Neo-Fascist Consideration of MURIEL(by Alain Resnais & Jean Cayrol) and

ATLANTIC CITY(by Louis Malle & John Guare)

and some notes on THE EXORCIST by William Friedkin and William Blatty.

Alain Resnais was one of the most enigmatic figures in cinema. Though well-known and widely admired in the
film community, he failed to garner the long-term attention and following of other French film-makers such as
Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, and others. Despite his respected standing
in the film community, most of his later films didnt attract the kind of attention that greeted new films by
Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, and even Rivette. Indeed, its difficult to think of any film of Resnais since the
1980s that was treated as an event. This may seem odd since Resnaiss HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was
one of the most praised and discussed films of the late 50s and early 60s. And his Holocaust short film NIGHT
AND FOG remains one of the most powerful statements on the subject(even though some of the facts in the
film about the Nazi death camps have since been disproved, a matter hardly discussed in cultural circles since
the Holocaust has become a matter of faith and worship than historical study and remembrance). Resnais,
though older than most of the famous French New Wave directors, managed to outlive most of them.

Why was Resnais eclipsed by the likes of Godard and Truffaut? Because Godard and Truffaut started out
with a bang with, respectively, BREATHLESS and 400 BLOWS? But HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was a
sensation and a much-discussed cultural event among film lovers and the chattering classes. (But then,
Resnais had already been an established director of documentaries considerably before HIROSHIMA MON
AMOUR.) Was it because his films were more intellectual and difficult than the work of other French
directors? Were Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol, among others, more referential to American cinema and
culture, thus making them more engaging and exciting, at least for American critics and viewers? Was Resnais
too European? Was there an age factor? Being, on average, 10-15 yrs older than most New Wave directors,
did he lack their youthful spirit and spark? But Eric Rohmer was even older than Resnais, yet many of his films
continued to be released across art house theaters in America in the 80s and 90s. In contrast, many of Resnaiss
films in the 80s and 90s could only be seen at film festivals in America. MELO, one of his most celebrated
films of the 1980s, didnt get theatrical release in America. (But then, Gilles Mimounis LAPPARTEMENT,
surely one of the greatest films ever made, didnt get theatrical release either in America. Who-decides-thesethings-and-why is a topic for those who know the ins-and-outs of film distribution.) Another factor may have
been Resnaiss relatively benign personality and bland demeanor. Anyone whod seen and heard Truffaut,
Godard, and Chabrol couldnt help but be struck by their personalities(minted for cult appreciation), but even in
a lengthy interview Resnais doesnt come across as much of a personality. Also, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR
notwithstanding, Resnaiss films have generally been elusive and slippery, more introspective than extroverted.
Robert Bresson may not have been the most popular director that ever lived, but there was an unshakeable
force, a mulish stubbornness, that compelled attention. His cinema may not look straight at you, but it stands in
front of you; it obstructs your path and refuses to budge.
Resnaiss cinema operates around the corner of your eyes. The viewer is made to feel like a kid trying to
figure out why the refrigerator light goes out when he closes the door. In the 2012 SIGHT AND SOUND poll,
the highest ranked French film is Jean Renoirs THE RULES OF THE GAME at #4. Next is LATLANTE by
Jean Vigo at #12. Right behind at #13 is BREATHLESS by Jean-Luc Godard. At #16 is AU HASARD
BALTHAZAR. At #21 is LE MEPRIS by Godard. #29 is SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann. #36 is JEANNE
DIELMAN by the hideous Chantal Akerman. Its an honor that is utterly inexplicable but then all-tooexplicable, i.e. JEANNE DIELMANN is probably the worst film ever made by the worst director that ever
lived but given its pretensions and pedigree made by a radical, transgressive, subversive antinormative lesbian Jewish Marxist feminist, the type favored and promoted by the academia , its hardly
surprising that all the lemmings in the film community voted for the film. It was their way of signaling to one
another that they belong to a special radical tribe and feel superior to all those mainstream people who just
dont get it and would never get it. Of course, voting for something like JEANNE DIELMAN is a double or
even triple form of radical snobbery. Saying that you dig it means (1) you go for art films (2) you go for the

truly radical art film that even most cinephiles wouldnt understand (3) youre so far ahead of the intellectual
curve that things like characterization, narrative, and whatever else mean nothing to you. (Boy, arent we
impressed?!?)
But then, the sort of clowns who go for JEANNE DIELMAN wanna have the cake and eat it too. Right after
hailing it as one of the greatest films ever made, they pontificate about some superhero movie or Tarantino
junk to show that they arent just intellectual, serious, purist, and/or elitist but also hip and cool. A bunch
of phony-baloners.
At any rate, continuing with the SIGHT & SIGHT POLL, at #39 is 400 BLOWS by Truffaut. At #43 is
PIERROT LE FOU by Godard. Tied at #43 is PLAYTIME by Jacques Tati. At #48 is HISTOIRE(s) DU
CINEMA by Godard. At #50 is LA JETEE by Chris Marker. At #59 is THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE by
Jean Eustache. At #63 is PICKPOCKET by Bresson. Tied at #69 are SANS SOLEIL by Marker and A MAN
ESCAPED by Robert Bresson. Tied at #73 are THE CHILDREN OF PARADISE by Marcel Carne and THE
GRAND ILLUSION by Jean Renoir. At #78 is BEAU TRAVAIL by Claire Denis. At #90 is PARTIE DE
CHAMPAGNE by Renoir. At #93 is UN CHIEN ANDALOU by Luis Bunuel. Tied at #93 is EARRINGS OF
MADAME DE by Max Ophuls. At #102 is TWO OR THREE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER by Godard.
Finally, tied at #102 is a film by Alain Resnais: LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. HIROSHIMA MON
AMOUR shows up at #127. MURIEL shows up at #377.
Of course, such polls serve less as a gauge of artistic worth than as a barometer of trends in the film community
made up mostly of academic geeks, privileged radicals, and obsessive film buffs who need to get a life. While
SIGHT & SOUNDs top 20 are, generally solid, the list gets sillier as it goes on. Even in the top 20, THE
SEARCHERS by John Ford, APOCALYPSE NOW by Francis Ford Coppola, and MIRROR by Andrei
Tarkovsky are deeply suspect. Fords movie is undoubtedly one of the most important in cinema, but in the top
10? APOCALYPSE NOW features awesome film-making up to the helicopter attack scene but is mostly
downhill from there(though not without interest), and it has a monumentally stupid final part. And anyone who
knows anything about cinema knows Tarkovskys ANDREI RUBLEV and STALKER are his best works.
MIRROR is, at best, an interesting failure.
After the top 20, the list grows ever more suspect. LE MEPRIS is bad Antonioni by Godard, the sort of thing
done much better by David Hockney the painter. (Incidentally, a bad Antonioni by Antonioni himself, like
ZABRISKIE POINT, is a lot more fun than LE MEPRIS, the arid modernism of which sucks the life out of the
Aegean, but then I suppose that was precisely the point. Godards journalistic and poetic instincts, ranging from
incisive to intimate, are ill-suited for the semi-epic scope of the production. The film looks threadbare by epic
standards and over-dressed for New Wave spontaneity/experimentalism. It is also too detached for tragedy and
overly somber for satire.) Its appeal as a slick art film with big stars, sterile tragedy, anti-Americanism is
understandable, but #21? Really?
And then, theres Wong Kar-Wais IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE at #24, by golly.
Like Godards film with Bardot, Wongs experiment-in-style is another one of the art film as fashion
statements. SHOAH surely made the list for its subject matter and pretentiousness. JEANNE DIELMAN at #36
means there are lots of Jewish and/or feminist degenerates and their castrated gentile mental-slaves in the film
community who are so eager to show off their transgressive credentials. No sane person can, with genuine
honesty, claim to like it.
It is one of those films one has to force oneself to swallow as bitter but necessary pill because "its good for
you."

LE MEPRIS by Jean-Luc Godard

PIERROT LE FOU is at #43. Like LE MEPRIS, its appeal is a case of having the cake and eating it too.
Among cinephiles, Godard is like a god. But deep down inside, many of them dont like nor enjoy most of his
films. But with LE MEPRIS and PIERROT LE FOU, you get the Godardian subversive medicine sugarcoated
in the colorful menagerie of celebrity and handsome actors. But theres clearly something wrong when a whole
bunch of critics think more highly of PIERROT LE FOU(let alone the ghastly JEANNE DIELMAN) than
JULES AND JIM.
But then, its possible that many critics didnt vote for JULES AND JIM because they expected others to do so.
Or maybe many new voters were eager to show off their intellectual credentials by including films that are
relatively more obscure than the iconic art films, such as JULES AND JIM, possibly the most popular among
all the French New Wave films, so much so that its poster was featured in VANILLA SKY by the lackluster
Cameron Crowe.
Maybe many voters were using the list to show solidarity with cinema-as-radical-statement-and-movement.
Some critics probably voted for films that they thought no one else would while others voted strategically to
help certain films rise up the ranks. Given all these considerations, the SIGHT AND SOUND POLL isnt meant
to be any kind of rational or objective ranking of great films.
Despite all that, given that every voter was given only 10 choices, it boggles the mind that so many people
would include stuff like LE MEPRIS, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, MIRROR, and especially JEANNE
DIELMAN. If you wanna tell the world that youre transgressive and radical because youre an Akerman
fan, okay, but does anyone really think any of her films could possibly be among the10 greatest films? Its a
willful act of mental retardation posing as intellectual sophistication and radical chic. Its all the more amusing
when you consider that most admirers of Akerman are the fancy-pants crowd who hangs around the privileged
class in affluent cities and the most elite colleges around the world. Since the elites are economically and
socially far above us, they practice their equality by pushing nonsense like gay marriage and including
JEANNE DIELMAN on their top ten list of greatest films of all time. "Im richer than you, have a better job
than you, I hang around privileged pals and associates, and I am favored by the global elites, BUT Im more
egalitarian than you because I dig a three-and-half film where a woman peels potatoes and shines shoes because
it is a profound statement about the bourgeois enslavement of women or some such."
From an academic point of view, its puzzling as to why Resnais isnt as ENTHUSIASTICALLY admired as
some of the other French film-makers. After all, plenty of academics and serious film critics have high regard
for Resnais, not least because of his modernist experimentalism and ideological leftism. Some of the most
influential critics in the past 30 yrs such as Dave Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and J. Hoberman havent been
remiss in their duty to praise Resnaiss works, and Im sure there have been plenty of University Press releases
of studies of Resnaiss films. But then, why the relative lack of a cultist following among cinephiles? Why does
Dziga Vertovs MAN WITH MOVIE CAMERA rank so high but nothing by Resnais? Why are there several
Godard films in the top 50 of the SIGHT AND SIGHT poll but a Resnais film shows up only at #102? Just how
did Chantal Akerman manage to get one in at #36? Perhaps, answering some of these questions will get us
closer to the strengths and weaknesses of Resnaiss films.
Perhaps, one reason is the relative lack of association with events-favored-by-the-left in the films of Resnais.
Hiroshima may have been a major event, but the Holocaust is what matters in our times. While progressives
may feel that the bombing of Hiroshima was overkill, many of them still see it as an act of necessity or justice
against a nation that was allied with evil Nazi Germany. Also, Jews dont want any event to compete with the
Holocaust, not Hiroshima, not the Great Leap Forward, not the Great Famine in Ukraine.
MURIEL touches on the Algerian War. Though the subject can still touch a nerve in France, it means little
outside France. Besides, THE movie on the subject of the Algerian War is Gillo Pontecorvos THE BATTLE
OF ALGIERS. As MURIEL only circles around the subject, it is nowhere nearly as compelling, at least in an
obvious way. LA GUERRE IST FINIE touches on the Spanish Civil War but, like MURIEL, only elliptically in
a roundabout manner. Perhaps, this side-glance approach lacks the kind of force and impact one expects from a
truly great film. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA(that came in at top ten), one could argue, is also a
somewhat elusive and slippery work. Unlike BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN or OCTOBER by Eisenstein, its less
an ideological expression than an avant-garde experiment. Its more about aesthetic revolution than political
revolution. The invalidation of communism hasnt detracted from the
Eisensteins expressive genius, but as his films are inseparable from political events depicted, they are about a

revolution that happened and failed than about a revolution of endless potential that theoretically might have
succeeded. Because MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA doesnt touch on specific political events and is
primarily concerned with possibilities of art and technology in relation to the revolution, it has the same appeal
to armchair leftists that Ayn Rands futurist-fantasies have to libertarians. Its more about what-can-be and
what-will-be than what-has-been and what-is-done. Eisensteins films feature revolutionary-theory-forced-onsocial-reality and declare it to be a tremendous success, but then history proved otherwise. In contrast, MAN
WITH A MOVIE CAMERA plays with the concept of how revolutionary theory may interact with endless
facets of reality and leaves it open to all sorts of possibilities. Thus, it comes across less as a propaganda for
what has been done than a proposition of all the things that might be done. Also, with the camera used as
metaphor for self-conscious mind of the revolution, it is as much about psychological revolution as social
revolution, and of course, psychology is more universal and timeless than politics.

BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN by Sergei Eisenstein

In a way, the elevation of Vertovs film over Eisensteins no less than the elevation of VERTIGO over
CITIZEN KANE but even more surprising because Vertovs film rose almost out of nowhere signifies the
change in the ideological attitude of the globalist left. Though POTEMKIN was admired mostly for its use of
montage, theres no doubt that many critics and scholars have repeatedly voted for it since the 1950s out of
ideological commitment to the cause. Even non- and anti-communist critics and scholars sympathized with the
element of rebellion and uprising, the dream of a new order, as depicted in the film. While its use of montage
still remains powerful and fresh, the narrative now seems cartoonish and even distasteful, given the bloody
history of communism and its ignominious downfall. Thus, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA may hold more
appeal. Since its less blatant in its political expression, it can be admired for its intellectual and formal qualities.
On the other hand, since Vertov was a communist, his film can stand for the hope of true liberation and
experimentation(that had supposedly been the hallmarks of the early years of the Revolution) that was betrayed
by Stalin and his goons, i.e. the revolution initially brimmed with excitement and new ideas but was restrained
and suppressed by colorless bureaucrat Stalin and his henchmen who turned the Soviet Union into an Orwellian
nightmare.
It is, of course, a myth, as even though its true enough that the revolution in its early stages was more tolerant
of dissident elements and artistic innovators, neither the revolution nor the revolutionary artists believed in
freedom of expression for everyone. Before Stalin went after the avant-garde Marxist artists, the latter had
supported the total destruction of anti- and non-leftists artists and intellectuals. Vertov was satisfied that
reactionary artists were being dragged off to the Gulag and being shot.
Anyway, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA has the same kind of appeal that OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl
and INTOLERANCE by D.W. Griffith have. If TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and THE BIRTH OF A NATION
were blatantly political and became embarrassing later for that reason , even anti-Nazis and anti-racists
could admire the aspects of OLYMPIA and INTOLERANCE as bold aesthetic experiments. Of course, there
are ideological ramifications all over OLYMPIA, but they are conveyed more as expression than statement,
which makes the film more acceptable than Riefenstahls other great film.

OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl

Thus paradoxically, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is more acceptable to the wider base of film
enthusiasts precisely for its avant garde experimentalism that is usually associated with difficult and
exclusivity. Though BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN is narratively, emotionally, and formalistically more
accessible, its blatant politics has somewhat undermined its appeal though not by much as its still very close
to the top 10 whereas Vertovs film, though more difficult, can be appreciated merely as a film experiment
than as a dated revolutionary statement. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is associated with but not slavish
to the Revolution.

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA by Dziga Vertov

The rise of Vertovs reputation may also owe to the fact that Jean-Luc Godard once ran a radical film
organization called the Dziga Vertov Group(made up of members ranging from two to three men). The
resulting films were so terrible that even hardcore leftists generally avoided them or could hardly stay awake
through them , but the Godard mystique surely helped revive interest in Vertov by association. Since no one
cares about the films of the Dziga Vertov Group, why not profusely praise the most famous film by Vertov
himself?

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

state to run and manage everything for everyone from cradle to grave. Communism became not only repressive
for the masses but burdensome for the elites.
Therefore, the so-called fall of the Soviet Union was really a case of Russian elites letting go of the burden on
their shoulders. They werent overthrown; they threw off their obligations to the people as state coffers were
running dry. The elites and cunning wanna-be-elites(mostly Jews) figured, "Why not end communism, grab
most of the national loot for ourselves, and become the new oligarchs?"
The point of fascism was to work with the enterprising and productive capitalist class. Let the businessman
grow rich, but the state would exert pressure on the capitalist class to be patriotic and serve the nation. Without
such fascist pressures from government and society-at-large, the rich classes might only care about themselves
and link up with globalist elites(many of them Jews) while neglecting their less well-off brethren back home.
(One of the major contradictions of American politics is due to the incompatibility of ethnicity and ideology.
Currently, the two groups most closely associated with American leftism are Jews and homos. Outwardly, this
makes sense since Jews and homos have a long history of being discriminated against. So, naturally they have
identified with the underprivileged throughout history and around the world. But, Jews and homos tend to be,
respectively, ethnocentrically supremacist and egocentrically supremacist. Jewish credo was never egalitarian
but supremacist in regarding the Jewish race to be the Chosen of God, the superior people. Also, as Jews
became adept at business, law, and academics, they began to feel intellectually and economically superior to
other races. So, even though Jews did face discrimination and intolerance from gentiles, they also aimed to beat
out all the competition and reach the top. [Ironically, Jews often faced discrimination not because they were
seen as inferior but superior in talent. Thus, there was an egalitarian leftist element in antisemitism that feared
the elite power of Jews. If indeed Jews remained equal to everyone else, why would gentiles have the rise of
Jewish wealth and power?] The very character of Jewish culture is, therefore, not leftist or egalitarian. Or, it
was an accidental kind of egalitarianism due to social conditions and history. Given freedom and equality under
the law, Jews were equipped for meritocratic and tribal-networking reasons to beat out all the competition and
become king-of-the-hill. Likewise, homos are naturally a narcissistic, preening, snobby, and bitchy bunch.
Queers act like the Queen in SNOW WHITE: "Mirror mirror the Wall...". So, homosexualitys association with
leftism is also accidental. Because homosexuals faced discrimination and persecution in the past, they alliance
with the left has essentially been for symbolic reasons. But the core of homo culture was to gain power, wealth,
& privilege, and to dilly-dally with the fancy crowd. Also, the rich class was bound to appreciate homosexuals
more than the poor masses were. As the rich were better-educated and more cultured, even their antihomosexual attitudes tended to be less violent and crude than that of the unwashed mobs who were given to
name-calling, vulgarity, and fisticuffs. Also, as rich folks appreciated arts, culture, and fancy stuff, they came to
appreciate the homosexual knack for such things. So, homosexuals impressed the privileged and the
sophisticated classes. Though the homo agenda goes under the rubric of leftism, its sneering tone, bitchy
demeanor, and narcissistic demands are not unlike the airs once put on by the aristocratic class. Its no wonder
that Wall Street oligarchs, Hollywood moguls, Las Vegas tycoons, Silicon Valley neo-aristocrats, and Ivy
League snobs appreciate the homos. Homos are a means for them to exercise their elitist snobbery behind the
mask of leftism. Homos demand equality, but they are championing their own privilege to change the
fundamental values of society for reasons of self-aggrandizement. Anyway, because Jews and homos once
faced discrimination, they came to side with the left that challenged the conservative establishment and
traditional values & prejudices. But once they won the freedom under the Rule of Law to do as they please and
succeed to their full content and then some, they reached the top of the institutions & industries and threw their
weight around like the masters of the universe. But since their rise to power was justified in the name of leftist
fight for equality, they still cling to the old conceit even though they are the least equal and most
privileged/powerful groups in America. Indeed, Jews and homos are very clever in making people bow down to
Jewish-and-homo-power in the guise of Jewish-and-homo-powerlessness. If Jews-and-homos were to show off
their power and demand that people kowtow before them, we would come to realize that Jews and homos are
the kings and queens of America. But if Jews and homos force people to kowtow to Jewish-and-homo power
via the symbolism of Jewish victim-hood or homo saintliness, then we will be fooled into thinking we are not
bowing down to a great power but being kind-hearted in their support of a much victimized people. So, every
goy politician is dragged to Israel and made to bow before the Wailing Wall even though the real reason
why the goy is kneeling before Jews has more to do with Wall Street than the Wailing Wall. And even though
straight folks have to bend over to homo power out of fear as anyone who badmouths homosexuality will be
targeted and destroyed as a homophobe by the government, media, and banks run by Jews and homos ,
they are made to wave the rainbow flag and swallow the bogus myth that angelic homos need their kindhearted protection from bullies and meanies. Indeed, we have a strange kind of leftism in America when it is

essentially defined, shaped, and warped by two of the most powerful and privileged groups in America. Thus,
we see less and less unity and amity between the ruling Liberal elites and the masses of underprivileged people
made up of white trash, blacks, Hispanics, and others. Strangely enough, the main supporters of todays left
are the affluent children of the yuppies in gentrified big cities and elite college towns. [Granted, one could
argue that there were two kinds of leftism, just like there were two kinds of humanism. The humanism of the
Renaissance was elitist and about the highest achievements of mankind, whereas the humanism of the 20th
century was essentially about the moral worth of every man, however poor or humble he may be. BICYCLE
THIEVES and IKIRU were about the latter kind of humanism. Likewise, one kind of leftism was about justice
and equality for the workers, farmers, laborers, the poor, the oppressed, and etc. But another kind of leftism was
elitist and radical in the notion that only the most intelligent, creative, sophisticated, visionary, and/or
imaginative could conceive of something prophetic and revolutionary that will profound alter the trajectory of
the world. There was an element of both kinds of leftism in Marxism as Marx claimed to have arrived at a
profound truth that could only have been discovered by a visionary genius, and yet, this truth was about
creating a new order that would bring equal justice to all humans. But the two kinds of leftism never made for a
good marriage since creative avant-garde elites and the masses never saw eye-to-eye on much of anything. If
the creative types are enamored of the cachet of the new and original, the masses prefer the familiar and
accessible, which often happen to be conservative-in-character. Since the masses could not be elevated or won
over to genuine intellectual avant-garde-ism, the most effective way to undermine their conservatism was to
hook them to consumerism, especially of popular culture. Pop culture isnt demanding and is accessible to all,
but it keeps changing with the fashions, and this constant mania for new trends and styles has had the effect of
turning people away from conservatism. Traditionally, people relied on conservatism as a crutch against a fastchanging world that seemed alienating, threatening, and strange. But once change was associated with orgasmic
fun, titillation, and pleasure via pop culture, the masses embraced Las Vegas as their new cultural home. Today,
the humanist version of leftism is all but dead and what seems to be thriving is the homo-transhumanist elitist
form of leftism. The leftism of the elites isnt all that different from the vision of Ayn Rand except that its
much more dishonest. Rand shamelessly championed the ideal of the super-intelligent and super-creative as the
superior individual who should amass great power, freedom, and influence to do as he pleases, whereas the
super-intelligent who rule as the globalist-elites pretend have equality on their minds 24/7, even though their
idea of equality is generally fixated on something as ludicrous as marriage quality that favors gay marriage
but not incest marriage or polygamy.] Anyway, the American Right also suffers from a contradiction of
ideology and ethnicity/demography. True rightism must be nationalist or tribalist. Among any group, there are
smart people, average people, and dumb people. Its like a family can have a smart kid, average kid, and dumb
kid. But family sticks together and takes care of all its members because they are all part of the family.
Likewise, true rightism must care for its people/tribe over others. Therefore, white rightism must think in terms
of white power and white interests before all else. Jews understand this, which is why Zionist Israel favors all
Jews over all Palestinians, just like Apartheid South Africa favored whites over blacks. When the dominant
majority is powerful and secure enough, it can be generous toward minorities and allow some degree of
individual meritocracy based on universal Rule of Law. But when the group itself is threatened or challenged in
an existential way, all its members must close ranks and favor their own kind. So, even though rightism should
prize excellence and talent, it must also emphasize identity and unity. And that means a rich white person
should feel something for average white people and dumb white people. After all, they are all part of the
racial/cultural family. To a patriotic Frenchman, an average Frenchman and dumb Frenchman are no less
Frenchman than a smart Frenchman. Libertarianism has done great harm to White Rightism because it
emphasized individualism over all else. Even if Libertarian individualism claims to be opposed to leftism and
anti-white ideologies, it nevertheless undermines white identity and white unity. Thus atomizing whites into
individuals who only care about myself, libertarianism has corroded conservatism and rightism from within.
Indeed, if every grain of cement saw itself individually instead of as part of solid block, the cement would never
hold and would crumble like sand. Libertarianism turned the cement of white unity into white sand. A castle
made of cement/concrete lasts a hell of a lot longer than a castle made of sand. This is why FDRs New Deal
and Hitlers National Socialism got something right in fusing nationalism with socialism. For there to be a
feeling of unity and power, the system must be geared to offer something for everyone within the group. Of
course, American Conservatives can argue that capitalism is great for everyone, and this may have been true
when America practiced a kind of National Capitalism where what was good for General Motors was good for
America. But global capitalism has no such sense of national loyalty. Corporations will play the entire world to
rake maximum profits for themselves while leaving their own people in the dust. If there is to be a New Right,
it must be developed in the form of the New Deal[without the quasii-Marxist overtones] or National

Socialism[without the crazy racial theories]. Today, we have a strange kind of leftism and rightism in
America where the most powerful and privileged groups, the Jews and homos, claim to be for equality,
whereas the bulk of white gentiles, who arent particularly talented or intelligent, are under the delusion that
individualist meritocratic plutocratism is good for them, indeed as if every single one of them is going to be Bill
Gates or Steve Jobs. Its about time that most white people admit that they are average and nothing special,
therefore, their real power must derive from unity in numbers and purpose than from ultra-individualist selfinterest. And they must come to realize that the richest, most powerful, and most privileged groups in America,
namely the Jews-Homos-Liberal-Wasps-Asians, are NOT on their side. White conservatives and rightists must
break out of the illusion that success/power/privilege = white conservatism. Unless this stumbling block is
overcome, American politics will continue to be absurd, contradictory, and ludicrous.) Notice how rich whites
prefer to dilly dally with powerful Jews, privileged homos, and fancy mulattos than serve the interests of their
own white race. Of course, Jews are fascistic in maintaining their Jewish-centrism. Jews hate
nationalism/fascism in non-Jews as gentiles might get the idea to unite fascistically against the Jew , but
they practice it amongst their own kind. Of course, as Jews control the media and the terminology, they never
refer to their own nationalism/fascism as such but shield with mantras of remembering the Holocaust,
fighting white privilege, protecting helpless Israel from neo-Nazi Muslims and etc. In this, Jews are of
course lot smarter than gentiles. When blacks wanted more power, they shouted out for "Black Power". When
Jews want more power for themselves, they dont shout out "Jewish Power" but point to "White Power"(as the
problem). Blacks, by screaming Black Power, come across as threatening and aggressive. They seem far more
powerful than they really are. Clever Jews act like they themselves are powerless and scream about White
Power as the power that needs to be confronted. Thus, Jews justify more wealth, privilege, and power for
themselves as necessary to resist and struggle against white power. Thus, Jewish power, even as it grows ever
greater, still dons the mask of powerlessness that is nobly and courageously fighting white power. A ghetto
black will act like hes the most powerful mofo in the world whereas a billionaire Jew will act like he just
staggered out of the Nazi death camps and need protection from white power in America that, having once
excluded Jews from country clubs, might as well be the equivalent of Nazism. You always gotta watch out for
the Jews.
It is, of course, easier to talk politics than walk politics, which is why the academia and fringe groups are
ideologically purer than actual politicians. Also, to be favored by the MSM and make decent money from
journalism, one has to be approved by the powers-that-be, which means one cannot overly rock the boat. Even
so, the idea of purity in politics or ideology is a tricky proposition. It could mean being pure to the cause/dogma
or pure to ones own conscience. Generally, the former kind of purists far outnumber the latter kind as people
are generally sheep than goats. Most people are lemmings and refuse to think as individuals. They fail to
develop genuine personal consciences. Their entire sense of right-and-wrong comes from public
education/indoctrination, religion, popular culture, academia, and etc. People are also naturally afraid of being
ostracized, and so theres an element of Stockholm Syndrome in most cases. If youre the lone outsider among
a crowd of like-minded thinkers, something within you anxiously craves approval, and eventually, you may
cave to the collective consensus.
Perhaps, one advantage of most people being sheep or lemmings is that it has allowed the development of great
religions, movements, and systems. If everyone is a stubborn goat, the world around them may not coalesce
into a great power or system. For stars to form in the universe, cosmic dust must gather around a cluster. As the
center grows bigger, it gains greater gravitational pull and other dust sheepishly move toward it to produce a
bigger and bigger mass. Without such dynamics, stars would never have materialized. Suppose every piece of
cosmic dust acted like a stubborn goat and insisted on its own agenda. They would never come together to
form stars. At any rate, most cosmic dust act like sheep and move toward the greater gravitational mass or pull.
Same happens among humans. A religion is essentially something started by one goat but followed by a million
sheep. If everyone had the will-power and individuality of a Jesus or a Muhammad, no one would follow
anyone and everyone would expect everyone else to follow him. Jews know this. They are the goats of society,
and they expect us to be sheep who revolve around them. (Some Jews even look like goats.) The danger of
playing the goat is ending up as the scapegoat, as happened to many strong-willed individuals who ended up as
martyrs. But if one plays it right, one can gain control of the world through ones own myth(as Jesus did despite
being sacrificed and killed in flesh) or ones own manliness-and-myth(as Muhammad did, becoming
supremely powerful in his lifetime and gaining immortal glory thereafter). Hitler also understood the one-goatand-million-sheep dynamics of social psychology. He played the role of angry and charismatic goat who won
over the hearts and minds of millions of German sheep. Jews point to the dangers of such irrationality but pull

