pain is just an ‘illusion’.
 |
| Hindu Yogis live in a world of filth and pain but train their minds to believe it's all just an illusion. It's no wonder Asian-Indians are so adept at the game of Political Correctness that trains one's minds not to notice certain things and 'meditate' on the Favored Narrative. |
 |
| Vegans believe they own the Truth and are on the 'right side of history' even though they are factually wrong about nutritional science because they feel morally empowered by their sense of 'justice' for animals. |
Progs see history this way. They see their opponents, especially white patriots and nationalists, not merely as people with differing views but as forces of evil. It’s like Anna Quinlan have said the likes of Rush Limbaugh are the kind of people who would have defended slavery in the 1860s. Conservatives are usually not as extreme in their self-righteousness, partly because the prevailing PC Narrative has pushed them against the ropes; they are too busy playing defense to go on the moral offense. They don’t say that people like Quinlan are the type who would have murdered millions of Christians and destroyed tens of thousands of Churches in the Bolshevik Revolution. Indeed, if conservatives spouted off like that, they would be harshly condemned for paranoid ‘McCarthyism’ as Jews control the media and referee the terms of the debate, and of course, Jews are not impartial judges since many of them had participated in radical leftist violence(communism) and been victimized by massive rightist violence(National Socialism). Not surprisingly, Jews favor the Left over the Right to serve their tribal Judeo-centric reading of history.
The problem of elitism and meritocracy is that the process of elite-selection comes under control of a small circle of insiders and experts. In hard sciences, this is generally less of a problem because ability and evidence have to be proven and demonstrated. But in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, even the most intelligent, knowledgeable, and tasteful experts and judges have personal biases, ideological agendas, and/or tribal grudges that can affect who gets in-or-out in the Castle or the Canon. Harold Bloom, for instance, didn’t include a single book by Henry Williamson in THE WESTERN CANON, and this exclusion could have owed to Williamson’s lifelong dislike for Jews. Leni Riefenstahl and Lina Wertmuller were many times the artist that Chantal Akerman ever could be, but the mavens of cinema have anointed Akerman as the greatest-female-film-maker because her identity and ideology flatter their own smug conceited world-view. The likes of Malcolm Gladwell are promoted as one of the ‘leading thinkers’ by globalist elites of media since his lame theories promulgate safe PC platitudes, the kind of views that reinforce their own biases and preferences. (The ‘genius’ of Gladwell is he gives seemingly edgy contrarian spin to what is otherwise boilerplate PC. He flavors PC with non-PC spices, but it’s the same stale meat. Of late, his star has somewhat fallen because he planned to include Jews-vs-Palestinians as a classic case of Goliath vs David. Jews apparently got a whiff of it and pressured him to dismiss any such notion. He’s been on the probation list ever since. And yet, these Jewish Supremacists bitch about ‘white supremacism’, which is really just a smokescreen to mask Jewish Supremacism, the real power that dominates America and the West.) While hard science departments have biases too — consider the exclusion of Jewish scientists from universities in National Socialist Germany — , in the long run, the facts of hard sciences are bound to win out if any real science is to be done. Even the Catholic Church, as The Authority on all matters pertaining to Heaven and Earth, couldn’t continue denying the facts discovered by Galileo and Copernicus.
 |
| Galileo commits the crime of Noticing that maybe Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. The Church regards it as crime against God and Man. |
 |
| THE TERMINATOR. Lean and mean, essential film-making and story-telling. |
 |
| WEEKEND by Jean-Luc Godard prophesies Altamont crossed with the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. It calls for all-out classicidal war on the 'bourgeoisie'. |
In truth, while Godard’s Maoism was utterly insane(not unlike Colonel’s Kurtz’s neo-primitivist ‘utopia’ in APOCALYPSE NOW), Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION was prescient about the danger posed by the stronger and more aggressive & lascivious black race. Given the fates of Zimbabwe, Detroit, South Africa, Haiti, Liberia, and so many other black-ruled parts of the world, only a PC-tard could still believe in the equality of the races, but then, sadly and tragically, PC is the rule than the exception in a globalized world controlled by hideous Jewish supremacists who use their media and academic power to suppress any hint of white pride, consciousness, and power. (Yet, it must be said that the main threat to the West is not commitment to racial equality but the worship of black superiority, a dirty secret of PC and globalism. As the current world is defined by the Pleasure Principle, especially of instant gratification and optimal orgasmics, the kind of people who deliver on those demands will be most admired and adulated, and this is where blacks make a difference. While it’s plainly obvious that blacks cause a lot of pain and harm with crime and social decay, they excel in sports, dance music, and macho antics. And having larger dongs, even many non-black women become addicted to Jungle Fever as their cock-caine. Negroes are the Meth of the West. People know Negroes cause long-term harm to cities and nations, but because Negroes deliver on instant pleasure, non-black races rhapsodize about the black icon, which is also ‘sacralized’ by the slavery narrative. The main heroes of white males in the US and EU are black athletes, and the top icon of manhood for white women is the Negro. Indeed, it’d make more sense to replace TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD with MANDINGO in American school curriculum. It makes no sense to pretend that blacks still represent ‘uncle tom’ figures when they are celebrated and near-deified as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ thugs, studs, and gangsters. Blacks, in collusion with Jews and cucks, market Afromania and turn whites into Jungle Junkies. Consider how France is turning into Africance. This isn’t the product of the ideology of racial equality but of the ‘iconology’ of the Afrique Mystique. By some estimates, well over half of all children being born in Paris are of African descent, and every year, countless white French wombs are being colonized by African seeds not because French women are committed to racial equality but because they are addicted to black superiority, and women want to have the children of superior men, even if they don’t stick around. It’s like in Greek mythology where women feel grateful to be impregnated by a god even when he doesn’t stick around to help with the kid.)
