Monday, March 9, 2020

Commentary on Trevor Lynch's Review of THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY & PURPLE NOON — Why the RIPLEY Tale may be more Relevant to Our Times than BRAVE NEW WORLD & 1984

Trevor Lynch(aka Greg Johnson):

It is (Anthony) Minghella’s best-directed film: an unapologetically Eurocentric, absolutely voluptuous vision of Italy at its most beautiful and America at its civilizational peak.

Not sure what that means within the context of the movie's setting. LA DOLCE VITA lifestyle on display seems more exotic and eccentric than Euro-centric. What is Dickie(Jude Law)’s main passion? Jazz. Most of his worldly gods are black, and he has no sense of responsibility, no sense of obligation except to oneself. The only thing that is sincere about him, apart from his genuine love of fun, is his feelings for his fiancee.
Otherwise, he's all about unfettered individualism and self-indulgence, even as he mooches off his respectable workaholic father. In the novel, his passion is painting, but in the movie it was changed to Jazz, which I suppose is more cinematic and exciting for the soundtrack. Tom Ripley is another moocher, or a moocher of a moocher. Dickie and Ripley are perfect avatars of the soulless new Western Man. The post-war boom was certainly not the civilizational peak for it elevated materialism and ‘self-actualization’ as the highest goals of life. By the way, it is a terrific movie, one of the most intelligent to come out of Hollywood.

An odd thing. Even though THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is superior(or at least equal) to PURPLE NOON in just about every department — in acting, script, plotting, RIPLEY is superior, and in cinematography, it holds its own — , PURPLE NOON is the greater film, the one with classic status. Why would this be? Because cinema is more about magic than data. In its parts, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is hard to beat as suspense, thriller, mystery, and even dark romance. The acting is only adequate in PURPLE NOON and the plotting is perfunctory. There isn’t much to Ripley's psychology as Alain Delon plays him. Still, PURPLE NOON has a mesmerizing quality lacking in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. The ‘remake’ is more like a maze, the Rene Clement film is like a dream. You have to follow every twist and turn to make sense of THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY and enjoy it — and it is immensely enjoyable –, whereas you can forget about everything and drift away with the romantic daze of PURPLE NOON.

Still, two remarkable works based on the same novel. Rare in cinema for a novel to produce one good movie. But two is a charmer.

Another fine adaptation and with Warren Beatty as a budding star with real charisma(before he got a bit sappy) is ALL FALL DOWN, an early work by John Frankenheimer.

Bardon Kaldian:

In arts & sciences, there is no rational way of listing achievements. And in film- even less so.

That’s why it’s not a rational argument. I said, based on ‘objective’ criteria, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is the better work. It is a polished well-oiled machine that runs smoothly from start to finish. It's like a perfect mechanical shark. Also, it offers much food for thought. If we go down the checklist of technical wonders, it’s hard to beat THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.

And yet, there is a quality to PURPLE NOON that works like a daydream, especially with its bronze glinted images, Delon’s quiet intensity, and the tone of fatalism in the otherwise sentimental melody.

Clearly, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY was made as a middlebrow art film — one of the best of its kind — , whereas PURPLE NOON was made as a star vehicle. The latter’s priority was to make Delon look devastating, and boy, did it ever succeed.

Another thing. THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is pretty high on verisimilitude. As outlandish as the plot is, we can believe we’re watching real people in real places in a real time in history.
In contrast, there is an added layer of fantasy to PURPLE NOON because Frenchmen are playing Americans. The effect is almost surreal, like a mirage.

Trevor Lynch:

Critical reputations change over time. Purple Noon has a 39-year head start.

THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY got pretty good marks when it came out, and it is still probably a much-respected movie. (In contrast, no one seems to care much about THE ENGLISH PATIENT anymore.) However, it may be problematic for two reasons in the Current Year. Ripley is a homosexual psycho, an arguably 'homophobic' detail that may offend certain well-placed people in the arts and entertainment. While Ripley is presented with empathy(at times bordering on audience identification as his daring feats play to the closeted-striver in all of us) and is far from being a flaming stereotype, in our day and age when globo-homo is like a substitute religion the notion of a narcissistic pathological homo psycho may not go over well.

The other reason is PURPLE NOON was released at a legendary time in film history. Oddly enough, Rene Clement, the director of the masterpiece FORBIDDEN GAMES, had long been viciously attacked by New Wave critics. He was pigeonholed as an old-fashioned stuffy ‘films of quality’ director. And yet, he made one of the most fabulous films to start the decade and, if only for a brief moment, he made the young turks eat their words. I wonder if PURPLE NOON had any influence on KNIFE IN THE WATER(dir. Roman Polanski) that came out two years later. At any rate, PURPLE NOON belongs to a class of films that came out when Cinema Mattered. In 1960, Cinema was appealing and exciting as the art form as yet least touched by modernism(thus spared its worst excesses) and yet also one that was most fertile for modernist exploration. It was both the virgin and the fresh whore of the art world, perhaps best exemplified by Luis Bunuel's VIRIDIANA. It was there to be undressed and violated. Other more traditional art forms such as literature, music, painting, and sculpture were already old whores as far as modernism was concerned. They'd been used and abused.


Frankly, it sounds entirely too gay for me. I get enough queer this and queer that that I can not avoid, wading through the sewage that is contemporary culture.

It has a homo character but the movie isn’t ‘gay’ in the tutti-fruity sense. It’s not BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN or some such 'Propart', or propaganda masquerading as art. Also, it shows the problems of homosexuality as a personality and emotional quality. Even if Patricia Highsmith didn’t mean Ripley to be homo — maybe she secretly did but didn’t want to publicly and all-too-stereotypically associate a homo with psychopathy, being a homo herself — , THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is one of the most astute and penetrating movies about the homosexual personality. It hints as to why there are so many homos in Wall Street, Washington DC, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and etc. Homos tend to be naturally vain & narcissistic and are obsessed with surface allure and impressions. It’s no wonder that homos became darlings of the rich elites. Homos crave the good life and cater to the affluent class and sophisticates. Instead of demanding higher wages and more benefits as a group like the grubby working class does, homos find ways to inch their way into the privileged world as talented individuals, fawning over and deferring to the ‘better’ kind of people. If Ripley had grown up in the 2000’s, he would have made it to the stars. Homos will go to hell and back in service to the rich and powerful. 10% of DC is homo! All those self-centered politicians know that homos will work 24/7 to be part of the in-crowd. In that regard, Ripley is an interesting case study of homo personality like the Will Patton character in NO WAY OUT.

Personally, I can’t stand ‘gayish’ movies either. But THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is not ‘gayish’. It is a steely study of how a certain kind of personality will go to any length to live the dream. It’s sort of comparable to SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, which is pretty good but falters at the end with a bit of sappiness.

I still haven’t seen BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and PHILADELPHIA as I have no stomach for 'Propart' in service of 'sacralizing' deviancy or degeneracy. But when a movie is honest and truthful, it can be about anything or anyone, from the finest saints to the worst sinners. MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE and C.R.A.Z.Y are two genuine works of art about homos.


TTMR is a wonderful movie. But Matt Damon is just not that attractive. IMO he is not a romantic lead.

Here’s the thing. Matt Damon is pretty attractive in an All-American way. Indeed, if the movie didn’t star Jude Law, Damon would come across as far more handsome. But there is the beautiful Law, who is to Damon what gold is to bronze. Next to Law, Damon looks downright plain and homely, almost like Elizabeth Warren done up as a 'man'. But that was the desired effect, the sense that there is always something better, brighter, shinier. Ripley can never be truly content because he’s never satisfied with good-enough. 'Enough' is not a part of his vocabulary. He is faithful to one thing only: The Superior, for which he will dump and betray whatever he has at the moment. He always has his eye on what is better, and there is better than better and better than better than better ad infinitum. No matter what he has, he will always strive for more. He’s greedy for aesthetics or suffers from 'aestheticitis'.