the same trick on all of us. Jewish control and use of media, culture, education, and propaganda are hardly
different in purpose from the tactics used by Joseph Goebbels. In political and ideological terms, true
rationalism is essentially dead and indeed never worked with most people because most people, as natural
sheep, cannot or will not think with individual/personal conscience. Just how did US turn pro-gay so fast? It
all had to do with mass manipulation by the Jews via control of the media. Since it would have been uncouth
for Jews to do it in the name of their own privilege or gay privilege, they wrapped the issue around the notion
of equality and civil rights. Its a dirty trick but effective if you control the media, academia, pop culture,
and government.
For example, the US invasion of Iraq was Zionist-American aggression against a nation that had nothing to do
with 9/11. But US media controlled by Jews framed the debate in terms of national defense against WMD. So,
even though US was the aggressor, the media justified US aggression as America defending itself, as if
preemptive strike, against a nation that supposedly was stockpiling WMD to bring about a thousand 9/11's on
American soil. Or consider how Nazis and Communist framed their own aggressions. Even as Hitler played the
aggressor, he framed everything in terms of Germans defending their territory and rights against others, a lie
perpetrated in Pat Buchanans UNNECESSARY WAR. And even as the Soviet Union funded communist wars
all over the world, their agents in the US pushed the Peace Movement. In Vietnam, North was the aggressor
against the South. If the North had given up its agenda to invade the South, US would have stayed out of the
war. US, in trying to defend South Vietnam from communism, got involved, but the progressive community
made US the aggressors against the peaceful Vietnamese. According to anti-war activists, Soviet aid to
North Vietnam was not warmongering. North Vietnams aggression against South Vietnam was not an act of
war. But American role to defend the South from the North was an act of aggression. (To be sure, however, US
did create the conditions for war in Vietnam by artificially dividing the nation in half between north and south
to ensure that the Ho Chi Minh, the popular national hero, would not turn all of Vietnam into a communist
state.) Jews and homos pull the same shtick on all of us. Jews can get away with murder in America, but Jewish
banksters on Wall Street were not prosecuted for all the dirty tricks theyd pulled. Homos are supremely
arrogant and love to throw their weight around. In George Orwells 1984, it wasnt enough for you to obey Big
Brother. You had to LOVE Big Brother. In Stalins Russia and Maos China, it wasnt enough for you to accept
the power of the communists; you had to pledge undying loyalty to it, even if you were condemned to rot in the
gulag. In todays America, its not enough for you to tolerate homos. You must publicly "WELCOME" and
"CELEBRATE" homos and their lifestyles. If youre a big city politician and doesnt march in the gay pride
parade, you can kiss your career good bye. Homos will take notes and send them to Jews in the media who will
target you. If your company doesnt offer gay-friendly policies, you will be attacked by lawyers, government,
and other businesses. Supremacist Jews and neo-aristocratic homos have pulled off a coup-detat and rule over
us, but they act like theyre underdogs still fighting for civil rights when theyre really about right-of-privilege
or "privil rights". After all, why do only homos get to change the rules of marriage for their own selfaggrandizement but the same right or privilege doesnt apply to polygamists and incest-sexuals? But of
course, most people dont ask that question since they are sheep. Americans are attracted to two things:
money/celebrity(material narcissism) and moral narcissism. If a person is merely rich and famous, he will be
envied but not necessarily respected. People follow Donald Trump and Paris Hilton but dont respect them. If
you only into morality but lack riches and glamour, people will see you as just another loser.You will be seen
as priggish and boring. But if you have both glamor and morality, or glamorality, people will adore and
admire you, and this is what homos got for themselves. Homos have lots of money, lots of power, and lots of
celebrity coverage. That makes them hip and cool. But they also pose as saintly and angelic victims of all those
homophobes, which makes them objects of pity. And if you pity them, you are made to feel morally
narcissistic and superior. Thus, many people are really attracted to Jews and homos for reasons of power,
wealth, privilege, and talent status-seeking reasons , but their power-worship is given moral justification
through the victimology that would have us Jews as eternal Holocaust survivors and homos as eternal
homocaust survivors.
Basically, you wanna be friends with or win the approval of a billionaire Jew and millionaire homo, but that
sounds so crassly status-seeking. But since the Jew and homo are wrapped in victimological garb, you can
pretend that your crass social-climbing is really a form of compassion for victim groups. Conservatives
arent much better. They suck up to Jews because Jews have immense power and wealth. Conservative
politicians act before powerful Jews as dogs do before their masters. But admitting as much would be so crass
and craven. Its not very dignified to grovel like a dog before wealthy masters. So, Conservatives under the
amused snickering of Jews pretend that they are coming to the defense of helpless Jews from Obama the
socialist-stealth-Muslim and all-powerful Palestinians(armed with rocks and bottle rockets) and neo-Nazi

Iran(that, by the way, still has no nuke against Israel that has 300 illegal nukes).
Purity(or at least purported purity)of commitment is what most political causes are about. It doesnt require
people to think or rock the boat. They can be personal cowards and sheep without individual conscience
pretending to be courageous rebels, but they are really nothing but variations of the Red Guards. No matter how
loud they bark, they never think for themselves. Indeed, the loudness of their bark is precisely to drown out the
fact that they cant think or are afraid to. Their rage is really a desperate attempt to repress their own suspicion
that theyre nothing but dogs. Most academics in the social sciences are mindless sheep like the girl in David
Mamets OLEANNA. They desperately need to cling to some cause or ideology because they are incapable of
thinking on their own and honestly debate with others. They need the power of dogmatic officialdom behind
them to browbeat and silence their opponents since they cannot win on the basis on fact and reason. To disagree
is to be disagreeable, and most people are afraid of being disagreeable or dealing with disagreeable people.
(They, of course, may take pride in being disagreeable in officially sanctioned ways such as in the mode of
angry feminist or black rage, but they dont know how to be truly disagreeable as individuals with own ideas
and consciences.) They want to belong and to be loved.
This need to belong isnt negative in and of itself. People are, after all, social creatures. But in matters of truth,
one doesnt get nearer the truth by going along with the dogma or the consensus. One needs purity of personal
conscience over purity of collective commitment. As the John Reed character(Warren Beatty) argues near the
end in REDS, "if you kill dissent, you kill the Revolution." Of course, hes a fool for thinking a revolution
founded on radical ideas could ever tolerate dissent for long. Communism, after all, wasnt for freedom for all
but for its idea of justice, and freedom could only be a casualty in the long run. Communism was a prison
system that sought to imprison and reform humanity for its historical crime of class oppression. Even the
working class couldnt be allowed freedom in the new order since theyd culturally been contaminated by
reactionary social and cultural systems since the beginning of time. They too had to be reformed so that they
wouldnt use their liberation under communism to grow rich and become bourgeois themselves. Physical proles
had to be made into spiritual proles. A merely physical prole, if given a million bucks, might betray his
comrades and live the good life. But a spiritual prole, even if offered a million bucks, would reject the
temptation just like Jesus rejected offerings from Satan. Given the ideology of communism, it rationalized the
new order as a prison system where people would be watched and controlled at all times. Humanity had to be
sentenced, punished, and reformed for its entire history of oppression, exploitation, brutality, and ignorance.
Even the oppressed classes had to be properly indoctrinated in the new faith and imbued with correct attitudes
so that they would never use freedom for exploitation of others. A true communist with freedom should only
act like a communist. That was the communist paradox. It could only allow freedom where people freely
acted like communists. For people to attain the right to be free, they had to be conditioned to act only like
communists. Communism played the role of God. Its like the God wanted man to be free but also for man to
use that freedom only in ways approved by Him. But to be free means being able to disobey God as well as to
obey God. God couldnt tolerate disobedience but still wanted man to be free. After all, if man wasnt free and
obeyed God merely out of programming, then there could be no real love and devotion since mans faith little
more than a recording in a doll that mutters mama, mama. For man to truly love and obey God, he had to
freely choose to devote his life to God. But when man freely chose to disobey God, God simply couldnt
tolerate it.
Maybe one way the story of Abraham and Isaac could be interpreted is God told Abraham not to kill Isaac
because He was afraid that Abraham might actually not do it. The Bible says that Abraham was really about to
kill Isaac but was halted by God. But how do we know Abraham would have done it unless hed really gone
through with it? Maybe Abraham might have pulled back the knife at the last moment. Or maybe the blade may
have gone in an inch and then Abraham would have pulled it out and spared Isaac and disobeyed God. But
since God ordered Abraham not to do it at the last moment, God could make Himself believe that Abraham is
indeed loyal and obedient. (The relation between man and God/gods is one of the most puzzling in the history
of man. How could man create something and then worship it as his own creator? How could a fiction made by
man gain such total control over man[though, of course, one could argue that the original gods werent so much
inventions of man as interpretations by man of the forces of nature]? But then, of course, God or gods never had
complete control over man because man was always subconsciously controlling God or gods. Man
subconsciously nudged God or gods to will upon humanity the sort of commands that served mans interest. In
a way, the relation between God/gods and man is like that of Jews and their gentile overlords. Clever Jews ever
so gently nudged gentile overlords into thinking and acting in ways that subtly advantaged Jews, and so, it
seemed as if the godly gentile rulers were in control and Jews were merely carrying out the wishes of the
gentile rulers. But as Jews were toying with the minds of the goy rulers, Jews were the real wizard behind the

Oz. Jews would have us believe that Wasps still rule America when, in fact, Wasp power is an empty shell of
its former self. Thus, mankind messed with God or godly powers just as God or godly powers messed with
mankind, that is IF the tribe in question possessed the wit and brilliance to mess with the minds of others, be
they human or divine. Its like how the ghosts at the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING make Jack Torrance
believe that he isnt merely the caretaker of a hotel but an emperor of an empire. Torrance is made to feel the
power, but his mind is being nudged every which way to serve the agenda of the ghosts. Wasps in America
today are like the characters in THE WIZARD OF OZ. Like the Scarecrow, they dont have a brain, at least
compared to Jews. Like the Tin Man, they are stiff and mechanical. Like the Cowardly Lion, Wasps still act
like they have the power but its just a charade. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney talk big but they are little
more than toy boy scaredy cats of the likes of Sheldon Adelson the Jewish casino tycoon. And most white
conservatives are like Dorothy, so innocent and naive in their faith in the Jewish wizard of Globoz. Its
amusing that the creature who sees right through the wizard in the movie is Dorothys dog. Like the horse in
KAGEMUSHA and the military dog in the fourth segment of Akira Kurosawas DREAMS, it isnt easily
fooled. It goes to show that people can be dumber than animals in some ways. Animals can be fooled too, but
because they lack an understanding of abstract concepts, they go by directness of senses. The dog hears where
the sound is really coming from and pulls open the curtain. Culture, civilization, and ideals are what make us
human, but they can blind us from the raw and naked truth. Concepts of myth and honor blind the Takeda Clan
from the dangers in the final scene of KAGEMUSHA. All that stuff about the sacred Yamato spirit blinded
Japan in its assessment of war with America. All that stuff about Brotherhood of Man blinded communists to
the dogmatic naivete of Marxism-Leninism and its radical misunderstanding of human nature. All this
Holocaustianity crap blinds white people to the true nature of the Jewish mind and the true breadth of Jewish
history in which Jews werent merely hapless victims but often cunning exploiters or ruthless oppressors. The
Magic Negro myth blinds white folks to the true dangers of the Negro who is physically stronger and more
aggressive. All the stuff about white male pride and honor blinds white rightist males from admitting that the
Negro is stronger and that their fears are motivated more by the Negros physical and sexual threat than by his
lower IQ. If all Negroes were like Gary Coleman, whod give a crap about lower black IQ? Whites flee from
blacks out of physical fear, not due to fear of lower IQ. Indeed, all things being equal, youre more likely to be
intimidated by a smart pushy person than a dumb dim-witted person. Anyway, mans worship of God or gods
shows power dynamics can be the exact reverse of reality. Man can create God or gods and still believe that
God or gods created him and has power over him. To be sure, one could argue that man didnt create God or
gods but rather that God or gods were merely mans conceptual or intellectual manifestation of the essence of
reality. If we look at physical matter, theres tension between matter and energy, not least because at its deepest
core, matter is energy. Since living creatures are also entities made of matter and energy, all life-forms feel the
tension between their material presence and energetic projection. As brains in evolving organisms grew larger
and finally developed into the human brain, the tension was manifested through the concept of spirituality in
cooperation with and opposition to materiality. As early man didnt understand physics and the science of
matter and energy, he saw his own flesh as a thing and the energy within him as a soul or spirit, as energy. In
this sense, man didnt invent or create God or gods, but rather, God and gods were the natural conceptual
outgrowth of the central tension in all life forms, the struggle between their material presences and energetic
projections. Even so, as God or gods also constitute abstract principles, He or they can serve as a useful
metaphor of all great ideas that have come to shape and guide mankind. God is an idea that arose from man
and gained power over man. Even among the godless, the same dynamics applies. Even in the modern secular
age, people have come to worship ideas as if they have talisman-like power and as if they hold greater truth
than reality itself. Radical leftists have worshiped the abstract ideal of Equality. The word has such power that
you can attach it to anything to lend it magical power. Thus, gay marriage, once turned into marriage
equality, became as American as Fruit Cocktail. Or take words like racism, which no longer has any rational
meaning. Its a demonic word that frightens adults like horror tales scare little boys and girls sitting around a
campfire. And Jews want us to think and feel in such manner because emotional control is more powerful than
rational control. If you control people through rational debate, theres always a chance that one of the controlled
may use reason and facts to challenge the official dogma. But if you gain emotional control over others, they
will be afraid to raise any question, no matter how much it may be based on facts and reason, that might make
them feel foul and dirty for deviating from the sacred line. So, it doesnt matter than Jason Richwine has all the
data to back him up on differences in racial IQ and the impact of immigration. Racism, as used the powersthat-be, is not a rational definition race + ism = belief in races and racial differences but an emotional
definition. It means a person deemed a racist is an odious and noxious and bad, very bad, and super very
bad person. He is spiritually and physically diseased, a moral and intellectual leper. He must be cast out of

