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-these-things-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-too-explicable, 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 anti-normative 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-on-social-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 deal-making, 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 pure-hearted 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 anti-homosexual 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 kind-hearted 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 fast-changing 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 self-interest. 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-goat-and-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 self-aggrandizement 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 powers-that-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 homo-sanctity 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 mutt-nation. 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