Bardon Kaldian:

Aren’t we all reading into it too much? I mean, this is a crime fiction. A good crime fiction, but still a genre fiction. And crime fiction characters are always schematic, they’re paper-thin.

As T. Lynch said, a lot was packed into the movie. It wasn’t merely an adaptation but an expansion of Highsmith’s characters and universe. Highsmith was somewhere between genre and serious literature. Her writings could be enjoyed on both levels. There’s obviously a lot of intelligence in her conception and execution. She could be cold and surgical but also playful and amusing.
Most crime fiction characters are schematic, but this is true of most of anything. Even most characters and plots in serious literature fall into broad categories. After awhile, they seem pretty familiar and repetitious despite the sincerity and personal investment of the authors. Consider all those serious personal literature about some city person who returns to his/her small town and blah blah. Such works may be true to life, but they've been done to death.

A hack cannot rise above formula. A professional can take formula to the next level as superior entertainment. An artist use formula as material for his own ideas and visions. When Orson Welles got his hands on the pulpy material of LADY FROM SHANGHAI and TOUCH OF EVIL and when Roman Polanski added his touch to CHINATOWN, they made art out of what otherwise might have been junk. Same with Akira Kurosawa with HIGH AND LOW. It’s based on a second-rate crime novel(KING'S RANSOM by Ed McBain) but works at the uppermost reaches of middlebrow art, the next best thing to high art.

Also, most people are predictable. Most lives are schematic and routine. Most psychologies are bland and boring, fixated on nonsense — how else do we explain the popularity of soap operas, Oprah, Howard Stern, and etc? Most people are little more than rational animals. While works of art may be profound about the human condition, there is nothing profound about most of human psychology.

Bardon Kaldian:

We are not talking here about Balzac, Stendhal, Eliot, Tolstoy, Verga, Lawrence or Hamsun.

Works like VERTIGO and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY are interesting in that they operate within the realm of(or between) myth and reality. Traditionally speaking, serious literature tended to be about real people rooted or trapped in the real world. There may be a lot of truth in such works, but most people don’t care for(and can't handle) too much truth. Too dense, depressing, or heavy. And therein lies the popularity of genres and myths. And yet, losing ourselves in fantasy would be too unreal, childlike, or irresponsible. We don’t want to replace reality and truth with idiotic TV shows, ludicrous movies, and pop music titillation.

But then, there are movies like STRANGERS ON A TRAIN(dir. Alfred Hitchcock) and TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.(dir. William Friedkin) that are outlandish enough to be larger-than-life and sensationalist and yet also brutally conscious of reality's limits and karma. It’s that tension between escapism to fantasy and bondage to reality that makes movies like VERTIGO such tantalizing topics of discussion. They open up the psychological space between the dreamy and the dreary. Also, it is revealing about the very nature of psychology. Even as we live in reality, we don’t always think in terms of the real but of the ideal, even the fantastic. Too much of the unreal leads to neurosis or, worse, schizophrenia. But too little of the mythic would make life drab, dull, and depressing. Given the emotional nature of man, he is most sane and healthy when he navigates between fact and fiction. In other words, man has to be slightly 'insane' to maintain his sanity, just like the immune system needs some degree of germs to remain vital. It is why dreaming is so important to one's mental health. Bare facts of existence are pretty dull for most people, and even for the rich and privileged(and otherwise blessed), there is the looming fact of death(with no chance of return) and the sheer meaninglessness of the universe. Therefore, our minds need to be distracted or carried away by some measure of ideals, dreams, or fantasy to lubricate and radiate our inner lives. Of course, too much fantasy turns cancerous, which is the problem of the 21st century, one where culture in Japan revolves around cartoons and ideology in the West revolves around '50 genders' and 'empowerment' by tattoos and green hair.

Life must be based on reality but strive toward 'ideality'. A puritanical rejection of all things fantastic leads to the kind of severity shown in BABETTE’S FEAST. But excessive indulgence in fantasy to the point of losing one’s bearing on reality leads to decadence.

Serious literature speaks to us less and less, especially due to the rise of electronic media. Prior to electricity, lives were centered around other people, conversation, and community. It was about person-to-person contact. It was about people being confronted with (local)reality all around. If you were in a cold dark room, the reality of the cold dark room could not be denied. And townsfolk's cultural life revolved around church meetings, daily conversations, and various forms of social gatherings. There was no radio or TV one could sit next to all day and all night as distraction from the dreariness or loneliness of life. One had to form social bonds, get involved, or busy oneself with lots of work to stave off the boredom.
This world of 'too much reality' came to be reflected in serious literature. Still, the element of fiction made it more eventful or adventurous, or at least different(even if not much happened in the story), from the life one knew and was stuck with. Furthermore, in a world prior to electronic titillation, it didn't take much to engage the minds and senses. Even a slow-moving novel, folk tune or piece of classical music, or painting exhibition could be welcome relief from the sheer 'nothingness' of existence. A mere picture book could be wondrous to behold for children in the pre-electronic era.

But with the rise of radio, movies, TV, video-games, and internet, people can easily tune off reality and be captivated by an over-abundance of ever-shifting and always disposable images and sounds. Now with smart phones, they can carry this fantasy around them everywhere. So, modern psychology is closer to the mode of insta-myth than ever before(and it will become even more so with the rise of virtual reality technology). This is a dangerous development for mankind, but it is the defining cultural trend. Indeed, one wonders if globo-homo could have gained so much ground if not for the fact that so many people’s main sense of ‘reality’ comes from electronic TV shows, movies, and music videos than from actual reality. When celebrities, the objects of idol-worship, say ‘trannies are next to godliness’, it has tremendous appeal to the masses who are more immersed in pop culture than in real culture.

And so, the power of myth counts for more than ever before. Most people today simply can’t sit still and absorb 'too much reality', the kind that is all around them in the form of people, places, and things(that don't turn on to emit sounds and images designed to make people forget the who, when, and where of their existence). This is why, even when people go on nature trips, they carry their TV’s and smart phones. They need diversions of fantasy and escapism from the burden of reality that stubbornly remains as it is, oblivious to the whims of visitors.

In that sense, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is a very timely movie. It’s like a proto-vision of the globo-homo future that came to be. The world Ripley lives in is less fantastical than ours. There are movies and record players to be sure, but it’s still a world where maturity, sobriety, fidelity, and responsibility are prized. TV culture has yet to completely take over the global mind in the movie's setting.

And yet, Ripley is psychologically ahead of his time. Being homo, he has a penchant for fantasy and artifice, the preference for the ideal over the real. He loves art and wants the world to conform to his aesthetic vision and tastes. He wants Dickey’s view of their ‘friendship’ to conform to his own. Also, Ripley is passive/aggressive like so many homos and Jews. On the one hand, he’s so ingratiating and eager-to-please, almost like a dog or servant. And yet, beneath the smile is the guile, the ruthless determination to have everything go his way… or else... like with the Jew Suss of Veit Harlan's movie.
In that sense, we are living in Ripley’s World. Jews and Homos used passive/aggressive means to gain access to power and then to totally take over the power, and they are now using mass media, deep state, and entertainment to hoodwink all of us that black is white, male is female, illegals are dreamers, censorship is ‘free speech’, and Russia is behind Donald Trump(and Bernie Sanders as well). Reality be damned. Reality and all of us in it better conform to their preferred ‘ideals’.