decent society, and others who agree with him must also be hunted down. Thus, not only was Richwine
attacked but so were the mostly progressive professors whod reviewed his work. The emotional reaction
against Richwine shows the power of emotional control, and this is why Jews have de-rationalized debates into
emotion-laden invectives against racists, homophobes, xenophobes, rabid anti-Semites, and etc. If you
disagree or oppose the Jewish agenda, you are not merely wrong and to be argued with. You are
psychologically and clinically diseased. You must be silenced and treated than debated with since your view
of truth has no basis in reality, at according to the prevailing Political Correctness dominated by powerful Jews.
Pushy Jews and bitchy homos now control most of elite positions in American culture, and American
conservatives dont know how to fight back for several reasons. For one, American Conservatives agree with
many of the premises of Liberalism, such as the godliness of MLK and the evil of racism. American
Conservatism expends much time and energy demonstrating how it has Thomas Sowell on its side and how the
Democrats are the real racists. Ann Coulters diatribe about racist Democrats is mostly bullshit since most of
those racist Democrats became Republicans. American Conservatism is also just as or even more slavish to
Jewish power than American Liberalism is, not least because American Liberalism, being so Jewish-controlled
to begin with, doesnt have to be blatantly pro-Jewish to show off its philo-Semitic credentials. Also, libertarian
wing of American conservatism isnt even conservative and yammers mostly about radical individualism. No
movement gets anywhere just be yammering about individualism. Power comes from unity and
collective/coordinated action, not by "I wanna gamble and smoke pot all I want." There is the respectable rich
wing of American Conservatism, and it is too obsessed with matters of status and vanity to put up a fight, lest
the fight sully their reputation as reformed conservatives who no longer feel hostile toward Jews and Negroes;
just look at the spinelessness of the Bush clan. You cant rely on the kind of conservativesin Whit Stillmans
movies. Then, theres the Evangelicals whose idea of Conservatism is "Earth is 6,000 yrs old", a real laughing
stock in the modern world. And then you have the gun nuts. While I support the 2nd Amendment, guns are only
useful when matters violently come to a head. Most of modern society battles with words and ideas, not with
guns. A person with the power of pen and camera has more power than some redneck with a huge gun
collection. Wasps had long been the leaders of American conservatism, but the Wasp model has long been
dead. It eventually lost the fire and became tepid and dry. And country music is kinda dumb. And Christianity
of the Right generally ranges from ignorant to stupid. What American conservatives need do is to embrace a
kind of Chechenism. American conservatives must be the new Chechens. This doesnt mean conservatives must
do everything the Chechens do, such as wife-stealing, throat-slitting, and blowing up Marathons. Instead,
American conservatives should take the vibrant, aggressive, and colorful aspects of Chechenism for cues on
how to revitalize themselves. Chechen music and dance makes you wanna fight for your people. Country music
makes you wanna drool saliva. Chechen masculinity makes a guy wanna take a stand and push back. Wasp
manhood means remaining wry and calm while the pushy Jew and bitchy homo spits in your face. Chechenism
has no concept of collective guilt. Only tribal pride. Thats what white folks need. Also, conservatives need to
come up with something that might called Chrislam. Christianity, sorry to say, has run its course. With the
National Cathedral sounding the bell in celebration of gay marriage, American Christianity has lost its soul,
meaning, and authority. Its merely a plaything controlled by Jews and homos whove infiltrated and subverted
the halls of Mainline Christianity. If communist Jews in the Soviet Union sought to physically destroy all the
Churches, sly and dirty American Jews decided to destroy Christian power and authority by making homosanctity the central tenet of Christianity. At the very least, the communist Jews were honest in their virulent
hatred against Christianity. In contrast, dirty American Jews hide their hatred and pretend to serve Christianity
by turning Churches into playpens of decadent homosexuals[or Pussy Riot-ers or Pussy-Rotters in Russia]. Just
like Jews turned the GOP from a white party into Zionist-worshiping party, theyve turned Churches from
defenders of the Faith and timeless spiritual-moral truths into collaborators with fashionable nouveau-pagan
decadence and Mammon. The Mormon community, which has long been known to put profit before principle,
has sold its soul to Wall Street and Hollywood Jews. This way, Jews can destroy the Christian Church while
pretending to be its friend. Jewish role in communism gave them a bad rap as the ruthless destroyers of
Christianity, and Jews are careful to avoid such accusations because Jewish violence against Christianity led
many people in Italy, Germany, and Spain to side with anti-communists and anti-Semites. But then, Jews
know that destroying the soul of something is more effective than destroying its body. After all, Jesus was
destroyed in body but not in soul. But suppose Jesus had been spared in body but corrupted in soul. Then, there
would have been no Christianity to begin with. Its why the Jesus figure in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF
CHRIST chooses the destruction of his body via the crucifixion to save his soul for the good of mankind. When
Jewish communists smashed 50,000 churches in the USSR, they destroyed the body of Christianity but not its
soul. But in the US, by turning Churches into dens of homo-sanctity, Jews have destroyed the soul of

Christianity, and therefore, Christianity is all but dead in the US. It has been Jew-ized, homo-ized, and
shopping-mall-ized. Many churches have been infiltrated by homo operatives while others, like the Mormon
church, have sold themselves for thirty pieces of silver. Evangelicals are a bunch of dodos who worship Israel
and Jews more than they do God and Jesus. And they go boo hoo hoo over MLK the woman-abusing drunkard
lout. That said, theres no denying the great history of Christianity in Western Civilization, so the Christian
tradition cannot simply be dispensed with. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. So, what
is to be done? Conservatives need to take some cues from Islam. While Christianity is dying and shrinking,
Islam is growing in power. Muslims are fervent in their faith. Why? Because their faith makes them feel proud
and strong. Christianity had once filled white folks with feelings of pride, dignity, and honor. While
Christianity imbued Western folks with humility and reverence, it also made them feel they were on the side of
God. Today, Christianity makes most white people feel like worthless sinners who must atone forever all the
evils done by their ancestors, at least in regard to Jews, Negroes, and homos; after all, most white Christians
dont seem to care much about Hiroshima, the demise of the American Indians, the cultural genocide against
indigenous European pagans, or the Nakba. Christianity only reminds white folks of all the sins committed by
their ancestors against Jews, Negroes, and homos. It makes them feel morally inferior even to some half-naked
savage in Africa chucking spears at hippos. There is much that is negative, crazy, and dangerous about Islam,
so it makes no sense for white folks to convert to Islam. But there are good things as well. A Muslim takes no
shit from Jews and homos for one thing. We can reject something but still learn and borrow from it. National
Socialists hated communists but borrowed certain things from communists. Japanese patriots hated Western
Imperialism but borrowed ideas and methods from the West to build a powerful modern Japan. Jews hate
European fascism but learned from it to create their own system of mass mind control. Jews also hate Wagner
the man but found much inspiration from his music. So, we dont have to love Islam to learn and borrow things
from it. This process of learning can lead to something like Chrislam, a revitalization of Christian West with
something of the Islamic warrior spirit that refuses to cower before hideous Jews and haughty homocules. If
most white American conservatives were Chechenized and Chrislamized, they wouldnt be taking any shit from
Jews and homocules, and we can have a proper civil war and kick some ass. Of course, theres something to be
learned from Jews and Homos as well. The Wasp ideal was to be intellectual and dry. The Jewish ideal has
been to be intellectual and pushy. Wasps have been emotionally objective whereas Jews have always been very
subjective in their emotions. Subjective emotions beat objective emotions. So, white folks need to learn from
Jews to be counter-pushy and fight back against nasty vicious Jews.)
Anyway, we were saying something about the impure nature of politics(as practice and expression at least in
contrast to theory and ideology). Then it follows that George Lucas can be construed as one of the most
political film-makers. One need not make political films to be political within the film industry. Politics can
mean ideology in the realm of principles, but in the realm of reality it more often means power. Everyone who
vies for power is being political, and Hollywood has always been a competitive field for power politics. Even if
all shakers and movers in Hollywood were without ideology, they would be ruthless and ravenous political
animals since it is a dog-eat-dog industry. In the struggle for power, principles always take the backseat. George
Lucas made one truly principled film on the basis of personal expression: THX 1138. It failed at the box office
despite its release in the early 70s, a period often hailed as the golden age of the Film Generation. As it turned
out, either most of the Film Generation didnt care for films like THX 1138(and Robert Altmans MCCABE
AND MRS MILLER, another bomb), or the Film Generation, mostly centered in colleges and bohemian parts
of big cities, wasnt big enough to fill up the theaters. One can argue about the ideological trappings of STAR
WARS, but even without them, it is one of the most political films because it was the product of Lucass
coming to terms with the power of the industry and marketplace. To be sure, Lucas wasnt purely in it for the
money. He did have a grand vision and a fairytale excitement with the material. Even so, he watered it down to
make it appeal to as many people of all ages all around the world. When we contemplate Lucass artistic
decline from THX 1138 to STAR WARS movies, we tend to bemoan the price one has to pay in going with the
politics of power over politics of principle. On the other hand, had Lucas decided to make more films like THX
1138, no studio would have backed him, and he might not have made another movie. And had he not made
STAR WARS, he wouldnt have gained the clout to lend help to Kurosawa in his comeback with
KAGEMUSHA. And for all its problems and compromises, the STAR WARS saga some real strengths. Lucas
also created lots of jobs for all sorts of people with all the money he made. Though film scholars like to blame
Spielberg and Lucas for the blockbuster craze that pushed out the little movies, the indictment is only half-true.
First, most of the highly regarded films of New Hollywood of the 1970s were failures. Dennis Hopper and
Robert Altman had smash hits with EASY RIDER and M*A*S*H, but most of their subsequent films were

money losers and even critical flops. So, it wasnt as if New Hollywood was thriving with all these personal
films but then got sideswiped by the Spielberg/Lucas circus wagon. New Hollywood was losing lots of money
with the personal films of auteurs, and the industry was finally saved by the blockbusters. Also, little personal
movies never went away. After all, there were hundreds of cheapie slasher flicks and horny teenager movies in
the 80s, so there evidently was funding available for smaller productions. The problem was that most people
had little interest in the personal art film as the boomers grew up & lost interest in edgy things and raised their
kids to listen to rock music, watch TV, and play video games all day, the sort of behavior that doesnt foster the
kind of curiosity, empathy, and patience necessary for appreciation of art cinema.
In life, theres the politics of idealism, the politics of dogmatism/commitment, the politics of opportunism, and
the politics of truth. Politics of idealism and politics of dogmatism sometimes overlap, but the difference
between the idealist and dogmatist is that the former is primarily interested in serving an idea whereas the latter
is mainly devoted to serving the power of an idea. An idealist may be foolish or misguided, but he does think
about the world in terms of ideas weighing the rights and wrongs. An dogmatist has no use for thought; he just
goes along with the orthodoxy he was either raised with or indoctrinated with, whether it be Nazism,
communism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or etc. Rousseau was an idealist, right or wrong. He may have
thought wrong, but he did think on his own. Most politically correct people are dogmatists; they swallow whole
hog all the propaganda fed to them by college professoriat, pop culture, and advertising. Politics of dogmatism
differs from politics of opportunism because, however stupid and narrow-minded it may be, dogmatism is
nevertheless is premised on genuine faith. Politically correct people may not think but they believe in the tripe
they believe with genuine commitment. Politics of opportunism is less interested in ideas than power, and to
gain the power, one must be malleable with ideas and principles. Bill Clinton is a classic politician of
opportunism. He was against gay marriage when it served his purposes; now hes for gay marriage because
homo power, in alliance with Jewish power, rules the Democratic Party and has control over elite institutions.
Clinton, Obama, and Romney have their ideological leanings, but they are the kind who that sell their souls for
more money and power. Politics of opportunism may be dirty, but it generally favors smarter people than the
politics of dogmatism. A dogmatist sticks to whatever dogma that is dished out to him or her. An opportunist
has a dogs nose and ear for detecting shifts in trends so as to adjust his or her own positions at opportune
moments. Politics of pragmatism is related to the politics of opportunis, but whereas a pragmatist is often an
idealist who realizes he must make compromises in the real world, an opportunists only real objective is power
and success. As success and power in capitalist America are measured primarily by wealth/status/connections,
those who want to be player must make a lot of money or associate themselves with those with lots of money
and the right kind of reputation. If you have the money, you can have the power. But if you dont have the
money, you can hope to associate yourself with the rich and powerful by two means. One is to slavishly serve
the rich and powerful, which is what Reagan, Thatcher, and conservatives did. Lower the taxes of the rich,
promote free trade to serve the globalist capitalists, loosen regulations, and etc.
Paradoxically however, being morally critical of the rich may be a more effective way to associate oneself with
the rich. Theres a saying, "why pay for something you can get for free?" Since Conservatives fall all over
themselves to serve the super-rich, why should the super-rich bend over for Conservatives? Conservatives are
like running dogs playing fetch and rolling over for super-rich masters. In contrast, Liberals and Leftists have
been critical of the super-rich. Thus, the super-rich must win and buy favors from the so-called progressive
community that happens to be influential in the arts, culture, academia, and media. Also, the Liberals and
Leftists can offer the prize of moral narcissism for the super-rich if the price is right. By funding some Liberal
and leftist causes, the super-rich can earn praise not merely as superior entrepreneurs but as kind-hearted
saviors of the world. Its like the old pact between Jewish Rabbis and Jewish businessmen. The rabbis were
often critical of Jewish businessmen, but that was precisely why Jewish businessmen sought to win favors and
feted the Rabbis with donations and money. Jewish businessmen feared and respected the rabbis; they felt no
respect for their loyal servants and servile dogs. Conservatives, having chosen to play fetch and roll over for the
super-rich, get no respect from the super-rich. Leftists and liberals, playing the role of secular rabbis critical of
the super-rich, have been lavishly bribed and funded by the super-rich. Super-rich folks want to win the
progressive prophets proghets to their side. There had once been a time when the Christian Church in
America had been critical of wealth and materialism. But the Christian Right that prevails today, especially the
Evangelicals and the Mormons, does little else but suck up to the super rich. With the Christian Right being so
slavish to the super-rich, it gets no respect as the super-rich can rely on its spiritual support for free.
Adolf Hitler understood this aspect of politics of morality and power. He understood the socio-political
psychology of the rich. He knew that they held the power but that they also felt morally insecure and