So, the French have had a dual attitude toward their culture. On the one hand, it’s been source of pride & prestige, but on the other hand, it’s become a burden, an object of loathing, esp as French culture is no longer associated with world power. Pomp without Pump looks shabby — imagine an exiled former-king who still wears a crown on his head; what was once regal now looks ridiculous, as with the powerless but pompous Puyi in THE LAST EMPEROR. While French refinement in culture produced countless things of beauty, it also served a preening aristocracy that favored style over substance and facade over fact, growing smugly self-satisfied in opulent decadence. Though every European state had its share of pompous and snobby elites, the French elites took the cake in the realm of aesthetic supremacism. A primly dressed English snob might come across as a jerk but not necessarily a pompous jerkoff. Thus, a lower-class Briton might swallow his pride, tip his hat, say "aye guv’nor", and move on. But when some fluffy-duff French aristocrat with powdered wig, fake dimple on cheek, and snuff up his nose put on superior airs, he could come across as the biggest preening prick in the universe. Furthermore, such preciousness could also be seen as a sign, or even the very source, of weakness. A society gone effeminate. It’s one thing for a people to be both fancy and powerful, but what if they were to retain fanciness without the power? (Consider the empty formality of the Chinese Imperial Court whose pomp & grandeur only signified impotence when faced with the reality of Western Imperialist domination.) What if fanciness or ‘excessive’ refinement comes to be associated with political decline or national decadence? While Germany was building bigger factories, manufacturing more powerful guns, and training tougher armies in the 1870s, France was rested on the laurels of pomp and grandeur, and guess which side won? It was like Battle of Agincourt magnified. When the fancy have dominance, power seems drawn from ostentation itself. But when the fancy are stripped of authority, the discrepancy between their august status and actual state is painfully obvious; and this may explain why those with declining fortunes are so servile to the newly ascendant power. As their actual power diminish, their last hope is to cling to their once-vaunted status of elite prestige, and the ONLY way is to play by the new rules of the game set forth by the new elites. Those without dominance must rely on the Power to accept, approve, or tolerate them. (Even a very rich man like Mitt Romney is small potatoes compared to super-rich Jews, and so, he has to play by their rules of the game in order to be tolerated and accepted.) Failure to comply will lead to censure and opprobrium, with loss of even status as the last foothold in the world of prestige. These days, mere negative aspersion on trannies can lead to disgrace and exile from ‘polite society’ that, incidentally, isn’t very polite with all those pushy Jews who insist on not being called ‘bossy’.
 |
| Rapid Decline of a Wasp Dynasty that desperately tries to remain relevant by toadying up to Jewish Globalist Elites. |
 |
| THE LAST EMPEROR by Bernardo Bertolucci. Child Puyi as the last living artifact of a decayed political order. |
At any rate, because of the ‘aestheto-centrism’ and ‘refino-centrism’ of French Culture, the French elites neglected to channel more of their energies toward practical goals, such as building industry and expanding enterprise. Though France produced more than its share of great scientists, engineers, inventors, and businessmen, it also directed a sizable portion of its best and the brightest toward theory, arts, and criticism than, say, Britain and Germany, which overshadowed France economically and industrially in the 19th century by considerable margins.
To an extent, it was worthwhile recompense as France reaped many important figures in arts and letters, but, as with the Chinese Imperial Examination system, there was also the tendency to lose a lot of superior minds to the ultimately pointless pursuit of empty academism or wordplay.
Some historians say that, on the eve of WWI, France just barely qualified as an industrialized nation by the standards of UK, Germany, and the US.
Given the emphasis on refinement and expertise in French culture, the French elites were no strangers to the art of intrigue and diplomacy. Deviousness could be tolerated, even justified, on grounds of its brilliance or style. (It’s like the issue of truth in LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD keeps fading in the parlor game world of styles and manners.) Intrigue and intellect conspire well in the game of power. (There’s also no guarantee that intellect will favor integrity over intrigue. While higher intelligence and/or expert knowledge could be on the side of angels, they could just as slide into misanthropy given the venality of elites and the contemptible stupidity of masses. So, some men of intellect may navigate the dark waters of intrigue in the Machiavellian sense: Do evil to do good, or ends justify the means. Others may opt for intrigue out of sheer cynicism that humanity is irredeemable; they may even enjoy intrigue as blood-sport for sophisticates, indeed a game where entire nations and peoples are used as pawns by those of superior wit & will, exactly the mindset of the cold-blooded murderers in THE ROPE, the Alfred Hitchcock movie that examines the darkness of Nietzscheanism as a vulgar-romanticist twist on nihilism. Henry Kissinger has fascinated many over the years as an intellectual working in the realm of intrigue. [While diplomats have tended to be men of learning, Kissinger stood out because he was considered the wunderkind of his generation. Also being Jewish and working for Richard Nixon, the arch-enemy of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, made Kissinger even more of an outlier and reviled figure.] Was he always just about power, for himself, the deep state, or the Tribe? Or, could it be said of him, as had been said of Albert Speer and Zhou En-lai, that he compromised with ‘necessary evil’ to get things done in times of severe crisis? At any rate, Deep State people choose intrigue for status and power. They just want to be at the center of things in the center of the world. In contrast, there are men of intellect who’ve chosen the path of integrity like Chris Hedges, but this can lead to its own can of worms. Virtue can turn into vanity, and Hedges can be the most insufferable prick blinded by his own ‘selfless’ glow.) However artful the intrigue, it has its limitations against overwhelming force. This is why intrigue turns into a game of internal politics when it fails externally. When the enemy cannot be vanquished, the only game left is to hold onto power by eliminating potential rivals on one’s own side. (JULIUS CAESAR is a perverse play because the great leader is eliminated for success than for failure. Beneath political intrigue on one’s own side, there is also psychological intrigue within the individual soul. Othello, like Caesar, is a great soldier, but is brought down by seeds of intrigue planted in his mind. The various forces within the psyche jostle for dominance by manipulating or subverting others.) Consider the devious General Georges Broulard[played by Adolphe Menjou] in Stanley Kubrick’s PATHS OF GLORY. He’s a master manipulator and plays men’s egos like a fiddle, but the French military simply hasn’t the requisite power to break through German lines. [War games played in the mind and on the field are two different things. On the field, no amount of sophistication and brilliance is sufficient to prevail over brute superiority in man power and material. Nazi Germany could not defeat the Soviet Union despite having much better generals and strategic advantage in the opening rounds. Erwin Rommel eventually had to withdraw from North Africa though a better commander than Allied counterparts. In some ways, brilliance can be its own nemesis. Napoleon, flush with so many victories, fatally bought into his own myth of genius and invincibility. Now, there have been odd cases where the side with material deficit prevailed, just like the weaker fighter or team occasionally wins the crucial match. The superior side could be diverted by another conflict. France held up against German advances in World War I because too many German troops were diverted to the Eastern Front. Two-front war destroyed Germany in both WWI and WWII. Or, the superior side could have grown decadent and soft, thus easy to manipulate by those with wit and will. It is indeed incredible that Jews conquered America without firing a single shot. And today, the EU, the richest part of the world along with the US, has lost the will to defend itself from barbarian invasions and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. And then, there are cases where one side has superiority in quantity but inferiority in quality. China was the most populous state in the 19th century, but its power of quantity was helpless against the power of quality of the West with its advanced weaponry and strategic expertise; China, having faced only weaker forces for so long, had become militarily inept and confused against modern armies. It’s like a champion boxer who only fought palookas will be ill-prepared to take on a real contender.) General Broulard’s strategy rams up against an impenetrable wall, whereby the only game left is the card up his sleeve, a maze of intrigue that has everyone running around in circles or hemmed into cul-de-sacs to the general’s amusement.