Jews and Homos love the power of molding reality to whatever they please at any given moment. While reality is objective, we all experience it subjectively, and that means the control of mass subjectivity will shape our view of 'objectivity' as well. Jews and homos are less interested in what is true and false than in the power to mold what is 'true' and 'false'. They insist on wielding the mallet over our minds made malleable. Our sense of outrage mustn't be rooted to any particular principle or perception but shift according to the dictates of the ruling elites. If Jews want us to hate A and love B, we must bark at A and roll over before B, but if Jews change their minds and decide we must love B and hate A, we must bark at B and rollover over before A. We mustn't possess any autonomy when it comes to worldview and morality. Like dogs, we must be (1) childishly emotional and (2) subservient to Jews/homos. Thus, whatever Jews and homos demand at the moment, no matter how contradictory it may be to an earlier demand, must be the latest topic of outrage and hysterics. There is to be no truth or principle of independent of the Jewish Will and Agenda.
So, when Jews and homos assert that a man who wants to be a woman is truly a 'woman', that 'new normal' piece of factoid is of secondary importance to the real prize, which is the power to mold our minds anyway they choose. After all, if Jews and homos can make us believe in fantasy as truth, what couldn't they fool us with? What matters most to Jews and homos is not that we believe in any particular thing as immutably true but that we believe as 'true' whatever they tell us is 'true' at the moment. The only 'essentialism' we must honor and obey is the infallibility of the globo-homo-shlomo media and academia in determining the fashionable outrage of the Current Year. It's like Consumer-Morality. In other words, if Jews and homos say 'trannies as godly', we are to nod in agreement... but then, if Jews and homos change their minds and assert that 'trannies are sick and wrong', we are to change our minds instantly. Jews decree, Goyim agree. Jews say, Goyim obey. It is easier to feel moral passion than think with moral logic. As most people cannot think morally, they outsource the thinking to the powers-that-be of the Jew-and-homo-run media and academia that supply the Outrage-of-the-Week over which the masses go into hysterics.

Like Ripley, Jews and homos will come at you with a smile and plead with you to agree with their ‘modest’ and ‘humble’ views, but if you refuse their offer, they turn into spiteful judge and jury who will stop at nothing to bring you down. So, Christian bakers who refuse to bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes must be sued and destroyed. And, all those craven and cowardly ‘conservatives’ do NOTHING because in our Riplean world, Jews and their proxies the homos hold all the cards and can bring anyone down. Not only do a lot of 'conservative' politicians have skeletons in their closets but even clean ones can be relentlessly smeared as 'racists', 'sexists', 'anti-semites', or 'homophobes', which is enough to ruin anyone's career these days. If the Jew-run media and Deep State could nearly bring down a president with false claims of 'Russia Collusion', imagine what they can do to the little fish.

In that sense, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is more telling of where we are than George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD. Ripley didn’t merely best those around him. Ripleys of the world took over the culture by sucking up to Jews, the most cunning and ruthless group in the world. Minghella's movie offers a glimpse into the proto-globo-homo psychology that insinuated itself into every corridor of power and privilege. The homo mindset, with its combination of vanity, narcissism, obsequiousness, bitchiness, soft/effete qualities, sharp/predatory tendencies, sophistication, cynicism, curiosity, and cunning, slithered in snakelike into the crevices gnawed by ratlike Jews. With Jews as their masters, homos were made the master-servants over the rest. Indeed, the current hierarchy is Jews at the top, the homos at the next level, and then the rest. Of course, blacks are allowed tremendous symbolic value, but when it comes to the actual operation of the Power Realm, it's the Jews and homos. Dickie eventually tired of Ripley the pest, and wanted nothing to do with him. But unlike Dickie who lacked for imagination and ambition, Jews realized the full potential of how homos could be utilized to serve and spread the neo-gospel of globo-homo-shlomo all over the world. With the proper incentives, the Ripleys of the world will do anything for their masters for their piece of the pie. So, next time you wonder about the kind of people who run the Deep State and what makes them tick, you could do worse than to watch THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY(and NO WAY OUT) for clues.

Of course, it's true that many more people with managerial positions in the Deep State are straight white males and females than Jews and homos. So, why do Jews and homos matter more? Why do they hold the aces and jokers? It's because whereas whites in the Deep State are merely well-credentialed and well-positioned professionals, Jews and Homos have been 'sacralized' and thus glow with false holiness. Also, whereas whites are merely eager to work hard and prove their worth as individuals, Jews believe in the sacredness of their tribe and have powerful personalities with which to push through their tribal-supremacist agenda; and homos have an incessant and manic urge to be the center of attention as the favorite servile bitch to the master class and as the nasty over-bearing son-of-a-bitch to those below them. Homo political psychology is to take it up the ass from the master and stick it in the ass of the inferior. It's no wonder that THE FIGHT CLUB the movie was based on a novel by a homo. Homos have a lot of psychological fight in them as they're always on the lookout for who-fuc*s-me-in-the-ass and who-do-I-fuc*-in-the-ass. Normal Male Sexuality is far simpler in thinking and attitude. Straight male psychology thinks, "I fuc* the woman" and is thus more one-dimensional in its sense of sexual hierarchy. Man is the master, the woman is the bitch. In contrast, a homo man sees himself as both someone who uses another man as a 'bitch' and as someone who is a 'bitch' to another man. This passive/aggressive quality has made homos more adept at climbing the ladder as social elevation requires not only alpha qualities but lots of beta ass-kissing, something that many straight men are unwilling to do out of sense of pride. But homos know, "You must kiss ass to kick ass."

Intensely hierarchical, homos have a naturally aristocratic mindset that is pathologically servile to the superior and equally pathologically haughty toward the inferior. Of course, ever mindful to climb higher, even as homos go out on a limb to demonstrate their loyalty, they secretly gather potentially damning data to be used to blackmail their current masters into becoming their de facto servants, or masters-in-name-only-and-in-fact-owned-by-homos. Along with THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, another film that tells us much about the Psychology of Striving is THE SERVANT by Joseph Losey. BRAVE NEW WORLD and 1984 are presentations of future worlds as all-powerful and permanent. Their systems and ideologies govern every aspect of life, and one gets a pretty good sense of how they operate. We can discern the blueprints and the inner-logic of their power.

But if the 21st century teaches us anything, it is the sheer instability of power, values, and 'truth'. Nothing seems to be set in stone, and everything seems to be shifting in a state of flux in terms of technology, borders, demographics, morality, icons and idols, and etc. Then, what matters is not so much the idea or even the system but WHAT KIND OF PERSONALITY WITH WHAT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDILECTION is most likely to make its way into the corridors of power. The psychology of the rat, snake, and weasel. The Jews, homos, and cuck-cynics like Peter Strzok. That factor, more than any set of ideology or principles, may be the key to explaining why the world is the way it is.

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Commentary on "Belloc in 1936 on the Return of Islam" by Steve Sailer

Hilaire Belloc:
We have seen how the material political power of Islam declined very rapidly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Did it decline or fail to keep up with the West? Maybe the Muslim remained where it was while the West advanced technologically. If someone stands still while you walk forward, he's not moving backward even though he will increasingly fall back behind you.

Hilaire Belloc:
Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe; the decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it – we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today. The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines – the very structure of our society is dissolving.
But the real benefit of Christianity was not that Western culture sprung from it but that the culture had something to fall back on when things went south. Christian moralism has stood in the way of cultural inspiration and creativity. Even though Renaissance artists created many religious works, the true spark and inspiration were neo-pagan. But paganism has a way of becoming decadent, nihilistic, and idolatrous, a narcissism of power and beauty. Christianity provided some balance to such tendencies. The main creative source of Western Civilization is Greco-Roman and even Germanic imaginations. But creativity isn't necessarily moral; it is also elitist and belongs to a few. As such, it can't for long serve as the basis of a stable civilization. Morality must be the core values of a people, and that is where Christianity proved most valuable. Not because culture sprung from it — Western Civilization was already great and accomplished before its conversion to Christianity. As for the Reformation, it was a response to the corruption and decay of the Catholic Church that came to overly rely on rituals and idols than on creed and conviction. For awhile, Reformation restored Christian passion.