threatened. The rich would have to be dealt with carrots and sticks. They must be threatened with the stick of
socialism. Also, no political movement cannot maintain loyalty of the masses for very long if it is primarily
seen as serving the rich. While many Americans voted for the GOP in the 80s out of hatred of communism and
disdain for liberals who were soft on crime, as America became increasingly de-industrialized and workers
couldnt help but notice that CEOs were raking in record profits or being released with golden parachutes
while they themselves were either losing their jobs and wages, GOP was bound to lose to the Democrats. Of
course, Democrats were hardly better, especially as Clinton signed onto free trade and de-regulation of Wall
Street, but Democrats at least put on a token nationalist-socialist show of wink-wink admonishing super-rich
over the problems of inequality. Paradoxically, the super-rich felt safer with the Democrats than with the
Republicans because, with Democrats in power, there was at least the impression among the populace that
something was being done for the sake of equality and social justice. In contrast, when GOP was in power, it
seemed as if it was only allowing the super-rich to get super-richer. This is also why Jews prefer Democrats
over Republicans. Jews are the richest, most successful, most powerful, most privileged, and most unequal
people in America. So, why dont they prefer the GOP that is so slavishly pro-rich and pro-Zionist? Because
Jews dont wanna be perceived as superduper-rich-powerful-and-rich. When they see the likes of Bush,
Romney, McCain, and others kiss them on the ass, they fear that the goy world will awaken to the truth: Jews
are the masters of America. The King of the Hill has always been a resented figure whom others set out to
dethrone. So, Jews prefer someone like Obama who, though sucking up to Jews no less than Republicans do, is
at least generally less brazen about it. Republicans are running dogs who loudly cheer on the Zionist oppression
of Palestinians. Obama pretends to be more evenhanded though hes done nothing for Palestinians whatsoever.
Better to oppress Palestinians under the cover of silence than under the spotlight of delirious tasteless approval.
(I do not misperceive Palestinians as saints or innocent victims. Many Palestinians are nasty buggers not
unlike the rest of humanity. But it is disgusting that most American Conservatives are so hostile to a people
who never did any harm to Europeans or Americans? Palestinians werent behind communism, pornography,
interracism, open borders policy in the West, the gay agenda, Wall Street robbery, and etc. Jews were behind
those things. Yet, most American Conservatives have rabidly cheered on the destruction of the Palestinian
people with sadistic and cruel abandon. And when Palestinians fought back with primitive weapons, Americans
who carpet bombed Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam and killed millions of innocent babies and pushed
sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s dare call Palestinians terrorists! If there is a poetic justice to the
destruction of white America, it is as a comeuppance for its vile support of Zionism that destroyed a people
whod never harmed Americans. Palestinians never hurt white Americans, but white Americans have funded,
supported, and served Zionism that destroyed Palestine. White Americans felt no remorse, not even an iota of
sympathy for what happened to the Palestinians. Currently, Jews are doing to white Americans what they did to
Palestinians, yet white Americans like Ann Coulter continue to cheer for Israels oppression of Palestinians. At
least on this score, white Conservatives are a disgusting bunch. In a way, they are getting what they deserve for
having aided and abetted the destruction of a people who never did Americans any harm. When Jews were
killing and terrorizing Palestinians, white Americans cheered and laughed with joy just like Nazis who laughed
at the victimization of Jews. As white power is being undermined by the tide of non-whites in America under
the Jewish policy of Open Borders, Palestinians can laugh at stupid white Americans who are being
Palestianized. Most pathetic is how white American Conservatives crawl up to Jews and plead with doggy
eyes, "We helped you destroy Palestinians, so please help us white folks keep the power." These groveling
white dummies just dont get it. The logic behind Jewish policy in the US is the same as it has been in
Israel/Palestine. Tactics may differ but the agenda is the same: Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews destroyed
Palestinians to own Palestine and turn it into Israel. Jews are destroying white America to turn it into a muttnation. Jews dont want to face unite population of independent-minded white wolves. They want a whole
bunch of docile mutts rolling over and playing fetch for Jews.) Then, there is the politics of truth, which tends
to be rare since politics favors delusional utopianism, blind obedience, opportunism, or compromise. As such,
there is almost no effective politics of truth in the actual world. Politics of truth may be found in the academia,
but as the academia is form of organized education, one must win the approval of the powers-that-be who are
closely aligned with other kinds of politics. Of course, in the field of science, truth is all that should matter, but
certain subjects, despite grounding in facts and reason, are discouraged by the official power structure. For
example, the science of race is disapproved of in most academic settings. And consider what happened to
Lawrence Summers for even speculating that there may be more male geniuses than female ones. At any rate,
when scientific research and discourse are allowed to progress in a pure and un-compromised manner, it is
usually concerning matters that have little to do with human truth(even if they may profoundly impact our
lives). The laws of physics and chemistry, for example, may save or destroy millions of lives, but they hold

little Emotional Truth for us. We dont spend our days thinking of stuff like ex dx = ex + C or arcsin x dx = x
arcsin x + (1-x2) + C(which I copied and pasted from some calculus site as I dont know what they mean). By
truth, we usually mean social truth, moral truth, emotional truth, spiritual truth, etc. And the endeavor of art,
culture, and humanities has been the search and expression of truths that cannot be conveyed through means of
pure logic and hard facts alone. It is art that allows us to delve into or speculate as to the nature of other,
deeper, hidden, or complex realities. Art allows even political enemies to somewhat understand one another
even as they continue to disagree on legal, ideological, or pragmatic matters. Even non-Germans and anti-Nazis
can watch a film like DAS BOOT and DOWNFALL and get a sense of the human side of the equation that
motivated Hitler and his aides during World War II. Also, art makes us aware of how each person is more than
what he ideologically and/or socially assumes or claims to be. Luchino Visconti claimed to be a Marxist, but he
was also a homosexual aristocrat, and the latter aspect of his character is revealed in THE LEOPARD. Theres
more to reality that meets the eye or departs the lips. People claim to be communist, Muslim, Christian,
libertarian, feminist, Zionist, or etc., but such labels tend to be the outerwear than the inner-ware of what they
really are.
Humanism, at its best, convincingly emphasized the essence of what makes us human. Humanism, at its naive
worst, promoted the notion of save the world brotherhood-of-man universalism, as if the problems of the
world could be overcome if mankind embraced socialism or destroyed nationalism and capitalism.
But another kind of humanism was skeptical of utopian fantasies. It accepted the human condition as essentially
and eternally problematic. If social problems didnt get to you, personal or psychological ones would. This kind
of humanism reminded us of our ineradicable imperfections, foibles, & hypocrisies regardless of our
ideological allegiances and urged us to laugh once in awhile because what else could we do? If humans are,
by nature, a bunch of clowns, a good laugh was in order when a mirror was placed in front of them. Lina
Wertmullers humanist films feature, for instance, characters talking a lot about social issues and politics but
with a sense that ideology is as often as not a means of justifying ones greed, envy, resentment, vanity, and
aggressiveness. If the naive kind of humanism posits that all people around the world will be as one(like in John
Lennons knucklehead song "Imagine")if bad ideas like capitalism and nationalism are done away with, the
hardier kind of humanism posits that, behind the mask of every utopian ideology-religion-or-allegiance, there
hides the core human spirit that is, at once, truer and more troublesome than any idea or conceit. Generally,
liberal humanism said "get rid of bad ideas and people will naturally be brothers", whereas conservative
humanism said, "look behind the mask of good ideas, and youll see that self-professed do-gooders and
progressives are little more than pigs like everyone else." How truly selfless and spiritual were those
hedonistic hippies and freaks at Woodstock? How truly peaceful were the Christians through the ages? Jews
recite Holocaust hymns to make themselves out to be a people who are especially sensitive to the suffering of
humanity, but the Jew behind the mask is really out to grab as much loot and power for himself. Liberal
humanism has exposed the abuses of conservative authoritarianism, but it has also made people obedient to
progressive authority and Jewish power.
Though there has been much overlap among art, fantasy, and propaganda, art has been the domain through
which human truths have been explored and shared. Even those without direct knowledge and experience of
nations/cultures such as France, India, Germany, Japan, Italy, Iran, or Russia might have seen a film or read a
novel about or from there. In some ways, films have done more than books to facilitate exchanges of cultural
experiences because translations of literature across cultures necessarily result in loss of pungency and flavor.
Films use subtitles but something of the other cultures nevertheless comes across through the sound/texture of
the language/music, the styles of behavior, and visual details. One may not a know a word of French, but the
musicality of the language comes across in film in ways it cant through the pages of translation. The sound of
Russia, German, Japanese, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, and Greek even if one doesnt know
the language conveys something of the cultural character of a people. Also, unless one is familiar with the
physical details of another culture, it is difficult to grasp the look and feel of its world merely through literary
descriptions. And no amount of description of physical characteristics can truly convey what a people and
especially a person look like. (If you gave them a detailed oral description of what Charles Bronson looks like
to a bunch of people who never saw him, each person will visualize a figure starkly different from those
imagined by others. This is, of course, the advantage of novels for those who want to fill in the characters with
their own preferred faces.) Someone who has never seen images of Asian Indian civilization and architecture
wont gain a clear mental picture from details in a book because every word is worth a thousand pictures. For
this reason, most visualizations of other cultures based on textual accounts tended to be way off the mark.
Western illustrators oftentimes projected Western norms of looks and details onto foreign worlds. Indeed, this
is why Jesus came to be depicted as a very European-looking man. Europeans also illustrated figures like

Genghis Khan and Moctezuma with distinctly Western features. And other cultures did the same thing, which is
why the Chinese and Japanese made Buddha look East Asian even though he was an Asian-Indian. In film, you
dont just get the story, the dialogue, and descriptions but the very details of another culture. In the APU
TRILOGY by Satyajit Ray, one can see the kinds of houses, dresses, foods, animals, plants, and other facts of
life that populate the Indian landscape. One can hear the cadences of Bengali language, languish to the sounds
of Indian music.
The arts can make us look beyond ideological and/or tribal commitments. Even while clinging to our biases, we
can at least acknowledge the truth of the other side. Because fiction can serve as an imagined neutral zone
between us and them(whereas no such place could exist in reality as the nature of conflict is for both sides to
focus on winning), we can let down our guard for the duration of the work and empathize/sympathize in ways
that would be hazardous in reality where any lowering of the guard can be seen as weakness and vulnerability.
(For this reason, art can be used as a sly weapon to weaken the defenses of the other side. Though art should
ideally serve to increase empathy on all sides, something that mimics art can be formulated to persuade one side
to lower its guard while urging no such obligation to the other side. Consider a movie like TO KILL A
MOCKING BIRD that seems like a mature, intelligent, and morally thoughtful work. Indeed, if it were blatant
pro-black and anti-white propaganda, few people would have been fooled by it, and its very hostile nature
would have, if anything, strengthened the defenses of whites who would have felt insulted by its overtly simple
message. But the movie was made to seem serious and weighty, as if it could well be a honest depiction of how
things really are. Thus, even some racist whites were goaded to lower their knee-jerk defenses and see things
from the other side. But in fact, its a very dishonest work because its premised on the false notion that black
males are childlike innocents who never got no mind to mess with white women, therefore, a black guy accused
of a heinous crime must have been railroaded by racists. Art is noble, whereas propaganda is lowly, but
nothing is lower than propaganda passing itself slyly as thoughtful art.) Even if the truths of our enemies are
not our truths and vice versa, we realize they too have a history, heritage, perspective, and narrative. This may
have been one reason why Jews developed a hostility toward idols. On the one hand, idols were false gods that
were an affront to the one and only true God. But the other danger of the idolatrous arts-and-culture was that
they seduced Jews towards an appreciation of other cultures and their sanctities and narratives. A Jew may
look upon Greek or Persian arts & culture, and even if he maintained his own Jewish identity and tribal
separateness, he might nevertheless be tempted toward acknowledging gentiles as the equal of Jews as human
beings with their own cultural truths that had equal validity to themselves as Jewish religion did to the Jews.
Thus, anti-idolatry among Jews wasnt just an attack on false gods of other peoples but an attack on the truths
of other cultures as well. As far as Jews were concerned, there was only one God and only one Truth, and Jews
were the keepers of that truth. Only Jews could be a true people with a true culture since their culture was
blessed by the one and only God, whereas all the other cultures developed in relation to false gods and false
idols that could have only inspired their peoples to follow false narratives.
To be sure, Jewish history see-sawed back and forth between melding with and separating from other cultures.
Generally, people tend to be most compromising when they are too badly off or too well off. When one has
nothing, ideals and principles be damned. You might even have to make a deal with the Devil himself to feed
your family. On the other hand, when one feels too powerful and privileged, one might grow lax & complacent
and become overly tolerant, as was the case with the Roman overlords in ancient times and with AngloAmericans in the 20th century. It is when a people have attained power but are still afflicted with intense
anxiety that they are most cautious about the nature of foreign influences.
If Jewish destruction of idolatry was a means to destroy and deny the truths of other cultures, the case of the
Nazism demonstrated that art can be a destructive force in its own right. For Hitler, art was not about truth or
meaning. It was a narrow vision of beauty of a particular race. Thus, the best kind of art in his mind had to
glorify and celebrate Aryan beauty. As for the arts of other cultures that served as reminders that non-Aryans
have their own truths, they had to be destroyed, at least if German Aryans were to occupy those lands. Thus,
Hitler didnt plan only to invade and conquer Russia but to raze Moscow to the ground. He wanted to erase all
reminders that the Slavic peoples also had a culture, a truth rooted in their history and heritage.
But there is another kind of art that is seriously and in principle committed to the truth, and it is this kind of art
that expands and deepens our understanding of other peoples, cultures, systems, and traditions(as well as of our
own hidden/repressed fears and desires) EVEN IF we may find them offensive or repulsive on the conscious
level of morality and politics. Such art guides us to peer into the lives of others or stare at our hidden selves
through the creative looking glass. We may detest real-life gangsters, but GOODFELLAS reveals what makes