 |
| Art of Intrigue in PATHS OF GLORY |
 |
| Art of the Game in BARRY LYNDON |
When an entity has less power than its rivals, it must recognize and master the art of intrigue, conspiracy, and diplomacy. After all, Talleyrand managed to weather political storms because he was one of the most artful players of the game. China’s Zhou En-Lai had this quality too, surviving all of Mao’s purges and even managing to restore Deng Xiaoping to government, the man who laid the foundations of new China. Thus, in the long run, Zhou-ism prevailed over Maoism even though Zhou in life seemingly played the dog at the feet of the Chairman. (A mutual understanding developed between China and France because both were extremely pompous and refined civilizations that experienced severe ups and downs, especially in the tumultuous modern era. France, the greatest power of Europe over a long period, went through a bloody Revolution, was torn apart by bloody civil wars, then fought all of Europe, met defeat, rose again to prominence, only to be humiliated by upstart Germany[that, along with UK and US, outpaced France in industrial might], but then, it won WWI but only with the aid of UK, Russia, and US, without whom, France would likely have lost to Germany within a year, and then France was totally crushed and humiliated in WWII, and then France sought to reclaim its glory in the postwar era, but there was host of new problems with American hegemony, anti-colonial uprisings, Third World invasion-immigration, and the sheer toxicity of May 68. Despite the gulf between the two great civilizations, Chinese could conceivably identify with French Experience and vice versa. Like Latin-Germanic France long served as the beacon to the rest of Europe, China was the preeminent power in East Asia in just about every field of culture and politics, but then, it too had been periodically humiliated by peoples deemed inferior or barbaric. Like the French, the Chinese saw themselves as representing the summit of human achievement, only to be rudely awakened by European powers in the 19th century. Then, as if that wasn’t humiliating enough, it was also pushed around by Japan, a nation of ‘dwarfs’ as the Chinese referred to the Yamato race. And as both nations were eclipsed by other great powers in terms of industrial and technological power, they came to rely more on manners and meditations to maintain prestige in world affairs. [It’s like the Hindu Brahmins escaped into ‘otherworldiness’ when their physical order was invaded and ruled by foreigners.] French intellectuals pontificated about the meaning of existence as France kept losing the game of existing realities and concocted new theories, one more fanciful or convoluted than the next, all the while De Gaulle on the right pontificated about a united Europe that would stand between[and even against] both the US[and its mini-me stooge the UK] and the USSR, a vision that proved to be impossible to realize given France’s weakened position in world affairs. Having lost control of reality, French sought to regain relevance by controlling the meaning of reality. It was like an unattractive woman trying to win points by redefining the meaning of ‘beauty’. Such games could only become more convoluted because lies are easily exposed under scrutiny. Therefore, theories had to be made increasingly opaque, elusive, and ambiguous to stay several steps ahead of those calling out on the emperor’s lack of clothes. Chiang Kai-Shek played the role of leader of a great power in WWII, but in fact, KMT was on the ropes, and China relied on the US to defeat the Japanese. Later, the notion of the exiled KMT regime in Taiwan as the true rulers of China got sillier by the year as a statement without substance. Thus, both China and ‘Free France’[resisting Germany from outside France] during WWII were empty suits putting on airs with imaginary power they didn’t possess. [Still, given Japan’s failure to defeat China despite its massive push into the mainland, it says something about the power of nationalist consciousness. European powers had gained much more in China with far less show of force in the 19th century, a time when most Chinese were clueless servile peasants living under Manchu domination and lacking in nationalist consciousness. But the rise of nationalist consciousness provided sufficient resistance to disallow an easy victory for Japan.] And when Mao took power, he knew China was nothing compared to the mighty USSR that had crushed Nazi Germany and taken nearly all of Eastern Europe. Since Mao could not compete with the USSR on a material or military basis, he turned to big talk[despite his deficiencies as an intellectual; he was one of those anti-intellectual intellectuals]. He made grand statements about how the ‘east wind prevails over the west’, the sort of thing one might find in a fortune cookie. More recently, with the sudden rise of their nation as an industrial power, Chinese are probably identifying more with modern Germany. When China was poorer and weaker, it relied on intrigue and diplomacy, of which Deng was a master; and so far, the new leaders of China has played this game too, even masterfully at times. But if China grows richer and stronger, one wonders if it will rely more on threats, intimidation, and force, like the US has been prone to since 9/11. Jewish-run America, with sole-superpower-hubris-and-chutzpah since the end of the Cold War, has become a really nasty and vicious nation. China is ruled by China, and Chinese rulers rule for the pride and power of China. In contrast, Jews became the rulers of America, and their main interest is Zionist power and Jewish supremacist domination over the whole world, not least by employing their globo-homo proxies who spread Homomania as a kind of Jewed-christianity.)
At any rate, France, having lost its position as a great power(with its grandiose gestures seeming emptier by the day, especially following De Gaulle’s ignominious retreat from chaos unleashed by hooligans), came to increasingly rely on diplomacy and intrigue, a mindset that came to infect the culture of the entire nation. Thus, French philosophy increasingly became less about reality than about ‘negotiating’ with it. It turned into a game of intellectual intrigue, where one’s pretense of explication, analysis, and formulation rested really on obfuscation, a kind of bluff, because if all the hands were exposed, it’d be obvious that the French didn’t hold the kings and aces. Theories are ‘neat’ but don’t amount to much without means, ability, and clarity. Those with power who ignore these rules will lose power; those without power who apply these rules will gain power. Granted, con-men may gain a lot with little — French Theory since the 60s had been mostly a con-game of the mind — , and there is real ability associated with conning people. But it is difficult to sustain a con for long, especially in a democracy, which is why Jewish elites increasingly rely on PC to suppress any voices that notice and call out on the con.