Hilaire Belloc:
In the place of the old Christian enthusiasms of Europe there came, for a time, the enthusiasm for nationality, the religion of patriotism. But self-worship is not enough, and the forces which are making for the destruction of our culture, notably the Jewish Communist propaganda from Moscow, have a likelier future before them than our old-fashioned patriotism.
But patriotism is not about self-worship. It's not about worship at all. It's about pride and preservation of heritage. It is not a religion in and of itself. Also, spirituality can be made a part of patriotism and nationalism. This is most evident in Judaism and its Covenant that fuses tribalism with spiritualism. In a similar vein, Christianity can be made part of national heritage, i.e. while Christianity is for all the world, each people can stress their own story of how they came to the Faith, and that particularity within universality should have been stressed. Consider the Russian Orthodox Church. It is Christian and Nationalist. Likewise, Buddhism has a nationalist element among Tibetans, Vietnamese, Burmese, and etc.

In the end, Jewish capitalism turned out to be far more damaging to Western Man. Though Jews were heavily involved in communism, its triumph came to suppress Jewish power that relies on individual enterprise, tribal networking, and meritocracy to realize its full potential. In all communist nations, the Jews eventually lost out to the non-Jewish majority as communism is about The People and Mass Mediocrity.

The reason why nationalism came more naturally to Europeans is because European societies developed from agriculture. In contrast, Arabs were nomadic and generally didn't put down roots in any part of the desert. They were movers, traders, and raiders. Of course, in time, Nationalism began to fade among Europeans with increasing urbanization and globalism that made it easy for Europeans to move abroad and for non-Europeans to move into Europe. Nomadism is intrinsic to globalism. Wings rule over the feet.

Steve Sailer: 
History often turns upon unexpected personalities. The West has been fairly lucky that no outstanding man has arisen in Islamic world. Since 1936, probably the two most remarkable personalities have been Nasser, who was more of a Bonapartist modernizer demagogue than an Islamist, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
This may be true of past history when Muslims had a chance of literally conquering the West like the Mongols also nearly did. But in the modern era, why would the emergence of a great Muslim leader be bad for the West? Did Ayatollah call for invasion of the West? No, all the stuff about 'great satan' was mostly rhetorical. Kemal Ataturk wanted peace with the West and Westernization for Turks.

The main reason why Gamal Nasser and other notable Arab/Muslim leaders lost out is because Jews gained power in the West and used West as a proxy against the Arab/Muslim World. Israel was a Western creation of Jews and whites who supported, defended, and supplied Zionism at every turn.

The West, under Jewish Power, also crushed Saddam Hussein who, though a horrid person, did much to modernize Iraq. Living standards for most Iraqis were pretty decent prior to the Gulf War.
For all the problems among Arabs, their societies would be far more accomplished if not for Jewish control of the West and use of Western power as proxy of Jewish agenda. Iraq today would be formidable if not for the Gulf War, semi-genocidal sanctions, and the invasion. Iraq was also building nuclear power plants before they were bombed by Israeli jets with US support. Syria would be in much better straits if not for Neocon agenda of sending and aiding terrorists. Gaddafi made real gains in Libya before Jewish-ruled West destroyed it. And Iranian economy would be much stronger if not for sanctions forced by Jewish-controlled US. If it came down to Jews vs Muslims, Jews would not necessarily win even though, pound for pound, they are smarter than Arabs/Muslims. The real secret to Israel's success and Muslim world's failure is that the Jews control the West that does the bidding of Zion. But suppose a Muslim-controlled West sanctioned Israel for its war crimes and dropped bombs to kill Israel leaders and figures. Where would Israel be?

Hilaire Belloc, Muslims, Arabs, Muslim World, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Steve Sailer, nomadism, Western Support of Zion,

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Commentary on "2020s: 'American Century' Finished, World Is Now Multipolar (With Prof. Anthony Hall)" by Kevin Barrett

Decline of the US empire? No, US is still the sole superpower. More importantly, the real power isn’t ‘American’ but Jewish Supremacist. US is the main aircraft carrier and money bag of the Empire of Judea(EOJ), and the tentacles of EOJ stretch across many nations in North America, Europe, South America, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, esp South Africa.

If anything, the ‘Americanization’ of the world — which means falling under control of Jewish influence — still gathers pace around the world.

Even when nations supposedly oppose globalism in the name of 'populist globalism', all they do is invite more Diversity and suck up to Jews. Look at Brexit. Leaving the EU has led the UK to take in more darkies and suck up to Jews even more under Boris the Spider Johnson. Clever Jews hedge their bets and have puppets on both sides. So, no matter which side wins, Jews get what they want. Even Donald Trump, though loathed by most Jews, does little but suck up to EOJ. He even works with his Jewish masters to shut down free speech critical of Israel and Jewish supremacism. It's 'muh holocaust' or 'muh gay' all the time. And given that Jews are pushing Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the US as sole superpower is turning into a Soul Superpower at least when it comes to its 'cultural capital' that is mostly about rap music and black-dominated sports.

Kevin Barrett's Reply:

The US can no longer get what it wants. It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it. It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest. It wanted Iran, the “7th country in 5 years” destroyed (or “regime changed”) by 2006. It wanted Assad out. It wanted North Korea to give up its nukes. It wanted Turkey to stop working with Russia and give up the S-400. It wanted Pakistan to stop tilting toward China. It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier. It wanted Chinese economic growth, and the technological and military power it buys, to flatline. And so on.

Meanwhile the other poles of the multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran have let the US spend itself into a corner. The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants. The US ability to dictate terms to the world is over.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available. America’s blood is almost gone. So they will diversify their bloodsucking, and are in fact already doing so.


The US can no longer get what it wants.

But the US never got everything it wanted. During the Cold War, it lost Cuba. And even its successes in Latin America smeared US reputation as it had to support 'right-wing death squads'. US pulled out of Vietnam. US power was at its zenith with the fall of Soviet Empire, but by the end of the 20th century, Vladimir Putin and nationalists were regaining power in Russia. And the Middle East was mostly intact except for Iraq that had been crushed in the Gulf War. (Still, Hussein was in power until 2003.) So, it’s misleading to say the World Order went from US getting everything to US not getting everything. The US never got everything.

It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it

But Venezuela is on shaky legs and is far weaker than in the Bush II years when Hugo Chavez was snubbing his nose. Chavez deserves praise as a nationalist, but his version of socialism was deeply flawed as it relied on high oil prices and patronage machine politics. Once oil prices plummeted, so did the economy. The regime in power is weaker than ever and just holding on. Also, US empire pushed back against the Latin National Left with considerable success. Ecuador is now in hands of US stooges. Just ask Julian Assange. Brazil is ruled by pro-Zionist Bolsanaro. Bolivia is now ruled by pro-US junta-backed ‘democracy’. Cuba, though independent, signed onto globo-homo nonsense.

It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest.