them tick. Jews may loathe the German war machine of the World War II period, but even Jews will find
themselves acknowledging the humanity of German submarine crew. Even Zionists could learn something from
a film made by Muslims, and vice versa.
Granted, empathy can lead to sympathy, especially in a medium as powerful as cinema. Consider all the people
who found themselves rooting for the hoodlums in SOPRANOS, and this is why Hollywood generally keeps its
distance from real art. When Hollywood yammers about the need for empathy, its always about favoring
certain groups over others, never about seeking to understand all groups on the equal basis of curiosity and
honesty. When it comes to white Southerners, Jewish Hollywood either portrays them as subhuman racist
scum(as in FRIED GREEN TOMATOES or MISSISSIPPI BURNING) or as good ole boys with some
sentimental but hardly any social or moral value. Jews portray white southerners worse than D.W. Griffith
portrayed Negroes in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. (And 12 YEARS A SLAVE seems to be an act of Jewish
revenge against Mel Gibsons PASSION OF THE CHRIST by promoting white guilt related to black slavery
over Jewish guilt over the killing of the Son of God.)
For every side, genuine art is both useful and dangerous. Its useful in pressuring the other side even the
bitterest enemies to see your own people, group, or side as real people with heartfelt emotions and sincere
values(even if they differ from those of others). But, true art can never be mindless propaganda on behalf of
your own kind because its commitment to truth necessarily dredges up the problems and failings of your own
people. Furthermore, theres the danger of making your side acknowledge the humanity and justifications of the
other side(that may well be a bitter enemy), thereby weakening the resolve of your people to do battle victory or
survival.
This is why most American Jews prefer to deny the humanity of Palestinians. This is why Jews who control the
media fill our minds with images of terrorist Muzzies and defacto forbid most images of Palestinians suffering
under Jewish/Zionist domination. Jews also know that while violence is news, oppression isnt necessarily.
Violence even in a free society gets far more attention that peace under an oppressive order. Suppose there are
Nation A and Nation B. Nation A is relatively free but has lots of social violence and protests. Nation B is very
oppressive but has quiet streets. Which nation will be in the news more often and receive bad press? Nation A
since the news industry feeds on overt violence and exciting events. Israel was less oppressive toward
Palestinians in the 80s than it is today, but that led to the Intifada, and that made Israel look bad in the eyes of
the world. Even in the US with a Jew-dominated press, there were nightly images of Palestinian kids with rocks
battling Israeli soldiers with tanks and assault rifles. And things got hot in the 1990s when violence flared up
again. So, Jews decided to go heavy-handed and erect walls and use outright apartheid policies to keep
Palestinians under control. Thus, theres more peace in the West Bank as Zionist oppression has been greatly
expanded. As a result, West Bank as prison state is relatively quiet now, which means theres less violence that
attracts media attention. Though Jews yammer on and on about the need for empathy through arts and culture,
theyve politicized empathy so that certain peoples get more favorable attention than others while some are
reviled as near subhumans. Just as hate never applies to Jewish animus against gentiles, empathy never
means true empathy in the hands and hearts of Jews who run most of the art-and-culture industries. It means we
should all empathize with Jews as saints, victims, heroes, geniuses, and lovable comics but never venture to
look into the dirty side of Jewishness. True empathy means more than sympathy, especially for select groups; it
means seeing the bigger picture and the whole equation of human reality. Scorsese worked in genuine
empathetic mode with GOODFELLAS. He showed us the ins and outs of the world of Italian-American
organized crime. Scorsese made us see Italian-American hoodlums as humans but also how humans could be
anti-human with greed and sadism. But if a film were to portray the unseemly side of the Jewish community, it
would be condemned as antisemitic which was one of the reasons why THE WOLF OF WALL STREET
barely touched on the ethnic identity of Jordan Belfort who, by the way, was played by un-Jewish-looking
Leonard DiCaprio. Jews hog empathy as special sympathy for themselves. Jews can say things about other
peoples that other peoples cannot say about Jews. Jews can do stuff in finance, media, law, academia, and
government that other peoples cannot do. What Jews call empathy is empty of any value to us.

GOODFELLAS - a truly 'made' work of art

Despite all the right-wing rants about the liberal domination of arts and entertainment, much of the
respect for the left in the cultural sphere owes to individuals like Alain Resnais. While there has been plenty of
brain-dead propagandizing on the Left and simplification of issues by liberals, many people with progressive
leanings have been able, at least in areas of creativity and criticism, to favor truth(or some degree of
complexity, sophistication, and ambiguity) over one-sided propaganda, at least much more than mush-brained
Conservatives. (If American Conservatives were, at the very least, mush-brained and simpleminded in favor of
their own racial & cultural interests, it wouldnt be so bad, but the morons are usually foaming-at-the-mouth
over issues, usually pertaining to Israel, that have nothing to do with white/European well-being and, if
anything, waste the precious time and energy on the Right that should be focused on issues of Jewish-directed
racial animosity against whites IN America and the West. If youre gonna be pigheaded, at the very least do it
for the power and survival of your own kind, not for a people who are overwhelmingly and virulently antiwhite.)
The liberal and leftist view of truth is often tainted by ideological bias(but this is true of all sides), but it has
nevertheless cultivated some space for truth outside ideology. Thus, a leftist or liberal may wave the political
banner at rallies and show solidarity with the cause but, as an artist or critic, may go beyond knee-jerk reactions
and ponder the hidden complexities and depths of reality. (To be sure, there are conservatives of that sort too
especially found at The American Conservative magazine , but they tend to be a neglected, even disdained,
minority within the American Right[that relies mainly on Fox News], and furthermore, while they tend to be
appreciative of arts & culture, they lack the spark to create arts and culture that make a difference. To be sure,
there have also been a wide array of artists and entertainers who could not be pigeonholed conventionally as
right or left. Consider film-makers such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick,
David Linklater, David Mamet, David Lynch, Bob Dylan, and etc. And some famous leftists artists, such as
Elia Kazan, had their biggest detractors on the left and the biggest defenders on the right. It appears that the rise
of Political Correctness in all areas of life has narrowed the creative field for would-be artists. In the 40s and
the 50s, the conflict between the right and the left was strictly about ideology, what with liberals & leftists[who
often insisted on the party line] dominating the artistic institutions and with anti-communists trying to weed out
the political radicals. But what was political then wasnt necessarily personal and vice versa. But as the
personal increasingly became politicized since the late 60s and especially the 70s with the rise of feminism, a
persons career could eventually be destroyed for his or her views on sexuality, social relations, moral values,
and etc. that once had little to do with ideology. After all, most leftists of the 40s and 50s could today be
denounced as sexists, homophobes, racists, and etc. based on their personal lifestyles and views. To be
sure, long before the 60s as far back as anyone could remember, careers could be destroyed over non-political
matters. In earlier times, ones reputation, standing, and/or population could be ruined over infidelity[as
happened with Ingrid Bergman], rumors of homosexuality[as almost happened to Liberace], and etc. Still, those
were seen as moral issues, not necessarily political or ideological issues. Today, even the personal is held to be
political and ideological, which is why Donald Sterling was attacked as if he were the Grand Wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan over what he said, privately by the way, about his sexual hangups. For a time, from the late 60s to
the late 80s, Americans generally became more tolerant and separated the ideological from the personal, but
beginning with the rise of political correctness, the more intrusively radical ideas that had sprouted in the 60s

and 70s began to grow and spread their roots and stems throughout the institutions, indeed to the point where
professors, students, and others could be persecuted and brought down over even matters of private speech or
non-ideological musings or speculations. So, even someone like Stephanie Grace could be called out by the
dean of college for her thoughts on race and IQ in a private email. And the Jew-run media, instead of standing
up for the right of Grace to exchange her personal views, joined the university in attacking and maligning her.
In a cultural climate where even ones personal remark about homosexuality can endanger ones reputation and
career, the creative field has been narrowed to tolerate only the politically correct and the most cravenly
opportunistic. Ironically, the very Liberals who attack Elia Kazan for having betrayed his principles to further
his own career have created a system where anyone who doesnt agree with PC must lie and betray his/her own
principles and conscience in order to get a leg up in the industry. We now live in a society where anyone in
Hollywood will be blacklisted if he or she is known to have said, even privately, that homo-sex is foul and
gross. Bitchy and snotty homos demand that anyone who is critical of the homosexual lifestyle be sent to the
gallows and beheaded. And of course, this is precisely the sort of setup preferred by Jews and homos since they
can freely invoke PC to smoke out and destroy anyone with the slightest whiff of antisemitism or
homophobia. Jews and homosexuals had once led the charge in expanding creative spaces for all kinds of
eccentric voices. In order to secure greater creative freedom for themselves, they championed freedoms all
around for it would have been bad form to demand only freedom for themselves in a broad struggle against a
social order that was deemed too Waspy, too conventional, and too normal. Therefore, there was an explosion
of all kinds of views, ideas, and expressions in the late 60s and 70s. But Jews and homos soon discovered that
eccentric, fresh, and daring voices were not necessarily pro-Jewish or pro-homo. And of course, feminists
learned that new expressive freedoms were often misogynistic in arts, music, and literature; Philip Roth, for
one, wasnt a beloved figure among feminist critics and intellectuals. So, Jews, homos, and feminists found PC
useful in favoring only the kind of eccentric voices that were ideologically acceptable to their own agendas. It
would be difficult for a film like TAXI DRIVER to get the green light today. But then, what good is
eccentricity if it has to conform to PC? In some cases, the ever-multiplying strictures of correctness are turning
almost self-parodic, as with transsexuals, for instance, demanding that the feminist eccentricity of the VAGINA
MONOLOGUES be scrapped because it offends transvestites without vaginas who consider themselves to be
women. So, feminist eccentricity must be careful not to offend or exclude transsexuals. This kind of PC is
dangerous because it follows a crazy logic and has the backing of the most powerful people in the world: the
Jews. Most people are craven like Peter Keating character in Ayn Rands THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Out of 100
people, 95 are craven and only 5 have the guts to stick up for ones convictions. But being true to ones
convictions doesnt necessarily make one sane or right. After all, a Stalinist or a Holocaust-denier could be true
to his or her beliefs still be batshit crazy or ignorant. Therefore, fewer than 5 out of 100 are both principled and
right. And even fewer, maybe just one 1 out of a 100[or one out of 1,000 or 1,000,000], has the principle, the
rightness, and the talent. Its a steep uphill climb for 1 to struggle for truth against the 99 or 999,999,999 that
comprise the powers-that-be, their craven agents, and the masses of dummies.)
Granted, there is no clear cut-off line between truth-seekers and propagandists. Sometimes, the two modes
intermingle(often subconsciously); an artist or critic may seek the truth one moment, wave the flag the next
moment. Oliver Stone is an interesting case. In films such as BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, HEAVEN
AND EARTH, NIXON, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and ALEXANDER, hes shown an interest in personalities
and histories beyond simple dichotomies of good vs evil, right and wrong, us vs them. At his worst, in films
like JFK and NATURAL BORN KILLERS, Stone is either a paranoid conspiracy sensationalist or a cynical
misanthrope, but at his best, hes been a film-maker of considerable empathy and passion. It isnt difficult to
understand why Stone was drawn to ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. Other than his love of sports and cultism in
manhood, the phenomenon of pro sports was for him what Nashville was for Robert Altman. Using football as
a metaphor for American society and the game of power, the most interesting facet of ANY GIVEN SUNDAY
is the contrast between what happens on and what happens off the field. On the field, its winner-takes-all, one
team vs another team. One city cheers for one team, the other city for the other team. Its an all out war between
good and evil. Your team is good, other team is evil. You cheer for your team to crush the other team,
and it doesnt matter if you the fan think that players, coaches, and the owners are a**holes. Its your team and
you root for your side. And people of the other city feel likewise. Thats how politics works. Its possible that
most Conservatives dont have much respect for Republican politicians, and most Liberals dont much care for
Democratic politicians. But politics-as-played is like sports, and you mindlessly cheer for your side to beat the
other side. Its about winning, and you dont really care how your side wins as long as it doesnt get caught
cheating. Stone, like everyone else, roots for his side. He may not like the leaders of his side, but everyone
needs to belong to a team. Politics is about take-no-prisoners and give-no-breaks. Your side is right, other side

is wrong, and come crunch time, the other side must be crushed.
In contrast to politics, theres long been a tradition in journalism, scholarship/academia, and the arts(especially
literature) that favors objective truth over subjective bias or tribal/ideological bias. Thus, even if youre a
liberal reporter, you have a journalistic obligation to report the dirt on the liberal side. Even if youre a
conservative biographer, you should reveal the darker side of conservative figures and the conservative
movement. Even if youre a conservative or liberal novelist, you need to empathize with all the characters, even
those you despise, instead of filling up the novel with one-dimensional angels and devils.
Until relatively recently, the ideal of American journalism was to be objective. Of course, it never was. There
was the history of yellow journalism, tabloid journalism, propagandistic news reels, and the like as evidence of
how tainted journalism always was. Even so, it was the ideal of objectivity and truth in media and academia
as well as in justice that fueled reform and progress in newspapers and universities. Initially, the standard of
objectivity was a great boon to social reformers and liberals since much of the media was owned by
conservative tycoons and much of the academia used to be relatively conservative(and wasp-dominated) at one
point. There was a time when a liberal needed only to be objective in reporting the problems of the social order
to be subversive and radical. Simply by reporting on the living conditions of American blacks and American
Indians, one could demonstrate that US failed to live up to its promises. One needed only to dryly report on the
privilege and corruption among Wasp elites to show how some people were more equal than others. John
Hersey needed only to report objectively about the bombing of Hiroshima to make Americans rethink the
decision to drop the bomb. Even during the FDR and Truman(and Kennedy) yrs, America was, more or less, a
morally and culturally conservative society where certain matters were not discussed. There was a time when
the mere objective discussion of homosexuality would have been a challenge to the social status quo even
among liberals. In a society where even the relatively liberal medical/psychiatric institution portrayed homos as
mentally sick perverts, the dryly objective observation that homos are born homo could be a challenge to
conventional wisdom or official doctrine. But as liberals gained greater power over the media and academia,
objectivity became an hindrance to their agendas that became ever more ambitious indeed more so as Jews
and homos, two most neurotically restless and aggressive groups, entered the media and academia in increasing
numbers. If conservative had suppressed objective facts that undermined conservative biases, liberals with
expanded powers were annoyed with objective standing in the way of their social vision. Just like free speech
had once been an advantage to the Left when it came under attack during the peak of the Cold War but then
turned sour when it came to protect reactionary criticism of the progressives elites, objectivity went from a
hammer of the liberals to a ball-and-chain around their ankles. Once their powers had greatly expanded, liberals
were no longer interested in using the truth to challenge the dominant biases of conservative society; instead,
their primary interest became the Agenda and the Narrative to be enforced with messianic will. Objective truths
about racial and sexual differences stood in the way of the Liberal mission(especially as it was dominated by
devious Jews who were using Liberalism to topple white power for the sake of Jewish supremacism). Liberals
and leftists attacked objectivity on the grounds that it was a intellectual concept cooked up by Dead White
Males in order to gain and maintain dominance around the world. Since West became synonymous with science
and since science became synonymous with objective truth, the spread of Western dominance came to be
equated with the spread of truth and the extinguishment of superstitions of non-whites people still stuck in the
dark ages. Thus, science, rationalism, and objectivity became the new justification for white racism and
imperialism. If the West initially justified its aggressive expansion around the world on the basis if spreading
Christianity and the Word of God to the benighted peoples across the seas, the new rationale in the Age of
Reason became the Wests monopolization of objective truth and the burden of sharing it with the rest of the
world. Since European Imperialists claimed ownership of universal truth based on objective methodology of
science, they felt justified in their power over their colonial subjects. Since even racism was advanced and
discussed in terms of scientific theory, it too could be used to gain control over the other races. If racial theory
was indeed scientific and could demonstrate that whites constituted the superior or most advanced race, then it
only made objective sense for whites to gain dominance over the world and rule over the rest of mankind who
would presumably benefit from Western wisdom, leadership, and talent.
Especially with the rise of cultural studies and multi-culturalism, the ideal of objectivity(which was so closely
associated with the West) came under attack. To be sure, the Left was somewhat schizophrenic on this matter.
When politically competing with the Western Right, the Left continued to invoke Reason and Objectivity as
their rationale for progress. It argued that the Left stood for science, secularism, reason and logic, and the
discrediting of false science of racism and the reactionary superstitions of religion. In contrast, the Western
Right was associated with religious bigotry, customs and traditions irrelevant in the modern era, and tribal