 |
| HOUSE OF GAMES by David Mamet. How long can the con go on? |
 |
| THE DINNER GAME. Joke on another becomes a joke on you. |
 |
| The Tribe hated how the Jewish Wood was turned into Christian Charcoal. |
But such contractualism — combination of universalism and particularism — tends to be unstable in the long run, especially if a people rub up against diverse groups of people either through imperialism or mass migration. Historically, Jews were never alone in their world like the Swedes in Sweden, Japanese in Japan, Hawaiian natives in Hawaii, and etc. They were always invading or being invaded by other peoples, always trading with other peoples, always bickering with other peoples, always hating and co-existing with other peoples. Thus, the potent bottle of Jewish nitroglycerin got shaken left and right, hither and thither, and the formula finally exploded into a truly universalized idea of God for all peoples of the Earth. As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as slaves and then huge numbers of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants — especially the feisty, pushy, and snaky Jews — led to increasing pressure to transform America into a ‘proposition’. As long as America was overwhelmingly(and proudly) of Northern European stock, it could maintain both the ‘radicalism’ of the Revolution and the ‘racialism’ of the original Northern European stock. But as America filled up with growing numbers of blacks(with high birthrate) and ethnic white Americans(who strove for the same rights and privileges as the Wasps), America lurched more toward abstract universal principles(though, for some reason, it favors three groups for special praise and recognition: All Americans must support Israel, all Americans must worship Homomania or Queertianity as the new religion, all of Anglosphere must celebrate blackness for an entire month). Thus, even though the founding ideas of the American republic/democracy had once been almost synonymous with the Anglo-American people, their eventual universalization undermined Wasp power and then white power in general, with the exception of Jewish power. (Indeed, Jews didn’t so much destroy the Founding Contradiction/Hypocrisy as filch it for themselves. It’s like the pigs in ANIMAL FARM didn’t so much distribute human goodies equally among the animals as keep the choicest portions for themselves. The Founding Contradiction still exists in favoring Jews as the quintessential Americans. After all, we are told that America is both about universal commitment to ‘tolerance’ & ‘diversity AND total support of Israel as the ‘closest ally’. Thus, the core of Americanism continues to be about universalism and tribalism, i.e. Jews are ‘more equally’ American than other Americans are. Americans are not forced to praise or support Iran, Russia, China, Germany, Mexico, Egypt, and etc., but all Americans are expected to vote for pro-Zionist politicians and send more ‘aid’ to Israel. That has been the great Jewish Globalist Swindle. Jews would have us believe that Bad Old America betrayed its universal principles by favoring the Anglo-American Tribe, but thankfully, such favoritism is no more in Good New America where no group is favored with ‘supremacist’ privilege; however, any cursory look at America makes it plain-as-day that the system is rigged in favor of Jewish tribalism. American Universalism essentially means ALL Americans must support Israel and obey Jewish globalists.) Jews, through control of the academia and media, made themselves out to be the unique & special group that could claim the mother of all victim-hoods. With the Shoah evangelized as the greatest tragedy that ever did or could exist, Jews came to be revered as the greatest victims of history, modernity, and posterity. They are the long-suffering victims of Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Christians, Nazis, and Muslims who supposedly want to drive Jews into the Dead Sea. Incredibly, Jews were also seen as the greatest victims of communism, with Reagan making big speeches about how the Soviet Union and other communist nations were denying Jews their human rights. Never mind that Muslims had a reason to be angry with Jews for their Zionist imperialism. Never mind that Jews had been involved in communism and served Stalin in the death of millions.
Holocaustianity encouraged the habit of seeing Jews as perennial victims; therefore, the Narrative only highlights ‘wrongs’ done to Jews while passing over Jewish ‘crimes’ over other peoples. So, if a Jew kicks you and you kick him back, the Narrative treats your counter-violence as the ONLY violence. It’d be like Germans remembering WWII in terms of themselves being bombed, invaded, raped, and occupied without addressing the larger context of German aggression that started the conflagration. Most people would agree that it’d be ridiculous to see Germany only as a victim nation in WWII, but such is the logic at the heart of the Jewish Narrative. So, on the subject of Russians and Jews, we hear about Russian ‘antisemitism’ but nothing about the vile and contemptuous Jewish anti-Slavicism. We are told of pogroms carried out by Russians that killed thousands of Jews but not of the Gulag system and forced-collectivization that killed millions of Slavs. When communist horrors are addressed, even Jewish crimes are blamed on ‘Russians’ or ‘Soviets’, just like Jewish abuses in the West are defamed as ‘white privilege’.
 |
| May 68 Riots. Civilizational Cancer breaks out. |
 |
| Charles de Gaulle, clueless and confused. |
 |
| THE TRAIN by John Frankenheimer |
 |
| The Average Mentality all over the world. |
 |
| Sheeeeeiiiiiit! Ta Nehisi Coates, aka The Nasty Coates. With the cult of Noble Negro, white folks believe blacks are gifted with voodoo moral magic for eternity. So, every generation deserves its black moral arbiter and 'genius' with special insight into racial, social, and historical matters. This logic says a Magic Negro's burp is profounder than the obvious truth spoken by men like James Watson. |
Some dangerous animals have been raised and kept by ‘experts’, but they must be carefully monitored & controlled, and, most importantly, their natural tendencies of aggression must NOT be encouraged. A tiger naturally loves to pounce on prey and tear it apart. A trainer would be stupid to encourage that instinct in captivity. Similarly, the natural tendency of the psychopathic Negro is to be wild, loud, aggressive, self-centered, jive-ass, uncritical of self, accusatory toward others, dismissive of others, and ugabuga-ish. In other words, most blacks have the character of Jesse Jackson Sr and Jr, Al Sharpton, Rappers like Kanye West, jerks like Spike Lee, self-promoters like Tavis Smiley/Cornel West/Michael Dyson, slick egomaniacs like Obama, two-faced perverts like MLK who in private mostly spoke like a pimp and even beat up women and bragged about it, athlete thugs like Jack Johnson and Mike Tyson, and etc. While one might feel sympathy for the black experience under slavery and racial discrimination, one must take into account the fact that core black nature has been what it was before slavery-under-whites, during slavery-under-whites, and after slavery-under-whites. So, the smart thing would be to discourage the naturally hostile, destructive, and self-aggrandizing tendencies of blacks while encouraging the potentialities of self-criticism, self-control, reflectiveness, and concern for others.
By nature, blacks like to trample over others but, by historical fate, got trampled by others, especially Arabs and whites, but not because Arabs and whites were more aggressive/oppressive but because they achieved more effective means of production, organization, transportation, and military power. It’s like a rich geek has more power and privilege than a poor street thug but not because the former is worse than the latter but because he is smarter and more capable. Ironically, the mistake white Liberals are making with blacks is akin to the mistake Anglo Liberals made with Hitler. While Anglo sympathy for Germany was understandable during the Depression years that ravaged the German economy(especially to profit ravenous Jewish bankers) — the Versailles Treaty really did a number on Germany — , they completely overlooked the fact that Hitler was truly a vile creature at the head of a dangerously hubristic movement, i.e. the ambitions of National Socialism was ultimately imperialistic, with little regard for the rights of other European nations. Hitler was psychopathic, megalomaniacal, superficially charming when he wanted to be, and always shifting blame on everyone but himself. But too many Anglo Liberals and Conservatives regarded him as an embodiment of Germany’s rightful place in the world. They trusted Hitler as a man of his words and hoped a few concessions to Germany would ensure peace, as apparently NOTHING could be worse than another major war after the devastation of World War I.
 |
| Adolf Hitler and Anglo-Conservative dupe Neville Chamberlain |
 |
| Mao the fat Chinese tiger eyes Khrushchev as bear paw soup. |
 |
| Howard Stern is half-Jewish, but his Jewish side is much stronger than his 'Aryan' side. Though certainly entertaining, he has the personality of a uber-asshole as he mocks and ridicules everything and everyone. Still, being more of an equal opportunity abuser, he is more tolerable than hypocritical Jews who are pricks just like Stern but pretend to be moralists. |
In some ways, one could argue that Britain fared worse than France following the war, what with the French economy surpassing that of the British and with France playing the role of the political center of Europe(as Germany quickly reestablished its economic dominance). But British had two trump cards that the French lacked. Whereas no part of the French Empire outside France amounted to much, many parts of the British Empire achieved excellence or greatness. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were successful modern democracies, and of course, United States was the most powerful nation on Earth. Therefore, as long as the US was ruled by Wasp elites, a special relation bound US to UK, the ‘mother country’. Margaret Thatcher was especially close to Ronald Reagan, and Tony Blair was chummy with Bill Clinton and even sought to ride the coattails of Bush II to victory in Iraq. French lost Canada to the Anglos long ago, and not long afterwards, Napoleon sold the Louisiana territories to the Anglo-Americans, and that pretty much ended French dreams of glory in the New World. French also met an ignominious end in Haiti where its elites were butchered by angry ‘groids’, and their attempt to regain a foothold in the Americas through Mexico ended in farce. Anyway, even as the UK dwindled in power and significance, the nations it had given birth to rose to success or greatness around the world. For a long time, Australia was the biggest economy after Japan in the Pacific region. And of course, Brits could also take some pride in the success of Singapore and Hong Kong as the Chinese there were avid students of the British Way. And democracy in India also owes to British influence.