Maybe, maybe not. In a way, the Taliban threat is a useful excuse to continue the US occupation. If the Taliban had really been eradicated, US would no longer have a valid reason to stay. US wants to occupy Afghanistan, not let it go. So, as long as the US has the Taliban Excuse, it stays and gets what it wants, thus encircling both Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, it was a disaster, but that was good for the Empire of Judea(that rules the US) in a way. After all, a stable democracy in Iraq might still have turned out to be nationalist and pro-Arabist. It’s possible that once the Jewish-run US realized that the Shia-led regime in Iraq would lean toward Iran, it secretly armed and aided Sunni insurgents to attack and subvert the government. Make Arabs fight Arabs. Play both sides. To the extent that new Iraq had been a never-ending story of Arabs killing Arabs, the Empire of Judea loves it. After all, it created the exact same conditions in Libya and Syria. So, in that sense, the ‘disaster’ of Iraq turned out to be a useful formula, a handy template, in dealing with other 'rogue' Arab nations. Don’t invade and turn them into democracies. Just arm and fund certain ‘moderate rebel’ factions and set them loose to turn the Middle East upside down. While Israel is peaceful and prosperous, look at the horrible conditions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Total hell on earth. It looks like ‘failure’ but is actually a success to the extent that mayhem among Arabs means more power for Zionists. And Jewish-run US pulled it off with help from treacherous Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

As for Iran, it is reeling more than ever from economic sanctions. Given that Iran is a huge nation, it’s unlikely that the US wants a full-blown war. Rather, it uses financial terrorism and other means to undermine Iran, and they've been very successful. US didn’t topple Assad but got the next best thing. An utterly ruined Syria where US continues to occupy and steal oil. As for Pakistan leaning closer to China, that is the consequence of US growing closer to India, the much bigger prize. Though India is too big for the US to push around, it’s been working with US as bulwark against China-Pakistan. To be sure, the Hindus are clever and play both sides.

It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier.

The Ukronazis did win. They are still in power in alliance with Judeo-Nazis. Also, the energy war is just beginning. With the shale revolution, the US aims to export tons of liquid gas to the EU. As for China, who knows what will happen. It’s debt is 3x its GDP. Very troubling.

The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.

But even now, nothing comes close to the power of the dollar. And Chinese economy depends so much on export to the US. In that sense, the US has China by the balls. China relies far more on the US market than the other way around. Also, US military didn’t engage in Yemen. In Afghanistan, it is there to occupy and continues to do so.

So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants.

But the US is still the #1 destination for smart people around the world. Concentration of brain power will determine much of the future. They are coming to NY, LA, and San Fran to serve the US in its high-tech domination. Immigration is mass treason(except for Jews who control what it means to be 'Pro-American', which today is invariably Pro-Jewish-Supremacist-and-Zionist). Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, and etc. come to the US to make money and to serve the Empire of Judea, often against their own kind. Palestinians in the US pay taxes that go to support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available.

The problem is Jews are para-hosts. Yes, Jewish power is parasitic and sucks blood, as in the 2008 bank bailouts. But Jewish Smarts do create lots of new enterprise and money, and goyim(esp politicians) suck on Jewish money as craven dependents. Jews are not like the Sicilian-Americans in GOODFELLAS who are purely parasitic or like Gypsies who only steal. Jews do a lot of bad shit but are also at the front-line of creating the new world of technology and markets. Thus, too many goyim have grown dependent on Jewish money-making. They suck the blood of Jews who suck on the blood of goyim. Jews suck but are also sucked upon. Thus, they are more than parasites. They also serve as hosts, or parahosts.

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Commentary on the "Arkham’s Razor"(Social Critique of JOKER) by Steve Sailer

Joker is a clever and memorable (although not terribly original or enjoyable) R-rated art-house drama in the tradition of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy masquerading as yet another comic book movie.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'll wager it's the opposite. It's another moronic superhero(or super-antihero) movie masquerading as serious entertainments EVEN FOR ADULTS. Gee, it might even be the stuff of 'art'.

Bizarre as it would have seemed in 1976, playing Batman’s maniacal archenemy has become for movie stars what portraying Richard III is for Shakespearean actors: the ultimate test of their villain chops.

Jack Nicholson started this trend with the first BATMAN movie where he stole the show from Michael Keaton, or so I heard as I still haven't seen it.
Actors like to ham it up, and the role of Joker allows them to go Full Clown. Joker is ultra-exhibitionist in his devilry. Unlike most villains who simply want to terrorize and intimidate, Joker acts the rock star like Mick Jagger, Freddie Mercury, and Little Richard. Apart from rock stars, another rambunctious bunch are comedians, and Joker is a comic too. Playing Joker allows actors to bring out their Id in full force, especially as their faces are covered with paint. If Batman uses his mask to hide his identity, Joker uses the face-paint to enhance his. If Batman is the dark knight, Joker is the bright jester. The only Joker who works for me is the one played by homo Cesar Romero in the TV series. I can't imagine Nicholson as the Joker(and much less Michael Keaton as Batman). I did sit through Heath Ledger as Joker, and it was painful, as if I was trapped in a Marilyn Manson concert where he did nothing but talk, which would be worse than if he sang.

The 19th-century Romantics conceived of madness, such as in Donizetti’s opera Lucia di Lammermoor, as an excess of emotion and personality. Actor Dustin Hoffman, who’d once had a day job as an attendant at the New York state mental hospital, introduced in The Graduate and Rain Man a new alternative: the mentally challenged as depressed, obsessive-compulsive, and on the spectrum.

I don't see Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE as mentally challenged. He's just confused as he realizes the future has arrived, and it's the comfortable but stifling stasis of middle class life. In college, the future was out there somewhere. Post-graduation, he has lost his wings and landed on the future, and it means becoming just like his parents who are not bad people but so like everyone else in their social milieu. He wanted to be 'different'. And once Braddock falls head over heels over Elaine, how is his mental condition not an excess of emotion and personality? His true personality emerges in its nerd-jock romantic fury, and he drives up and down and up and down California to fulfill his mission. It's so powerful so that Elaine, despite having made her vows, calls out to him. In its own way, it is very operatic.

Phoenix, who played the Emperor Commodus in Gladiator and Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, is a stupendous actor.

Is he? Certainly not in those two roles. As Commodus, he was the usual arch-villain, nothing more. His Cash was totally ill-conceived. Cash had a droopy look and been-there-done-that hangdog style like he just got out of bed with a hangover. But Phoenix, who looks nothing like Cash by the way, makes him out to be flashier than Elvis Presley. If anyone made the movie work, it was Reese Witherspoon.

Why do comic book movies dominate the box office?

Simple. CGI. Before CGI, it wasn't easy to make convincing superhero movies. SUPERMAN with Christopher Reeve came closest, but even his movies don't look so good now. Prior to CGI, impressive-looking sci-fi and superhero movies were rare. One had to wait around for another STAR WARS movie or some such. Consider movies like BLACK HOLE and SATURN 3. Though made after STAR WARS with big enough budgets, they looked terrible even then. But TERMINATOR 2 really changed the movie landscape. Suddenly, it was possible to generate out cool-looking movies with space gadgets and superheroes on a yearly basis.

With the shift in pop cultural hegemony from Old Americans to Ellis Island Americans, movies based on comic book superheroes, most of whom were dreamed up by American Jews from the 1930s into the 1960s, now fill the role once played by Westerns as Hollywood’s bread-and-butter genre.

There's one key difference. Westerns were cheap to make though there were some very expensive productions. In contrast, even though CGI has made it more feasible to produce superhero movies with lavish special effects, they are still A or AAA productions. As such, superhero movies are rolled out as 'events'. It's not bread-and-butter but cake-and-ale. In that sense, superhero movies are more comparable to works like GONE WITH THE WIND, TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR, SOUND OF MUSIC, DR. ZHIVAGO, GODFATHER, and TITANIC. The difference is, in the old days, the biggest budgets went toward middlebrow entertainment for adults, whereas the biggest budgets now go into franchise movies that target mainly youths or youth-stuck adults. Now, if these movies were just meant for kids and youths, they'd at least be honest. But even people mired in childishness crave some degree of respectability and seriousness. And so, what had been kid stuff is being done 'seriously', as if they're loaded with complex, even profound, meaning. Now, it's true enough that even superhero material do have mythic overtones and moral meanings. One can find such even in daily comic strips. But they lack deep insight, and what's truly ridiculous of our age is pretending there is such to be found in stories such as BATMAN and STAR WARS(which isn't exactly EXCALIBUR).