biases that resisted universal truth of the brotherhood-of-man as posited by the Enlightenment. But when the
Left discussed the non-white world, it switched gears and warned people NOT to judge non-whites and the nonWest with the same yardstick used for whites. Judging non-whites on the basis of the principles of Reason and
Objectivity would be Euro-centric and insensitive to the diverse truths of their own cultures. And this weird
kind of double-standard came to apply not only to different cultures and races but to different social groups.
Consider homosexuals, today the most favored group after the Jews. Liberals laugh at the Christian Rights
notion of Creationism and bogus pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design. And Liberals express
outrage at unscientific and anti-biological claims by a Republican politician who said a woman who is raped
cannot become pregnant. But when it comes to the ridiculous notion of gay parents, liberals throw science,
biology, and objectivity out the window. So devoted are they to the gay agenda that they make believe that
homos can be parents. Of course, Liberals know that homo sex cannot biologically produce a child. Even the
most hardline Liberal knows that a man fecal-penetrating another man cannot produce a life-form via the
process of inseminating a piece of turd lodged up a mans anus. And no Liberal believes that two lesbians can
produce a child by poon-grinding one another.
Of course, Liberals can argue that there is a CULTURAL meaning to being a parent. After all, some biological
parents feel no love for their kids while adoptive parents may play an admirable role as caring guardians. Even
so, theres something disingenuous about Liberal claims because they dont merely assume that two homos can
play the role of parents. Liberal media would have us believe that two lesbians are having a baby. Having a
baby and raising a baby are two different things. While the non-biological adoptive parent can raise a child that
is not his or hers, the term having means that the individuals aforementioned produced the baby together.
Liberals have used corrupt terminology to make us wanna believe that two lesbians really did produce a girl
named Heather or two homo men really did produce a boy named Harry. Of course, Liberals and we know that
such things never happened and never can happen, but still, terminology in media and academia pressures us to
make believe that homos are indeed having children together. Its like HANDMAIDS TALE where a
younger woman is made to produce a baby for an older woman who then pretends that she herself had the
child.
When it came to attacking the Religious Right, liberals and leftists insisted on the biological facts of life. But
when it came to serving the homo elites, Liberals and leftists smothered the truth of biology to make us
believe that two lesbians or two homo men really had a child together. In truth, all children are produced by
man and a woman. So, if we are to make believe that two lesbians had the child together, it means we must
force ourselves to treat the actual father as a non-person. And if we are to make believe that two homo men
had a child together, we must force ourselves to believe that actual mother is invisible or non-existent. The
existence of the real father and real mother who produced the child is objective proof that gays having
children is a lie, a fraud, a fantasy, a fairytale. (Even if the sperm or the egg was donated and provided through
a third party, the child is still the product of a man and a woman. Its like even if I buy tomatoes from a
middleman grocer, they were still grown by a farmer.) The media are now playing Handmaids Tale for the
neo-aristocratic homo lobby closely allied with and protected by the Jewish Lobby, the most powerful in
America. But then, most of the media and academia are owned and controlled by elitist Jewish Supremacists.
The best argument one can make against objectivity is its often been used as cover for an ideological agenda,
and indeed, its easy to mistake the objective style for objectivity itself.
BBC, PBS, and NPR, for instance, generally convey an objective style though not always, as evinced in their
use of manipulative music, loaded words, and/or narration in documentaries but they almost always push a
Liberal agenda. Even the term liberal is problematic as most liberals are capital L liberals who care more
about the agenda than about open-mindedness and genuine liberality. Few Liberals agree with Voltaires
words(by the way of Evelyn Beatrice Hall), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it." Most Liberals now push for laws such as those in Britain, Sweden, and France that will fine,
blacklist, and/or lock up anyone who is critical of Jewish power or homosexuality.
Though pure or absolute objectivity in the workings of social reality is impossible, we need to make distinction
between objectivity as ideal/goal and objectivity as cover/rationale. Some people try their personal best to be
objective and admit to errors and prejudices on their side. But others only feign objectivity to hide what is a
really an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Consider the many Jews who put on airs of dry academics while
conspiring with their tribal brethren in the media and government to steer events around the world to serve
Jewish interests.

Consider how neocon history professor Donald Kagans son, Robert Kagan, is married to Victoria Nuland the
neocon hag witch who messed up Ukraine. This isnt to say Donald Kagan got together with Nuland in a dim-lit
room to hatch out a plan but only to suggest that most Jews wink-wink see eye to eye on issues of the world.
Though Jewish-controlled US government messed things up in Ukraine, notice how the globalist media(also
controlled by Jews) have been beating the war drums against Russia. Its been a Jewish War on Russia all
along, just like it had been Barzini whod been behind the War against the Corleones all along in THE
GODFATHER. Jews want to shut down free speech as hate speech because they are afraid of people calling
out on Jewish supremacist foulness.
Theres a lot of bogus objectivity on the anti-left-sphere as well. Many(though far from all) Libertarians, for
example, are really white interest advocates who prefer libertarianism because they see it as being advantageous
to whites with higher IQ. If the Rule of Law and/or meritocracy judges everyone fairly and equally, then
smarter whites will generally prevail over others. But if the average black and Hispanic IQ were 120 while the
average white IQ were 90, many white Libertarians would no longer embrace their ideology; theyd probably
call for affirmative action for whites. (Indeed, many whites who oppose affirmative action that favors blacks
and Hispanics over white non-Hispanic whites tend to prefer affirmative action for whites vis-a-vis AsianAmericans. Whites complain that whereas blacks and Hispanics dont try too hard, Asians try too hard.)
Similarly, Jews recycle many objective facts not so much in the service of objectivity but to favor their Jewish
Supremacist agenda. What Jews remind us about the violence and discrimination against blacks in the
American South is objectively true. But if Jews are really into all-around objectivity, why do they suppress
objective facts about black violence and crimes against whites? Why do they intimidate those who discuss
objective facts of racial differences? Consider what happened to Jimmy the Greek for saying that blacks are
biologically favored in football because theyre naturally stronger.
Therefore, every instance of objectivity gains different shades of meaning depending on the context. If we
objectively focus ONLY on the carpet-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, then those would seem as unconscionable acts where entire civilian populations, including womenold folks-babies, were indiscriminately destroyed.
However, if we see those factually detailed events in the context of the larger war, they become rationalized, if
not fully justified, as military strategies or acts of vengeance. Thus, the relationship between objectivity and
contextuality is not an easy one. The reason why the Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman incident became
such a hot topic was that the Jew-run media reported a single objective fact(Zimmerman killed Martin) minus
other objective facts and the larger context within which they happened. Its true that George Zimmerman shot
the unarmed Trayvon Martin to death, and if thats all you know about the case, Zimmerman would seem to be
a murderer. But the media downplayed the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten to death and shot Martin in
self-defense. Media suppressed the fact that Zimmermans neighborhood had been robbed many times by black
males, and therefor, Zimmerman had every reason to be suspicious of a black guy lurking about. The media
used objectivity in the most selective and devious way. They reported on Zimmerman as white, but even
though Zimmermans father is white, his mother is of mixed-race, and Zimmernan doesnt look like a
stereotypical white person. Objectively, Zimmerman is part white, but the media initially spun it simply as
white, finally settling on white Hispanic, which is rather amusing since even blue-eyed and blonde-haired
Hispanics in America are allowed to pose as people of color and generally not referred to as white by the
Jew-run Media. Also, while its true that Martin was not armed with a weapon(he was said to have been armed
with only skittles), he was using his bare fists as weapons on Zimmermans head that suffered a broken nose
and bleeding skull. The media also deleted certain words Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman
said the suspect was black when he was asked of the race, but the media edited the track to sound as if
Zimmerman was on the hunt for a black guy. Zimmermans lawsuit was rejected by the court, which should tell
you how the legal power structure is really run in this country. (Btw, if Zimmerman really had his heart set on
killing a black guy any black guy that night, why did he call 911? Why not just sneak up on the Negro
and shoot him?) Anyway, the thing is everything the media reported about the incident was, more or less,
factually true but willfully and selectively constructed to be misleading. If Bob is half black and half white and
if he uses a knife to defend himself against a fully black James who is punching and kicking him and has a bag
of cookies in the back pocket(and if, in the struggle, James dies of knife wounds), it would be factually and
objectively accurate to say that white Bob stabbed the unarmed black James armed only with a bag of
cookies?
But it would leave out the fact that Bob is only half-white and was being pummeled nearly to death by James
who was using his fists as weapons. Given the nature of contextuality, objective facts can take on all sorts of

significance. Also, reality is such that there are countless objective facts surrounding any incident or social
phenomenon. Which ones do you choose to play with? Even when both sides agree on the same objective facts,
they may differ on conclusions due to different perspectives and contexts. Today, most Israelis have come
around to admitting that massive ethnic cleansing(known as the Nakba) did take place in the creation of Israel,
but they still justify the creation of Israel as having been necessary on the basis of the Holocaust, Jewish
historical claim to the Holy Land, and Arab intransigence in reaching a settlement when Palestine was divided
in two by the international community(dominated by US and USSR).
Jews often say Arabs attacked Jews first following the partition, but then, Arabs can say that the artificial
division of Palestine by the UN was a violent act of imposition against Arabs. I mean how would Polish people
like it if the international community divided Poland in two and have one half to the Turks or Chinese? We
wouldnt expect any people to accept or submit to such intrusion on their territory and rights as a people, but for
some reason, the Jewish-dominated media in this country would have us believe that Palestinians should have
accepted the deal that was force upon them by the UN in 1948. Its all the more amusing if we recall that most
American Jews believe America was the bad guy in Vietnam War. Jews say that Americans and Europeans had
NO RIGHT in dividing Vietnam in half, making the south anti-communist and using it as a client state against
communist North Vietnam. Therefore, according to Jewish liberals and leftists, the North Vietnamese, the true
patriots in the conflict, had every right to carry out a ruthless war of terror and attrition against South Vietnam
in order to drive out the imperialist Americans. But for some reason, the same Jews insist that it was wrong for
Palestinians to rise up in 1948 and challenge the artificial division of their country by the great powers. At least
in the case of Vietnam, even the southern part still remained Vietnam and was populated by the Vietnamese.
What happened with Palestine was infinitely worse. It was divided in two and one-half was declared officially
Jewish, which meant that Palestinians in Jewish areas would become second-class citizens in what had been
their homeland for over a thousand years.

So, in consideration of all these factors, objectivity is a problem-riddled principle in the attainment of
truth. Human truth is not so much in the facts as in the interpretation of facts, in the emotional attachments and
in the grand narratives spun from them. Steven Spielbergs MUNICH is a piece of fictionalization of real
events, but even if everything in the film were factually true, its use of context justifies Jewish violence over
Palestinian violence. (Indeed, just consider the title that focuses our attention on the attack on Jewish athletes in
a city in Germany, the nation associated with the Holocaust.) Because the story of Mossad violence is framed in
relation to acts of Palestinian terrorism, Zionist violence is defacto rationalized and justified. But suppose the
film had begun with the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Then, Palestinian act of terrorism might seem
justified, just like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima are thought to have been justified because Germany
and Japan started the war.

Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner's bogus 'objective' movie about tit-for-tat violence between Jews and
Arabs.
American Conservatives are fools because they fail to understand the power of contextuality. They see
some Jewish conservatives on their side and make believe that Jews are their friends. They stupidly and
willfully ignore the larger context of Jewish power, i.e. most Jews hate white conservatives and tolerate only
castrated white Liberals who roll over and play fetch and sign onto monstrosities like gay marriage. Jews only
tolerate whites who are easy dupes of the globalist Zionist agenda. As conservatives arent as easy to sway as
white Liberals are, one might think theyre smarter and more skeptical, but this isnt true. (Incidentally, as Jews
have realized that white conservative tribal instincts are ineradicable, those passions have been channeled
toward waving the Israeli flag than the white power flag. Since white Conservatives have a lot of muffled pentup rage due to its alleged racist content, they are grateful to allowed total lack of restraint in their pro-Zionist
hatred of Arabs and Muslims and Russians and sometimes Chinese.) The main reason why most American
Conservatives resist the Jewish-led social agenda is as stupid as to why white Liberals bend over to it. If white
Liberals are PC-brainwashed drones who will bend over to whatever globalist Jews put before them notice
how they werent for gay marriage but then quickly changed their mind soon after Jews unleashed an endless
barrage of homo propaganda through media and academia , many white Conservatives are brain-dead
Christian Right types who stick with Old Truths mainly out of a fear of anything new or different. As for
Libertarians, they live in a fantasy land where legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling can solve all
problems. Libertarians believe that the main reason for the demise of Detroit and Gary(Indiana) was too much
socialism and lack of free markets! As most Jews are Liberal, they must be socialist and anti-wealth. Then,
why are Jews the richest people in America? Texas is pretty conservative and has few regulations. Then, how
come it has so many poor blacks who are just as problematic as the ones in Detroit or Gary? Libertarians
pretend to be courageous objective/rational thinkers in accordance with facts and logic, but they are mostly
cowards hiding behind abstractions mistaken for facts abfactions. They are afraid to touch on the truly
important subject of racial differences, and so they opt for principles of freedom and liberty. But given the
reality of racial differences, white Libertarians and almost all of them are white must know deep down
inside that total freedom under equal treatment of the law will generally favor whites over non-whites.
But Libertarians pretend that the only thing they care about is principles and that these principles will be
universally good for individuals of all races(as race is just a social construct). Of course, Libertarians do have
a point. Blacks and Hispanics do have something to gain by embracing greater sense of individual
responsibility, freedom, and initiative. Instead of relying on the State to provide them with everything, people
of all races have much to gain by focusing on individual input. And Libertarians do believe in the rule of law
and, furthermore, argue that negative consequences of poor decisions will help deter individuals from doing
dumb things in the future. (But then, the libertarian argument in favor of gambling an industry prized by
Jews since they get to rake in billions from suckers from around the world undermines its own logic. If
indeed individuals can be trusted to make smart/sensible decisions following negative consequences of stupid
choices, why doesnt the gambling industry go out of business? Surely, most people who gamble lose money,
and in most cases, the more they gamble, the more money they lose. So, why do so many people keep gambling
despite all the negative consequences of their decisions? So much for individuals making rational decisions
based on negative consequences of their behavior. If libertarianism is indeed correct about human nature, then
gambling industries would have gone out of business long ago as most people who lost money would have quit
the habit. If anything, the addiction to gambling is about making perpetual losses seem like fresh chances for

winning. Consider the gambling addictions in ATLANTIC CITY and MURIEL. They are not about rationality.)
Libertarians ignore one key facet of human nature: a lot of people are morons, more emotional beings than
rational beings. If Libertarianism allows maximum freedom for people to indulge in drugs, gamble, prostitution,
and the like, then many people will become so addicted to wantonness that theyll fail to cultivate the kind of
character that strengthens their inner-core to make the right decision. If everyone had the resolve of Ron Paul,
libertarianism might work. With rock solid core values, Ron Paul remained married to one woman and never
used dangerous narcotics even as he called for greater freedom of choice. But too many people are not like Ron
Paul, and unfettered access to all sorts of narcotics and vices are likely to coarsen their characters, infantilize
their behavior, and ruin their lives. (Our culture of wantonness has turned Wall Street into a mega-casino where
Jews exploit the global market to rake in trillions from everyone who get suckered by one bubble after another.)
For most people ranging from middle class to underclass, the best ideology is neo-fascism. Before people can
be free and responsible as individuals, they must be conditioned, trained, educated, disciplined, and shaped into
thinking civilized beings with core values and set of sacred truths. Without the cultural, historical, and moral
bedrock, even smart people are likely to develop destructive and/or decadent habits.
A libertarian fantasy might be something like the film M*A*S*H where the surgeons mess around, talk shit all
day, tease and taunt women, and break all the square rules BUT still manage to be sterling characters and get
the job done. The film suggests that since the surgeons are so funny and smart, they dont have to play by the
same rules as the rest of us. Its like the Counterculture version of the Nietzschean Superman. No matter what
they do harass womenfolk, talk a nurse into having sex with a suicidal guy who think hes gay, ridicule
Faith, dope a kid, use blackmail, inject the opposing team member with drugs, and etc. , its cool and hip
since they are politically liberal and behaviorally libertarian. And of course, their victims are made out to be
strawman targets, just a bunch of lame squares, hypocrites, dupes, and dullards(who deserve whats coming to
them). M*A*S*H is a truly despicable film. It is sanctimonious but preaches against sanctimony. It is bullying
and nasty but sermonizes against bullying and nastiness. It is full of verve and spontaneity but foul just the
same.
What may appeal to Libertarians about the film is the notion that if you just allow people to be free, everything
will fall into its place because, after all, even as the anarchic Hawkeye, Trapper, and their cronies turn the army
hospital upside down with their endless antics, everything and everyone somehow turn out better for it.

M*A*S*H by Robert Altman. 'Anarchism' that is too good to

be true.
Like THE LONGEST YARD and THE BAD NEWS BEARS that surely drew inspiration from it,
M*A*S*H was a sign of the times as America was undergoing major shifts in its social values and cultural
attitudes. (The TV sitcom ALL IN THE FAMILY also captured this national mood that was actually far more
contradictory than thought at the time. The conventional view of the messy, disorderly, and anarchic
hippie/rebel versus the orderly, uptight, and square members of the older generation was only half-correct,
especially pertaining to affluent wasp families. On the one hand, the younger generation of boomers was indeed
frustrated with social controls and repressions that held back their yearning for freedom in sex, drugs, and rock
n roll. But on the other hand, the boomers were really upset over the fact that their parents[especially if working
class and/or ethic] were often boorish, rough, wild, and barbaric when it came to cultural sensibility, social
graces, and racial attitudes. Though Meathead may have long hair and beard, he is actually very meticulous
about issues of right and wrong, much more so than Archie Bunker who has more of a mercenary and street-

smart view of humanity. Though hippies and counterculture folks sometimes over-indulged in their liberties
and made a mess of things, the true ideal of the movement was for people to be groovy, cool, harmonious,
brotherly, and full of good vibes. It was spiritualist than tribalist. In contrast, most of the greatest generation
never developed refined tastes, appreciation of arts & culture, sophistication, or some dream of a perfect
society. Their moral values mostly consisted of conventions they grew up with. It wasnt something they
thought about or idealized. It was customary than conscientious. So, even as the one side of boomers rebelled
against the uptight squareness of their parents, another side actually resented and were embarrassed about the
fact that their parents were such rough, uncultured, and messy slobs and barbarians. When Archie and
Meathead get into an argument, we arent always sure who is supposed to be the barbarian. Meathead may
sometimes seem like the barbarian-at-the-gate, but Archie often seems the barbarian-in-the-castle; Meathead
seems like an uptight moral crusader trying to bring order and light into the castle run by a barbarian king with
potty mouth and lack of social graces, such as burping, sitting around like a slob, and mispronouncing words.
Its no wonder that as soon as the boomers grew up and found economic success and social status, they put on
airs and turned into prissy social puritans especially with Political Correctness that concocted endless
rules about seatbelts, smoking, drinking, forbidden words, using education as indoctrination, and etc.) But
despite its spirit of spontaneity and free-wheeling madness, it is disingenuously formulated to push all the right
buttons on us. It is more manipulative than liberating. If a movie like GREEN BERETS(with John Wayne)
made Americans mindlessly wave the flag and respect authority, M*A*S*H made the audience mindlessly
cheer for its anti-establishment heroes. Unlike a true work of satire, it drowned you in laughter than pricked you
with clarity. If M*A*S*H was merely content to be mindless in its anarchy like ANIMAL HOUSE or
STRIPES , it could be enjoyed as honest trash, but it pretends to say something about the System,
Vietnam(with Korea as allegory), Freedom, and Truth. Ring Lardner and Robert Altmans message in a
nutshell may have been "Dont judge a book by its cover", i.e. though Hawkeye(Donald Sutherland) and Elliott
Gould(Trapper) act like clowns, they are dedicated surgeons and decent human beings and, when push comes to
shove, they do the right thing... whereas the self-righteous pricks and prigs talk a good game but are really full
of themselves.

But the problem is Hawkeye and Trapper arent merely ragged around the covers but smudged from page
to page. Some of the stuff they do in the film cannot be justified on any grounds; they are simply mean and
nasty, even downright cruel. If your child needed brain surgery, you wouldnt be making an appointment with
either. The rough guy with the heart of gold is as hoary a cliche as the hooker with one. Not that such people
dont exist, but it fails as a standard truism about life.
We can certainly understand the appeal of M*A*S*H, especially to the Jewish audience. Upper-crust Wasps
had better manners and more refined demeanor whereas lots of Jews were wily and vulgar. Even so, many
vulgar Jews lacking in social graces made better lawyers, doctors, and scientists than their counterparts in the
well-heeled Wasp world. Einstein always looked kinda casual and messy, but he was a greater scientist than
most German scientists with clean uniforms and combed hair. Muhammad Ali acted the clown but was maybe
the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. Bob Dylan and many Rockers in the 60s looked rough and crude but made
more brilliant and exciting music than musicians who stuck with conventions and/or traditions. Its like the
Mozart-and-Salieri dichotomy in AMADEUS. (Or its like the Toshiro Mifune character in SANJURO, though
something of a social outcast, is truer in ethics and talent than most of the respectable men of the
establishment.) So, there developed the cult of authenticity and being real. Real substance was about your
ability than your image. (Movies like BROADCAST NEWS and QUIZ SHOW perpetuated the Judeo-centric
narrative that Wasps were favored for their image over the Jews who were actually superior in ability.) A
doctor could look unprofessional on the outside but be a great doctor where it counts in the surgery room,
whereas another doctor could look ideal in manner and demeanor but be a second-rater as a doctor. One could

argue that first-raters shouldnt care about the look-of-things since their worth can be proven with
demonstration of talent; in contrast, second-raters must rely more on appearances and impressions as masks of
dignity and sobriety to hide their relative lack of talent.
This may be true enough in certain cases, but the problem of M*A*S*H is it conflates roughness and vulgarity
with worth and talent. While its true enough that Ali acted the clown but was a great boxer and Bob Dylan
acted the jerk but was a great rock artist, it doesnt follow that clownishness and jerk-like behavior are, in and
of themselves, virtues associated with talent. In other words, a book can have a crappy cover and a great story,
but it doesnt follow that any book with a crappy cover tells a great story.
Indeed, more likely than not, a vulgar and rough person will generally be worse at what they do than a wellorganized and neat person. One of the tragedies of the Sixties is that it went FROM rough-on-the-outside-canbe-good-on-the-inside TO rough-on-the-outside-IS-good-on-the-outside, and M*A*S*H was a prime specimen
of such fallacious and slovenly thinking.
But was it really a case of slovenly thinking, or was Ring Lardner Jr.(its writer) just being willfully subversive
out of contempt? As a member of the communist-sympathizing Hollywood Ten, he couldnt have been for
anarchy and libertarian freedom. His rebellion against the American government was predicated on his
ideological affinity with the International Left with its conformist dogmas. Lardner didnt defy the government
in the name of freedom but out of his greater loyalty to the Cause. He certainly expressed no sympathy for the
millions of victims of communism, the most totalitarian ideology of the 20th century(and maybe in human
history), so the libertarian-ish freewheeling on display in M*A*S*H is suspect.
To be sure, its possible that what passed for leftism in Lardners case(he was born in 1915) was simply of a
different order than what later came to be associated with progressive attitudes. By todays standards, most
American leftists and communists of the first 2/3 of the 20th century would probably be thought of as racist,
sexist, homophobic, male chauvinist, reactionary, male dominated, and etc. Let us remember that
Ernest Hemingway was thought to be a leftist in his day. And even a lifelong liberal like Harold Bloom got in
hot water a few times for his comments about blacks, homos, and feminists. From Lardners point of view, the
bad boy antics in his screenplay might have been the means by which to ruffle the feathers of conservative
American society. Today, with Liberals holding sway over the cultural system and enforcing its politically
correct new norms and with many Conservatives all-too-comfortable with vulgarity and even embracing it
in stuff like FAMILY GUY, SOUTHPARK, and KING OF THE HILL as an affront to Liberal pieties and
sensitivities , roughhouse antics may now seem more offensive to the Left than to the Right. After all, its
Liberals who now throw conniptions about people saying, sharing, or tweeting the wrong thing. Paula Deens
show was canceled when it was revealed that she had said nigger in a private conversation long ago after
being robbed by a Negro. And its Liberals who rake Pop Culture over the coals to burn all the gay jokes.
Homos are the new puritanical prigs who cannot abide by any jokes made about them, and Jews are even more
fervent in going after anti-Semites than Joseph McCarthy was in going after communists. Of course, an antiSemite today could be anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power. Indeed, Jews are even planning to enact laws
that would forbid criticism of Jewish power. Such laws already exist in Europe, and most Jews in America are
fully supportive of them and want the likes of Obama to fill the Supreme Court with more Liberals so that the
First Amendment of the Constitution will no longer protect speech that dares to spill the beans on Jewish
power. Of course, even without such laws, anyone who dares to sound the alarm on Jewish Power has no
chance of making it in politics, business, law, and academia since Jews have a lock on all the elite institutions.
Given the hostility of most Jews toward conservatism, youd think American conservatives would logically
play the role in countering Jewish power, but most American conservatives are fools and idiots who harbor this
fantasy that Jews like them. (Jewish pushers of hate speech legislation complain about group defamation,
but then, all general statements about any group could be construed as such. After all, if one says, "Germans
invaded Poland", one is defaming Germans since not all Germans supported Hitler and even many who did
support him didnt necessarily support his war plans. All general statements about any race, any religious
group, or any nation are bound to be defame the group since no single statement about any group can apply to
every one of its member. If one says "Americans firebombed Dresden" or "Americans invaded Iraq", what
about all those Americans who had nothing to do with the bombing of Germany[or may even have opposed it]
and what about all the Americans who opposed the Bush Doctrine and its application in the Middle East? And
the statement "whites enslaves blacks" could also be said to be group-defaming since most whites didnt own
slaves, and many white immigrants arrived in America long after slavery was ended. And surely, the term
white privilege could be said to be a case of group-defamation since it doesnt apply to most whites. Indeed,
even if whites in general had been favored by the law and the powers-that-be through much of American
history, it still doesnt follow that most Americans were privileged. Most Americans, even if favored racially

for jobs and positions, had to eke out a living working on farms, in factories, in coal mines, on railroads, and
etc. Suppose white workers are favored over non-white workers for janitorial jobs. Does being a white janitor
make the white person privileged? Its like many illegal aliens have been favored by amnesty but that doesnt
mean that they are privileged like Jewish children born to millionaire lawyers.)

There's no limit to sheepish conformist stupidity, especially among self-righteous and naive young white
people brainwashed by PC controlled by Jews.
Despite Alain Resnais assured standing in the film community, most of his films(with the possible
exception of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD) failed to generate long-term interest as subjects of discussion
and veneration among cinephiles. One possible reason is that most of his films have eluded categorization as to
what theyre about. One could argue Time and Memory have been recurring themes in Resnais films, but his
films leave the impression of the illusory, fleeting, and deceptive nature of time and memory, which, by their
very nature, are intangibles difficult to ascertain and locate. Furthermore, Resnaiss approach was like
quicksilver than metallurgy. He didnt pull fish out of the water and turn them into trophies; he captured their
movements through wavy waters or split-second leaps into the air.