As the French Empire was dissolving in the postwar order, the French tenaciously clung to one piece of territory that was deemed an extension of France rather than merely a colony, as well as the last vestige of French Imperial greatness, and that was of course, Algeria, which was why the war became especially bitter. While the Algerians saw it as war of liberation against imperialism, many French saw it as almost a Civil War, kinda like how Abraham Lincoln and Unionists viewed Southern Secession. Algeria wasn’t just any North African nation but one where many French had put down roots over generations, where a problematic but intimate relationship had formed between the French whites and the community of Berbers who were deemed quasi-European. Thus, many French regarded the Algerian rebellion as a kind of secession, an illegal rebellion of the petulant child against the wise & beneficent parent.
Total defeat made continental Europeans face reality with grim urgency, whereas the Brits tightened their belts to pretend all was well within the victor nation when, in fact, the war had totally depleted the finances of the British Empire. Britain needed aid but was too proud to beg. The triumph of the Labour Party following victory indicates that the British public believed that anything could be had for the asking now that the war was over. Little did they know how empty the British coffers were.
Be that as it may, but even this narrative of British Self-Respect was bound to diminish thanks to Jewish Power that took control of all aspects of elite British institutions.
Even though FDR was sometimes cool towards Churchill and UK and even though Anglo-Americans generally didn’t support the British Imperial agenda in post-war yrs — Americans generally sided with pro-independence colonial subjects to compete with the Soviet Union that championed anti-imperialism and to replace the Old Imperial powers as the New Hegemon — , there was a kind of ethnic and cultural connection between US and the UK as the ‘mother nation’, at least as long as the US was dominated by the traditional Wasp elites. Both Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher played this trope over the decades, the role of mother figure who still held dear affection for the errant American son who went off to be a cowboy. Though Reagan was older than Thatcher, she acted the ‘mother’ figure.
But as America became more Jewish-controlled and as the American myth of identity shifted from the Founding/Conquering myths to the Immigration and Victimological Myth, the cultural and moral cachet of traditional Great Britain began to fade. Today, Americans are more connected with themes related to Israel and South Africa than with Great Britain. An American politician can snub the UK and still have a career, but if he snubs Israel or Jews, he is finished. The cult of Mandela is revered in the West like that of MLK, and many more Americans mourned his passing than cared about the death of Thatcher or Reagan. Even though South Africa has been a hellhole since the end of Apartheid, the new America controlled by Jews doesn’t care about whites who are raped, robbed, and murdered by blacks. If anything, dumb Americans care more about Oprah’s handbag controversy in Switzerland than about the accounts of rape, robbery, and/or murder committed by blacks against whites in South Africa and America. This is, of course, exactly what the Jewish elites want. Given the New Template pushed by Jewish Globalist masters, British cuck-collaborator elites, in order to remain relevant in the Current Year, have pursued a policy of Africanizing and diversifying their nation so that it will look more like America that is looking more like Brazil. Instead of "Get the UN out of the US", we have the nations of the UN invading the US. At one time, UK and US had a special relationship since both nations were majority Anglo or Anglo-ized. But as the US, the Template of the World, becomes less white and more ‘diverse’, UK will have to drastically change its demographics if it is to keep up with the American Ideal. So, UK must also turn ‘diverse’. Thus, the commonality between the two nations will have gone from Anglo-and-Anglo to Bongo-and-Bongo. Anglo-Britain is turning into Bongo-Britain(and Anglo-Saxons are turning into Junglo-Saxons as white women are encouraged to welcome ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and of course, US elected a Bongo-American president funded by hideous Jews who have supremacist hold on just about everything. (Though Jewish power is formally credited to Jewish virtue, ability, and achievement, it also owes to Jewish control of the Fed and the finance sector and the general Jewish Matrix of Power. Control of the finance sector allows Jews to overcome many failures and carry on with yet more financing. It’s like the US will always bail out Wall Street and Wars for Israel. Power isn’t just about building on success but weathering the failures; and Jewish Power has premium ‘insurance’. If Jews aren't taken care of, they will hold a gun to the head of the entire system. e.g. when Lehman Brothers wasn’t bailed out, the entire system was threatened with collapse, forcing the US government to prop up Wall Street ‘banksters’ on the basis of TBTF or Too Big To Fail. Jewish message to the World is "If we go down, we take all of you down with us." It’s like the Israel threat that it will nuke all of Europe if Israel goes down. So, Israeli nukes aren’t just aimed at Iran but at Europe as well. A boxer survives in the ring and hopes to win not only by punching but by being able to absorb the blows. This is why it’s necessary for winning teams to have ‘depth’, the reserve players. Suppose team A has five great starting players while team B has five very good starting players, but suppose team B had more depth or more very good reserve players. Team A can only depend on the success of its starting players, but even great players tire and falter. In contrast, team B can always replace exhausted players with fresh reserves. So, in the long run, team B is likely to win. This is why the USSR defeated Nazi Germany. Germany had the better starting team, but USSR had tremendous depth in terms of men, raw material, geography, organization, and alliances. Thus, its margin of error could be bigger than Germany’s. Power isn’t only about doing things right and achieving successes but about the means of absorbing costs and failure. It’s about insurance, backup plans, and support networks. USSR failed spectacularly in Act I in the war with Germany, but it had the means to weather the initial stresses and fight back to victory. Why does Jewish Hollywood have such lasting power even though it has a long history of failures? Because Jews have tremendous depth in finance and tribal networking. Therefore, even when Jews fail with some major investments, they can rely on future funding from fellow Tribesmen who control the money supply. And even when Jews step down from high places in disgrace, they make sure that their positions in industries or institutions are replaced by Other Jews, and so, it remains with the Tribe. Jews think ‘Covenantly’ than merely conveniently. They think not only of individual success but group success, and they hedge their bets so that failures will be balanced out by successes. In contrast, too many gentiles rely on success-after-success and have no backup plan during a dry spell when the hits aren’t forthcoming. Why didn’t Wall Street Jews in 2008 go out of business? Their control of government ensured that the Fed would be pumping lots of new dough to the Jews. And since Jews also controlled the media, they alleviated populist anger by telling people it’s a good thing, especially as ‘socialist’ Obama was taking the action. As for Conservatives, they were led to attack Obama for not doing MORE for Wall Street. Even though Wall Street was using ‘socialist’ Obama to preempt rage from the Left — after all, it