Even worse is the rise of fanfic literal-mindedness. Fanfickery used to be a subculture of nerdy or aspergy fanatics, but its mindset has taken over the mainstream of pop culture. What is a key feature of fanfickery? The fans become so immersed in their favorite movies or books(or even videogames) that they go about literally constructing a 'realistic' universe from the fantasy material.
And this JOKER movie has all the hallmarks of fanfickery. For sane people, the character of Joker has to be taken at face value on the comic book level. He's some fun looney-bin villain who sets off fireworks as he dukes it out with his arch-nemesis Batman in Gotham City. In other words, he's an archetype of pop mythology, nothing more, nothing less. But it seems this JOKER movie goes about constructing a real-life biography of how he became what he is. Do we really want the biography or autobiography of Joker, Penguin, Riddler? It'd be as foolish as trying to map out the childhood of 007 or the Man with No Name(of Dollars Trilogy), with 'deep' psychological probing into how they became the way they are. Such would be absurd, but fanfickers want so much to believe in their favored fictional universes that they keep expanding it to make the characters and story-threads more real, or more perverse, like what the author of FIFTY SHADES OF GREY did with TWILIGHT. In a way, all those STAR WARS novels are officially sanctioned fanfics for people who just can't get enough of its 'universe'. Or take the rebooting of THE PLANET OF THE APES. The original series was meant as satire that says something about OUR world, and only a fool would ponder how the world might literally be taken over by real apes. It'd be like concocting a 'scientific' explanation as to why there are tiny people in GULLIVER'S TRAVELS. It's like how the aliens in GALAXY QUEST have an earnest take on earthling entertainment and materialize it into reality, a fanfic dream. Such 'alien' mentality is pervasive among fanfic loonies.

Phillips tries by eliminating all the superpowers.

Are there superpowers in BATMAN? Someone told me once that he likes BATMAN because it's really a contest of wits and muscle without the hokum of fantastic powers like flying in the air or shooting fireballs from one's fingertips.

"Hinckley grew up in University Park, Texas,[4] and attended Highland Park High School[5] in Dallas County. During his grade school years, he played football, basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball, learned to play the piano, and was elected class president twice."

What happened to him? He seems to have been a popular jock and personality in high school. Not your usual Pupkin or Bickle type.

In response to the Bickle-Hinckley controversy, Scorsese made The King of Comedy in 1983 to mock talentless nobodies who take showbiz too seriously.

Not sure if it was straight-out mockery. Martin Scorsese said that there is a lot of himself in Rupert Pupkin. Pupkin may be without talent, but his obsession with stardom, celebrity, and where-the-action-is has been part of Scorsese and the Movie Brats of his generation. In that sense, THE KING OF COMEDY is to Scorsese what BROADWAY DANNY ROSE is to Woody Allen. Scorsese had the talent to make it, but if he had had no talent, he could have been a creepy guy like Pupkin as he was obsessed with cinema and popular culture. (Even truer of Quentin Tarantino.) Likewise, if Allen had lacked talent, he might have ended up as someone like Broadway Danny Rose. On that level, there is some degree of sympathy for the Pupkin character who, though loathsome, pursues a dream with all his heart. Besides, the sickness in the movie stems as much from culture & TV as from Pupkin. TV is made up of egotistical a**holes who, night after night, enter your living room and pretend to be 'your friend'. TV creates the illusion of a porous wall or a portal between TV personalities and the audience. And the American Dream says anyone can make it with just enough push. Pupkin prefigures American Idol, aka American Idiot.

When bullied one night on the subway for wearing his clown makeup by three drunken white yuppies, junior executives of Wayne Enterprises, he goes all Bernie Goetz on them.

Joker vs American Psycho. That ought to make quite a movie.

Like Westerns, movies about crime-fighting superheroes tend to be inherently right-wing. Granted, Superman was usually associated with FDR’s cheerful liberalism, but Batman was always a reactionary proponent of order. Thus, the conservative director Christopher Nolan made a formidable Batman trilogy in 2005–2012.

But fighting crime is a side gig for most superheroes. Their main enemies happen to be mad scientists(tied to shady corporations), would-be-masters-of-the-world or neo-monarchists(like the Three Villains in SUPERMAN II), or the Nazis.
Christopher Nolan certainly has film-making chops, but the 'formidable'-ness is part of BATMAN's problem. When BATMAN gets a heavier treatment than DUNKIRK from Nolan, something is clearly wrong. BATMAN has to be done on the level of youth entertainment. Nolan started an awful trend that even led to heavier treatments of 007. SKYFALL was so grim and humorless I turned it off after 20 min. The problem with some sitcoms is they forget they're sitcoms, light entertainment, and get overly serious with message or meaning. BATMAN can work as entertainment for youths; it can't be serious art for adults.

Joker has gotten berserk negative reviews, noteworthy for their incoherence and anger at the film’s evenhanded politics.

Movie critics regard pop culture as political soccer. Every one of these movies is a soccer ball, and it must be kicked into the right goal. If the ball sometimes goes astray, they throw fits. When a culture becomes overly ideologized or politicized(or tribalized in terms of "Shhhhh, is it good for the Jews?"), the result is the critics unanimously going nuts over the latest Disney STAR WARS and attacking anything that is suspected of crimethink. Never mind most of these movies are about dumbthink.

The 1930s comic book authors had modeled their grinning Joker on the makeup worn by Conrad Veidt in the 1928 Expressionist Weimar-American silent film The Man Who Laughs.

Jewish role in superhero comics is rather strange. 'Superman' is a Nietzschean idea, and it couldn't have been lost on Jews who created it that Nietzsche at the time was associated with not only the German Right but Nazism.

Also, considering that Jews were often associated with 'degenerate art', it's interesting to find Jewish imagination in service of aesthetically fascist ubermensch heroes of good solid looks and straight values at war with what amounts to a gallery of freaks. It's almost like watching Art-Deco-style Neo-Classicism vs Decadent Expressionism.
BATMAN is especially Wagnerian, an idea not lost on Tim Burton who made the first 'auteur' superhero movie that set the template. (I didn't see it but heard of its cool Wagnerian vibes.) And I heard the second installment with Penguin disconcerted some people because the villain embodied 'antisemitic' tropes. Based on Nolan's work — I saw the second installment and fast-forwarded through most of part 3 where Batman trades blows with Duckface — , Gotham is less like a city than mythological mountain-scape.

There's been a general tendency to associate Jewish sensibility with freaky, goofy, twisted, and warped expressions, such as those irreverent Looney Tunes cartoons. Though Robert Crumb isn't Jewish, some of his biggest admirers have been. In contrast, Jews have been rather unenthusiastic about the idealized aestheticism of Disney and Japanese Anime. Indeed, consider what's been done to STAR WARS in Jewish hands.

But, there's the other side of Jewishness that has idolized the ideal that has often been depicted as 'Aryan', though of late, 'Afro-Aryan' seems to be favored new type. There is a side of Jewishness that wants to destroy the gods & Rhine Maidens(out of envy and resentment) and a side that wants to exult in their glory. With superhero fantasies, Jews could imagine 'Aryan'-looking archetypes who, however, sided with the people against would-be-masters-of-the-world. The heroes are fascist in style but humanist in deed.

But this poses a problem in our post-humanist world where freaks have been put on the pedestal. Superheroes fighting evil Nazis is one thing. The problem today is superheroes fighting freaks like the Joker or the scarred two-faced guy. Spiderman fights freak villains such as the Goblin, Octopus, Lizard Man, and Scorpion. It's straights vs freaks. But in a world where we are supposed to honor the lunacy of 50 genders, there is a tendency to honor freakdom. So, what is to be done? One solution is altering the superheroes to be less 'Aryan' and more 'diverse'(like mixed-race Aquaman who fights his blonde water-brother) or by giving us something like Sympathy for the Devil... or the Freak, and JOKER seems to be partly that.