might be ‘racist’ for the Left to oppose black ‘progressive’ Obama — , the Tea Party manipulated the Right to be more angry with Big Government than with Wall Street. So, Jews win when they win and win even when they lose. It’s like "heads I win, tails you lose". If you control finance, your side has tremendous depth and a tremendous margin of error. The financial failure of 2008 was epic, but NY Jews grew richer and fatter while rest of America shrunk in wealth. Also, as Jews control the media, they control the nature of debate and tenor of outrage. In Jew-controlled America, ‘white Hispanic’ George Zimmerman was more deserving of collective fury — despite his self-defense against a lowlife black thug — than Michael Bloomberg of the Stop-and-Frisk policy and the billionaire Jewish sharks who run Wall Street. In LOST IN AMERICA, Albert Brooks cannot get his ‘nest egg’ back, but Wall Street bigshots who gambled and reaped huge profits during the dotcom and housing bubbles never had to worry about losing their shirts when the bubble popped since allies in government and media provided them with ‘depth’. Besides, in all these bubbles, Jews get in early before the rise and exit before the eventual collapse comes. Thus, Jews win on their successes and on their failures. Even when powerful Jews mess up, they know they’re covered and will be bailed out because of powerful friends in finance, government, and media. Jews run this nation like the mafia but pretend to be the moral arbiters.) The narrative of Britain’s fight against Germany changed along with the official narrative in the US. It went from a matter of national pride to moral reflection to self-expurgation to finally paranoid self-loathing. Initially, Brits were proud to have defended their own nation and played a key role in the defeat of evil — especially with the fall of France, the UK seemed the last hope for ‘Western Civilization’. Despite the disastrous material costs, the patriotic and moral dividends made the war seem worthwhile. But with anti-imperialist causes raging around the world, the British Empire was accused of oppression and ‘racism’. The British themselves came to be condemned as ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi-like’, especially in ‘progressive’ and radical circles(with their share of Soviet spies) that gained prominence in Labour dominated Britain. As Britons wrestled with problems of their own Imperial rule over peoples who’d been racially snubbed or denied equal privileges, they wondered if milder strains of quasi-Nazi sentiments infected British culture. If the British initially viewed Nazi Huns as ‘the Other’ or the external enemy, they increasingly began to fret that maybe the Nazi was really ‘the Inner’. In other words, Brits were closet-Nazis who defeated the Germans as out-of-the-closet Nazis. It was less a War of Justice than War of Empires. The memory of the war took on a new psychological character — the external war against physical Nazis ended in 1945 but the internal war against one’s own quasi-nazi demons had only begun. ‘Nazis’ went from a specific political force(of Germany) to a psychological spirit infesting every white gentile person; thus, even whites who defeated Nazi Germany could be ‘inner Nazis’ — is it any wonder that Jewish globalists demean Russians and Putin as ‘new hitlers’? Increasingly, the British felt less pride and more trepidation with the growing consciousness that British society was rife with class oppression and racial prejudice. In other words, Brits were Nazi-lite, and this sickness had to be expurgated through radicalized public education, massive influx of non-white immigrants, amnesia-inducing hedonistic pop culture, promotion of miscegenation(especially where black men boffed white women),.and even by arresting old people in the middle of the night for expressing anti-Muslim sentiments after a black Muslim murdered and decapitated a British soldiers out in the streets. The Opening Ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics demonstrated how sick and self-loathing White Great Britain has become. It’s as though ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is the new ideology of UK where Anglo-Saxons must all become Junglo-Saxons. Paradoxically, it’s as if the UK went through a more thorough de-Nazification campaign than Germany itself, the logic being that since British pride is so invested in having defeated Evil Nazis, the British must go the extra mile to make themselves as anti-Nazi as possible. Of course, the British elites are still as arrogant, haughty, snobbish, and prissy as ever but with manners replaced with correctness. The elites raise their privileged children to dilly-dally with token elites of mulattoes and Asian-Indians and to point fingers at uncouth white rabble as what Hillary Clinton later came to characterize as ‘deplorables’ in the US. Why are the white elites who toe the PC line so much better? Because they attend elite schools with ‘diverse’ members of the global elites and because they are so chummy with the neo-aristocratic homos. When elite figures like the Queen of Britain and even the Catholic Pope are growing ever so intimate with rich and powerful homos and Jews, it’s time for whites to wake up and realize that their elites are their enemies. They must learn to see and think on their own, they must prepare to support a new vanguard that will stand up for the interests of the white masses who are being degraded, corrupted, exploited, and suppressed by globalist elites dominated by Jews.
 |
| London Olympics 2012. Anglo-Saxons turning into Junglo-Saxons to the delight of Jewish Globalists who push ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. |
 |
| A BRONX TALE features the vile ways of Southern Italian-Americans whose culture is mired in clannish corruption and criminality. No wonder today's Italian-Americans are such lowlife punks and trash. |
 |
| Martin Scorsese & Nicholas Pileggi's GOODFELLAS features lowlife 'greaseballs' acting in the foulest manner. It's no wonder Southern Italy is a hellhole. Imagine a nation filled with 'goombahs' like these. |
At the drop of the hat, Italians will go from mockery to subservience; they’ll do anything to avoid a beating, whereas the Japanese know there are times when you must take the beating in silent stoicism. Of course, criminal scumbags are scumbags regardless of their personalities or cultural styles, but Italian character is especially despicable for its lack of honor. It could be due to the mother/smother factor in Italian society. Italian boys are smothered with so much protective affection by their mothers that they come to see the world as a kind of Big Mother who should always forgive them, indulge them, and spoil them. It’s like the dream sequence in 8 ½ where Guido kisses his mother on the cheek, but then she kisses him on the lips and turns into his wife. And the husband in JULIET OF THE SPIRITS cheats on his wife but keeps on lying to her, as if she should forgive him as an Italian mother always forgives and protects her son. Maybe Vito Corleone turned out to be a strong man in THE GODFATHER PART II because he lost his mother at a young age. And then, he made sure that Michael would be closer to him than to his mother. At one point in THE GODFATHER, Vito Corleone says to Michael: "I spent my life trying not to be careless. Women and children can be careless, but not men." Vito Corleone is like an anti-Italian Italian Ideal. He is as an Italian should be but isn’t in reality; as such, THE GODFATHER is more fantasy, wish-fulfillment, than reality; indeed, if more Italian-Americans had been like Vito Corleone, their power would be almost on par with the Jews. Doting Italian mothers made their sons spoiled and careless, but Vito raised his sons not to be careless, but Sonny was too much a hothead and Fredo was too much of a dimwit. But Michael remains close to his father and learns not to be careless. Ironically, his ultra-carefulness in his ‘business’ affairs made him carelessly trusting of family members and blind to troubled signs that turned his wife into a ‘hit-man’ against his son via abortion. (If in THE GODFATHER, Michael learned to distrust strangers and drew inward into family for trust & support, in THE GODFATHER PART 2, it turns out that his most effective traitors are inside the family: [1] Fredo whose betrayal led to an attack on Michael & Kay’s bedroom and [2] Kay whose went to abortionist to exterminate a life that Michael and she created in the bedroom.) Anyway, there’s a certain irony as to why Italian mothers came to cling so closely to their sons. Such devotion to family on the part of the mother made Italian sons take familial love and affection for granted, at least from their mothers. So, Italian sons grew up without proper sense of responsibility and obligation. Whatever they did, their mothers forgave them, hugged them, and protected them. So, as husbands, they neglected their wives and even whistled at other women like louts. When wives are thus neglected, they turn to their sons on whom all the affection is directed, but sons raised this way will turn out just like their fathers: callous, self-centered, spoiled, bambino-ish, etc. So, if Italian women — at least in traditional Italy — wanted more reliable-honorable-responsible husbands, they should have taken a hard look at how they raised their own sons. To be sure, this is a chicken-or-the-egg scenario. Did Italian women overly shower their affection on their sons because they were neglected by their callous and self-centered husbands, or did Italian husbands often cheat and act like louts because they’d been spoiled by their mothers? With the ‘liberation’ and ‘empowerment’ of women in the New Italy — with lots of women acting as callously and insensitively as the men — the whole familial dynamics has changed in the last couple of decades. (Because feminism is about women acting-more-like-men, modern women will act differently because male behavior vary greatly among nations. So, ‘liberated’ Italian women will act more like Italian men, and ‘liberated’ Japanese women will act more like Japanese men. To be sure, there is a kind of globo-central-command of feminism emanating from America that calls on all women around the world to imitate the women of SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS. It’s hag-emony.) Anyway, if Italian power was mostly blustering clown act, French power had been the defining force over centuries. One of the first geo-political entities to unify into a semblance of nation-state(even before the French Revolution) under a powerful centralized bureaucracy, France became without doubt the premier power of Continental Europe, especially with the inexorable decline of Spain. Poland could have been a great rival power but its aristo-democracy thwarted attempts at political unity. Polish democracy was limited to the nobility who comprised 5 - 8% of the population, and kings were elected. This relative freedom(at least for autonomous noblemen) sounded good on paper, but the overall result was paralysis, an inability to function as a united polity, leading to sectarianism and fragmentation arising from ‘petty’ interests and competing agendas of the landed gentry. (Worse, the narcissism of small differences led many Polish noblemen to side with foreign powers against their fellow ethnic competitors.) Thus, even though Poland was politically more ‘progressive’, its once-promising power was soon eclipsed by the rise of autocratic Russia and Prussia that were able to amass centralized command and mold the disparate elements of society into a single force. It’s like each finger can’t do much, but folded into a fist, fingers form a lethal weapon.
 |
| Polish Hussars were fierce warriors but the lack of unity among noblemen made the Polish Empire vulnerable to division and predatory incursions by foreign powers, sadly with the collaboration of Polish elites who put narrow self-interest above the national good. |
 |
| Because white Americans, in their stupid greed, prioritized short-term profit over long-term security, they imported lots of ghastly Negroes from Africa, a people who'd evolved for 100,000s of years to be warriors, hunters, and ugabugans. Thus, the white race morally ended up stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it wasn't morally feasible to enslave an entire race of people, especially as US was founded on ideals of liberty and freedom. But freeing the ghastly 'groids' would not lead to racial equality but black thug domination over weaker whites who would be turned into wussy biological slaves at the fist of the tougher and more aggressive Negro. |
 |
| The horrible 'beauty' of Negroid anti-architecture in Detroit. |
Anyway, the case of France demonstrates the paradoxical nature of history as pertaining to power and freedom. Arguably, centralized France was less free than the fragmented Italian and German principalities, as well as the feudal-democracy of Poland in which noblemen preserved their autonomy, but the centralization may have paved the way for greater freedom later. Though French noblemen and princes had less power than their counterparts in many other parts of Europe, their submission to centralized authority ensured greater social harmony and unity within the polity, thereby laying the foundation for greater freedoms that came with the Revolution, the impact of which was momentous precisely because France was so centralized and spared no corner of the country from the radical fire. Indeed, even though the Revolution overthrew the monarchy, it maintained and even expanded centralized authority & bureaucracy, and this model of the modern nation-state would eventually inspire conservative Prussians and radical Italians to create their own nation-states by conquering regions populated by peoples of shared or similar ethnicity, language, and customs. For there to be mass freedom, there has to be centralized command to ensure and enforce the same sets of rules and laws for every citizen. Anarchists and libertarians may believe that absence of centralized command makes for greater liberty and justice, but it can just as easily lead to rule by local chieftains or fiefdoms. Without central authority to ensure equal rights and access to the law for all, local tyrants may take over as regional warlords, chiefs, or noblemen and rule with an iron fist. But there are always exceptions. In the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, greater freedom owed to their separateness from the central authority of, respectively, Malaysia and Red China. And if the federal government in 1860s had been dominated by slave owning southern, it might have been the northern states that might have chosen to secede to ensure that slavery doesn’t spread to the north. Also, there is no guarantee that centralized authority, despite ensuring greater peace and harmony upon the land, will evolve toward ideals of greater freedom and equality as in the case of France. Russia developed centralized authority, but the ‘Oriental’ influences led to a more autocratic culture, and Orthodox Faith led to a more of a cowed and passive populace. Furthermore, due to Russia’s vastness and challenges, threats, and temptations from all sides, its centralized authority tended to be more imperial and less stable than power in France. During the heyday of the monarchy, France was unified, peaceful, and well-governed, but such constancy eluded Russia’s central authority that fretted about Turks and Muslims to the south, Mongols and Chinese to the east, Poles and Prussians to the west, and etc. Thus, Russia, prone to anxiety bordering on paranoia, was never governed well since Moscow had its hands full just holding the vast and loose territories together. Russian authority could never breathe a sigh of relief and entertain lofty ideas like French monarchy during its peak years.