Oddly enough, while Jews in the heart of Teutonic Land indulged in decadent and 'degenerate' expressions during the Weimar period, Jews in America concocted what were, aesthetically at least, 'Aryan' fantasies(and for awhile, became associated with moralistic Hollywood). One of the superheroes was Thor, the Germanic god and also said to be the most powerful because he's a full-blown deity. And, Jews in Hollywood produced all those Westerns(and directed a good many of them), many of them beloved by Der Fuhrer. When some radical Jews in the 60s began to denounce Westerns as 'genocidal', were they aware that they were the products of Jewish-run Hollywood?

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Commentary on "Plastic Recycling and Jousting Jews"(by Linh Dinh)

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:
Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.
Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.
So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.
I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.
And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.
The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.
The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.
Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Commentary on THE LIES ABOUT WORLD WAR II(by Paul Craig Roberts)

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

One of the problems of Holocaust Remembrance(akin to Holocaust Worship, which leads to Worship of Jews) is that it 'esoterically' carries the seeds of Judeo-Nazism. In other words, it is supremacist, or yet another form of supremacism even as it denounces the 'master race' supremacism of Nazism. The rites and rituals of Holocaust Remembrance aren't really about the evil of mass murder, six million dead, or a people being targeted for mass extermination. It's really about the outrage that it was done to JEWS. The moral logic would suggest that Jews are the superior race, the true master race, the holy race. Therefore, the real crime of the Holocaust was that a false wanna-be master race(the Teutons) dared to mass murder the true master race, the Jews. In remembrance, what we hear is not the outrage of killing 6 million people(though some analyses point to numbers closer to 3 million) but 6 million JEWS. So, the real abomination of Nazi Criminality was that it targeted Holy Jews than mere humans. One gets the sense that the Holocaust wouldn't have been deemed so evil and unforgettable/unforgivable IF Nazi Germans and their collaborators had killed another people while sparing Jews. Abe Foxman was once recorded admonishing Ukrainian leaders NOT to conflate the 'Holodomor' with the Holocaust. The Shoah is a jealous god, and 'thou shall not worship no tragedy before(or alongside) it'. If Jews really regarded the Holocaust as a crime against Humanity, they would welcome comparisons of Jewish suffering in the Shoah with the sufferings of rest of humanity in similar tragedies. But Jews insist on maintaining the singularity of the Shoah because the victims weren't merely human but JEWS. Now, it's understandable why a people would be more upset with their own dead. After all, Armenians are more upset over what the Turks did. Chinese are more sensitive about the Nanking Massacre. The difference is that Jews don't merely grieve over their own dead among themselves but try to force all the world to feel that the Shoah was worse than any other tragedy because it was done to JEWS. Indeed, Jews want goyim to believe that suffering of Jews is worse than even the suffering of their own goy kind. Whites, it seems, have truly bought into this. They are so obsessed with protecting a single hair on a Jewish child in Israel but turn a blind eye to the grisly deaths of thousands of whites in South Africa(because whites expressing white identity will displease the holy Jews). As long as the super-rich Jewish diamond industrialists can rake in billions by bribing the black-run government, who cares if white gentiles get slaughtered on farms?

The 20th century has seen lots of bloodshed and mayhem. But most mass-killings have been forgotten, ignored, or suppressed. Even rationalized. Many will argue that the Holocaust was especially evil because it wasn't just mass-killing but a targeted genocide of a specific people. Fair enough. Still, one can't help but feel that the real outrage is over murder of JEWS than murder of mere people, the goyim. Suppose millions of Jews had died not by targeted genocide but by a broader movement, like forced collectivization in the USSR. Suppose a political campaign ended up killing millions of Jews by famine and starvation than by extermination squads. Would the deaths of those millions of Jews be mostly ignored like the deaths of millions of Ukrainians or Chinese(under communism)? I think not. The reason why Jews are far less harsh on communism is because most Jews greatly benefited in the USSR just when millions of Slavic Christians were being dispossessed and killed by starvation. It was good for Jews, and the victims were goyim. And do Jews feel even a smidgen of remorse or conscience about what they did in Russia in the 90s? Most Jews don't. If anything, they even make alliances with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to undermine and eventually take over Russia, as if it belongs to them as well. Jews kvetch about one dead Jew in Israel but show NO feelings about countless dead Muslims resulting from Wars for Israel.