 |
| Russia-Turkish War |
If indeed Polish noblemen had been capitalists in the age of feudal-democracy, Poland might have grown into a major power. Instead of just trying to safeguard their landed gentry power from central authority, they might have used their autonomy to build new enterprises, the main objective of which would have been to increase trade with other regions and kingdoms. Capitalism has naturally organic tendencies to bring together and forge unities across borders and barriers. Almost no capitalist will reject investment from another region even if political & cultural differences exist between the two regions. (Profit is to businessmen of all stripes what eros is between Romeo and Juliet.) If anything, it’s the government that strives at times to prohibit or at least inhibit unfettered commerce. For instance, Chick Fil A is a southern fried chicken chain with a national business plan, but the Chicago government(controlled by Jews, homos, and cucky whites) declared Chick Fil A as business-non-grata for its stance on ‘gay marriage’. And even though many firms in the US and EU would gladly trade with Iran — in the spirit of free flow of goods, services, and ideas under capitalism — , they are constrained from doing so by central governments that are under the thumb of Zionist Jewish Supremacists whose agenda is to see Iran destroyed — just like Jewish Rahm Emanuel of Chicago wants Chick Fil A destroyed — because it might develop nuclear capacity to defend itself. (Israel doesn’t want a nuclear Iran that will be harder to intimidate with conventional threats & attacks. Jews want the possibility of invading and crushing Iran if need be and know full well that a nuclear Iran would be a tougher nut to crack; the threat of nuclear retaliation from Iran would neutralize Israel’s conventional weapons as well. As long as Israel holds the gun while Iran doesn’t, Israel can threaten to beat Iran with a stick. But if Iran holds a gun too, not only is Israel’s gun nullified but so is the stick, and this is why Israel and Jewish Supremacists in the US don’t want Iran to develop nuclear energy any further. Jews bitch and whine about Iran, but it’s all in bad faith. Just as Jews yammer endlessly about peace with Palestinians but undermine all such hopes to grab yet more land from the long-suffering Palestinians, Jews lie and bleat about how Iran must come to the table and give up its nuclear program... all the while overlooking the fact that Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rejects international inspections, and possesses no fewer than 200 nukes. Just think about it. Israel violates international laws, has 200 illegal nukes, occupies and oppresses Palestinians, but Jews say that Iran is ‘extreme’. Jewish chutzpah is truly epic. Indeed, Jews have the gall to say that Palestinians need to put forth an Arab Mandela even though they themselves never put forth a Jewish DeClerk. After all, Mandela came to the table ONLY AFTER DeClerk offered him the chance of black political dominance in South Africa. Are Jews willing to offer a similar deal to the Palestinians to encourage the rise of a Mandela-like figure among Palestinians? Of course not, but hideous Jews pontificate about how Palestinians need to compromise and offer concessions despite the historical fact that Jews, with the backing of US and USSR, ethnically cleansed the Palestinians and forced them to live in subhuman conditions. Such is the Jewish character or lack thereof, but American Conservatives think they can work in good faith with Jews? Any conservative who thinks Jews regard white Americans any differently than Iranians or Palestinians — or Russians for that matter — is hopelessly deluded. The Jew is a feisty, nasty, and vicious creature that has no sense of fair play, honor, or shame, at least when dealing with ‘filthy goyim’. If you invite a Jew to your home, it won’t be long before the Jew acts like he’s the owner and tries to castrate you, hump your wife, turn your son into a servant-slave, invite a Negro to rape your daughter, and then brainwash the wife, son, and daughter to denounce you as the ‘evil racist sexist patriarch’ of the house that has finally been ‘liberated’ by the Jew. As specimens of Jewish Nature, consider Tim Wise and Elena Kagan. And ‘conservative’ Jennifer Rubin and William Kristol are hardly better. To trust such weasels is like sheep trusting the shepherd, whose ultimate goal is to lead the sheep to slaughter. You can be cattle to the Jews or you can do battle with the Jews. Granted, not all Jews are like this, and about 15% seem to be genuinely on the side of white Americans, but the rest are enemies, and it makes no sense to trust them, not least because Jews are tribalists who attack gentile tribalism to bolster their own tribalism — when a Jew accuses a white person of ‘white supremacism’, he really means the whitey should sacrifice his own identity & interests in favor of Jewish Power. What Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman applies to a great number of Jews: "I once said in an interview that every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" One mustn’t trust Jews. One may admire Jews and learn from Jews, but one mustn’t trust them. It’s like what Frank Pantangeli said of Hyman Roth: "Your father(Vito Corleone) did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth, but he never trusted Hyman Roth..." Of course, Jews also tell lots of truths. But even truths, selectively chosen or subtly distorted, can be used in the service of lies and therefore must be seen as agents of the bigger lie. For instance, if someone is trying to slip you poison, he’s likely to mix into real food. If you’re suspicious and ask him what’s in the serving, he will mention the food, which is truthful but not truthful enough. He will be truthful in detailing the nutritional benefits of the food but ultimately deceitful in not mentioning the poison. Thus, he isn’t only a liar but a teller of truth. He silently lied by not mentioning the poison, but he spoke the truth about the health benefits of the serving. So, is he 50% liar and 50% truth-teller? No, the truth in this case is even worse than the lie because it acts to hide the lie to make it even more effective and deadly. Steven Pinker and David Brooks, for instance, tell a lot of truths in their books like BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE and SOCIAL ANIMAL, but one must question their ultimate motives. Are they honestly trying to bring us closer to the truth in a rational or thoughtful manner, OR are they trying to slip in what is essentially a Jewish Supremacist agenda through the language of social science and civic philosophy? Thus, truths, when used to mask or obfuscate ulterior motives, can be more dangerous than straight lies. It’s like Wall Street reaped obscene profits from selling risky/toxic housing derivatives all around the world because the bad loans were mixed in with the good. In other words, if you want to get rid of rotten meat, grind it up and mix it with the good meat. Later, when the whole fraudulent scheme blew up, Jews in Wall Street, Big Media, and Government colluded to mix truths with lies again. Many prominent Jews presented harsh criticism and commentary in media, academia, and government about what had gone wrong, and this sounded like The Truth, but it was mainly to give the impression that ‘something’ was being done while Jewish-controlled government colluded with Jews in Wall Street to enforce the Too-Big-Too-Fail agenda. Thus, the banksters not only kept their ill-gotten loot but were ‘bailed out’ to the tune of trillions of dollars. The Jewish media made just enough noise to lend the impression that the Fourth Estate was exposing Wall Street when, in fact, it mainly covered up for their tribal brethren in finance. And by using the ‘socialist’ black guy Obama as a front — Jews used fronts during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’ too — , Jews lulled Americans into the hoping for ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ when, in fact, Obama was groomed to be little more than a shameless shill of Zionist Supremacists. Jews used just enough truths to hide their venality. So, even when Jews tell the truth, we must be mindful of the fact that the ‘truth’ is used, as in a card trick, as a distraction to slip in the lie. So many (((coincidences))) are the oldest coin-tricks in the book. For example, whenever Jews yammer about the Iranian nuclear program, they are speaking some truth. Yes, Iran is run by a corrupt & repressive regime, and it’s dangerous for yet another nation to amass nuclear weapons, if indeed such is the objective of the Iranians(who deny all such claims). But, all this Jewish bleating about Iranian ‘aggression’ is to mask the far more dangerous imperial dreams of Zionist-Supremacist Israel that seeks domination over the entire region. At stake is not the Jewish fear of being nuked but the Jewish angst at being frustrated in their hegemonic plans for MENA, or Middle East and North Africa.
For Part 3, Click Here.