So, Holocaust Remembrance isn't anti-supremacist. It is a sly program of slipping in Jewish Supremacism under the guise of anti-supremacism. Jewish dead in the Holocaust are portrayed as the greatest victims of racial supremacism, but the sheer inordinate emphasis on the victims being Jewish implies that Jewish Lives are more precious than any other lives. If German Nazis had spared Jews but tried to wipe out Hungarians or only Gypsies, I doubt there would be as much fuss about it.
One thing for sure, Hitler's plan for Russia was grim and brutal. He planned mass exterminations in the millions to be followed by mass enslavement. A Slavic-holocaust or Slavocaust was planned for Russians, and given that Germans conquered much territory during the war, one could argue that all the Slavs under German Occupation were also holocaust survivors(using the logic of the Jewish definition of 'holocaust survivor', who could be ANYONE who lived in zones under Nazi Occupation even if he or she never stepped inside a Nazi Concentration Camp). And yet, there is no World Remembrance of Russian deaths and sacrifices. Germans aren't pressured to feel guilty over their crimes against Slavs. If anything, the German government is pressured by Jewish-controlled US to wage economic war to spread misery in Russia. Germany is also silenced from noticing and denouncing the alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine.
Also, if the great lesson learned by Germans from WWII and the Holocaust is the evil of Ethno-Supremacism, why are most Germans and Europeans silent about the obviously ethno-supremacist policy of Jewish-controlled US that favors Jews over Palestinians, Jews over Arabs/Muslims(whose nations have been devastated at the behest of Zionist power), Jews over Christians -- notice the total silence about all those Christian Arabs destroyed as the result of Wars for Israel -- , and Jews over Russians? In the end, the lesson of Holocaust Remembrance is not "It is evil for any people to claim superiority and commit mass-murder against another people deemed inferior" but "It is evil to target Jews for political violence because Jews are innately holier, superior, and more precious than any other race." Holocaust Remembrance logic implicitly posits that the Shoah was worse than a case of mere human-cide. It was closer to Deicide, the killing of god-men. It's a logic borrowed from Christianity. Why did the killing of Jesus matter so much? After all, Jews and Romans killed plenty of people. Jews stoned many deemed as heretics or blasphemers. Romans killed many deemed to be traitorous or dangerous to the empire. Then, why make such a big fuss about the killing of Jesus, some Jewish carpenter in Judea? Because, at least according to Christian Mythology, He was no ordinary man. Indeed, He was even more than a Great Man. He was God-Man. Thus, it wasn't murder of a human but the murder of the Son of God.
Similar logic underlies Holocaust Remembrance. The real crime is not mass murder of humans but the mass murder of JEWS, the holy race, the awesome race, the genius race, the ancient race, the super race, and etc. Granted, Jews are indeed one of history's great peoples, and surely, the mass killing of Jews will be more consequential than the mass deaths of, say, Bolivians or Burmese. If all Bolivians or Burmese were to disappear(or had never existed in history), the world be pretty much as it is. But if Jews had never existed, the world would be profoundly different, for good or ill. And if Jews were to vanish into the thin air, the world would be much affected by their absence. So, it's understandable why Jews(and their fans, admirers, cucks, and worshipers) would be so obsessed about the well-being and power of Jews in the world. But then, this is precisely why Holocaust Remembrance isn't ultimately anti-supremacist but neo-supremacist. It is less a condemnation of racial supremacism per se than a condemnation of false supremacism that dared to do violence to the true supreme people, the genuine master race of Jews.
Indeed, US politics cannot be understood apart from the fact that Jewish Supremacism is the core defining 'principle' of all that happens. Notice how US politics isn't essentially about Left vs Right but "Jews like?" vs "Jews don't like?" White Identity is suppressed(even if it isn't supremacist) because Jews fear ANY white consciousness will undermine blind obedience among whites to Jewish Supremacism. Slaves mustn't have pride or ego. Only the master deserves to have them. People with pride and ego do not want to serve others. Only when such are taken from them do they become servile to those who are allowed a sense of self. Jews hate the sight of 'uppity' whites who prefer to think for themselves about their own identity and history than be berated by Jews that they are so tainted by 'white privilege' and burdened by 'white guilt' that they must forsake white identity and serve another people, one that happens to be holy, to gain redemption. Of course, that Other People are Jews(even though Jewish money and skills played a big role in White Imperialism, Slave Trade, and conquest of non-whites). Jews bitch about 'white supremacism', but they are suppressing white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism. All this Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria is presented as 'progressive' resistance against Trump as Putin-Puppet, but it's all about Jews. Jews hate Russia because its national autonomy stands in the way of total Jewish World Hegemony. And they esp hate Russia because it says NO to Homomania, a proxy of Jewish World Imperialism. Jews push mass non-white immigration into the West on grounds of 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', but it's all about "Is it good for Jews?" It's obvious from so many New York Times op-eds that what Jews want is to destroy white majority power and create a crazy-quilt nation so that they can play divide-and-rule among goyim from above. That's all it's about. And notice how Jewish Power, both Republican and Democratic, work behind the scenes to shut down BDS even though it is mostly deemed a leftist movement. Why are Jewish 'progressives' working with Jewish Republicans(and cuck-christo-Goppers) to destroy BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians? Because most Jewish Liberals are Jews first and Liberals second. Or, they are Jewish Supremacists first and Jewish humanists second. Even in the bluest states, powerful Jewish Liberals have worked with even hardline Republicans(worthless christo-cucks, the most of them) to shut down BDS. New York is said to be one of the most 'liberal' states, but its cuck-governor bans BDS. Texas and NY are seen as red vs blue, but when it comes to Jews uber Palestinians, both are totally agreed that the US must serve Jews no matter what. And in Florida, a bill is about to become law that would ban speech that notices Jewish power, Jewish supremacism, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. Such a law isn't about humans. It's about gods, premised on the notion that Jews are so holy, great, awesome, and wondrous that it would be downright blasphemous to cast negative aspersions on Jewish Power, notice wicked patterns of behavior among Jews, connect the dots of Jewish influence, condemn Wars for Israel, and call out on Zionist tyranny over Palestinians(and others). Jews say they are condemning 'hate speech', but they are pushing blasphemy laws with themselves as new gods.
Also, if Jews are so concerned about how 'Hate Speech' may lead to violence against powerless minorities, why were they so silent about all those 'liberal' Hollywood movies and TV shows that feature Muslims and Arabs as terrorist madmen or token 'good guys'(who are good ONLY WHEN they collaborate with the US empire against other Muslims)? If Jews are so sensitive about victim-hood, why do they promote violent rap music that celebrates gun violence, rape, & mayhem and call women 'bitches' and 'ho's'? If Jews are so worried about how 'hate speech' may lead to new atrocities and wars, why do the Jewish-run media spew so much Hate News against Iran, Syrians, Arabs, and Russians? Didn't Fake News and Hate News under Bush II and Obama lead to bloodbaths in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? And if Jews despise Trump as 'literally Hitler', why are they most silent and even supportive of him when he is most belligerent, demagogic, and warlike in his hysteria about Iran and Venezuela? It seems Jews don't mind Trump being 'literally Hitler' as long as it's against peoples and nations hated by Jews. Indeed, Jews even form alliances with Literally Nazi elements in Ukraine to get what they want. They even cheer on ISIS psychopaths to wreck Syria, an ally of Iran, IF it is deemed Good for Israel.

The 'moral' logic of Holocaust Remembrance is like that of Globo-Homo-Mania. Initially, the 'gay' agenda was sold as freedom for homosexuals. We didn't have to approve them or welcome them. It was based on the scientific truth that some people are born with homo tendencies, and it's not their fault. Also, as people have feelings, it's not good to insult and harm homosexuals. Just let them be. And most Americans went along with this. But, it soon turned out that this GloboHomo business wasn't just about tolerance of deviancy and freedom for perverts but a supremacist idolatry of homos(and even trannies) as an angel-like special people whom we must feel compelled to celebrate, praise, lionize, and rhapsodize over. As for those who refuse to do so and call out on the true nature of the 'gay' agenda, they are to be deemed as 'homophobic', or sick in the head and unfit to reach upper ranks of society where all the goodies are. Even a huge chain like Chick-Fil-A is to be denied access to cities like Chicago where mass celebrations of Anno Sodomini takes place annually. Apparently, Dick-Fill-Ass is what the US is really about.

Both Holocaust Remembrance and Globo-Homo have been sold as being about justice, equality, and anti-supremacism, but both are actually predicated on the supremacist notion that Jews and homos(their main allies and most tireless globalist agents) are special and deserve praise, adulation, and obedience above and beyond all other peoples. Clever Jews have coated the poison pill of Jewish supremacism with anti-supremacist sweetener. In the mouth, it tastes like 'equality and justice' but dissolves in the stomach to spread mindless support of Jewish Supremacism. At AIPAC rallies, Jews and cucks make big speeches about 'Never Again' and 'No to Hate', all the while pledging undying support for Zionist tyranny against Palestinians, Wars for Israel, mindless hatred against Iran, and defamation of whites who insist on having an identity emancipated from the clutches of the Shylock Doctrine.

Jews could have used Holocaust Remembrance to learn and teach a greater lesson for all mankind. It could have been about how it's wrong for ANY would-be supremacists to wipe out another people. Alas, the lesson has become just another form of Supremacism, i.e. we need to remember the Holocaust forever and ever because the victims were JEWS, the holy and superior race. The lesson became selective than universal.
Even the Jewish-controlled Narrative of the US is about "Is it good for Jews?" Jews say Immigration was noble because it was great for their own kind. But didn't Immigration of Europeans and Jews lead to the 'genocide' of native indigenous folks? Didn't Jewish Hollywood make tons of Westerns lionizing the white pioneers who rubbed out the Indians? Didn't immigration lead to Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map? Never mind all that. Too inconvenient for the Judeo-centric Narrative.
Jews say they are for universal principles and reach for a global audience on that basis, but their ultimate message isn't "equal justice for all humans" but "all humans must agree to praise, worship, and serve Jews and furthermore ensure that all the world will be good for Jews". Jews are not surrendering to universalism but exploiting its reach to make humans serve Jews as the god-race.

But then, the very notion of Jewishness is essentially supremacist as it's based on the conviction that the one true God chose Jews to be masters over all humanity. Indeed, when so-called progressive Jews cling to Jewishness, they are sticking to an exclusionary identity-ideology that says Jews are special and more blessed than others. Even among secular Jews, this mental habit seems to remain. Some Jews argue that Jewishness is about Jews minding their own business and demanding to be left alone by goy bigots. But Jewishness isn't like being Amish, a culture that really just wants to be left alone. Jewishness is about Jews excluding goyim from their own world but making all the goy world include Jewish Power as the righteous master and ruler over all of humanity. It is a mad contradiction, a psycho-political dilemma at the root of the world's biggest problems and conflicts.

Paul Craig Roberts, World War II, Holocaust, Russia, Jewish Supremacism, Slavocaust, Nazis, Palestine, Hate News,