text:
|Roy Batty - Blade Runner
What distinguishes the political narrative(and self-justification) of National Socialism or Nazism apart from other narratives of political struggle defined in terms of the rights of either the master class/race or slave class/race? The Liberal, Leftist, and even conventional Conservative argument prefer to see National Socialism as an extreme(if not the most extreme) realization of the ultra-master race/class ideology and mind-set. According to this view, Hitler and his cohorts were driven by a racial-national political philosophy positing that the 'Aryans', as the superior race, should have dominion over the lesser races, turning certain groups into slaves — and even going so far as exterminating certain undesirable races or peoples. Thus, the argument follows that National Socialism was an extreme version(or logical conclusion) of what other white gentile imperialists had done or were doing all over the world. Anglo-Americans took land from the American Indians and drove them — at least those who survived the 'democidal' diseases and attacks by US cavalries — into Indian Reservations. Anglo-Americans also brought over blacks from West Africa and placed them in hereditary bondage, instilling them with feelings of inborn inferiority vis-a-vis white folks. And Anglo settlers in Australia killed a lot of natives, and various European imperialists in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East treated the native peoples as less-than-equal. White Europeans, especially the British, were filled with preening pride as members of the superior race.
Paradoxically, the Anglos are seen by others — and seen by themselves — as both the best and the worst of the imperialists. The best because they developed into the most progressive, most liberal, and most committed to the advancement of higher values. They led the way in ending the Atlantic Slave Trade, and they, more than other European imperialist powers, administered their imperial possessions with professionalism and introduced social reforms that even anti-imperialists came to admit did much good for the natives. Indeed, parts of the world that had been most deeply affected by British rule generally fared better than those that came under other imperial domination or remained untouched/independent by foreign domination. Kenya, one of the African nations most affected by British rule, generally fared better than other African nations. And the success of Hong Kong and Singapore owed considerably to British influence.
On the other hand, the British were more race-conscious than most other imperialist powers were, especially the Spanish, Portuguese, and the French. Some may wonder how such lack of racial tolerance could have accompanied such a commitment to social reform, moral advancement, rule of law, principle of fairness, and progress. Was the relationship between intolerance of race-mixing and intolerance of moral failing one of co-existence or coincidence? Paradoxically, could the racially intolerant mind-set have fostered an attitude that was also more intolerant of moral failings? It may well be that certain mental habits tend to affect other mental habits. A person who is more fastidious and orderly in personal life may also be more mindful of keeping promises and honoring contracts in professional life. A person who happens to be sloppy and slovenly in life may be likewise in moral values and social relations. This isn't an iron but only a malleable general law since plenty of people who are neat in physical ways could be messy in mental habits. And people who are obsessive about higher professional standards could be low in moral standards. Adolf Eichmann was one hell of a dedicated bureaucrat but not much of a human being, and the same could be said of many committed communist bureaucrats who did their jobs well but hardly bothered themselves with the moral consequences of their actions.
Also, everything has a useful limit, and someone who is hyper-disciplined/principled may only end up undermining his or her own agenda or mission, like the characters played by Tom Courtney in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO and KING RAT. Worse, a hyper-disciplined person may come to confuse his orderliness of habit/authority with morality itself, as happens to the Alec Guinness character in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. To be truly moral, one has to be accepting of the failures of others. As Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." To expect everyone to be perfect, presumably like oneself, is a case of arrogance. Even so, morality cannot simply be non-judgmental, unconditionally tolerant, permissive, and forgiving without end. Some Italian mothers raised their sons this way, and the guys never grew into full adulthood, as they could always run to mama and weep, and she would protect them and do them more favors. In the name of atoning for 'white guilt', blacks are 'forgiven' for so much rotten behavior, and, as a result, a lot of blacks have turned into human cockroaches. Blacks now feel that even when they do wrong, they are right, and even when whites do right, they are wrong. For morality to have spine and meaning, it must judge and enforce its rules. And one's commitment to morality may have a link — though tenuous than absolute — with one's commitment to things that outwardly seem unrelated to morality. Morality, after all, is a kind of discipline and a cleansing of the soul. To be moral, one must purge oneself of wicked thoughts and filthy tendencies. Thus, morality requires a certain habitual discipline of mind if it is to be effective. Though a lazy and messy person can have a good soul, he won't be effective with his goodness because of his ineffective habits. What good can a lazy and messy moral person do for the world when he can't even get his house in order? Also, one can even argue that laziness and messiness are themselves forms of immorality, though not on the scale of killing, raping, or robbing someone. But times of crisis or duress, even laziness can be near-criminal. In THE SANDS OF IWO JIMA, a soldier takes an extra rest for himself while others are under heavy fire. He didn't mean to hurt others, but his laxness cost the lives of comrades.
Such moral/cultural unity was true enough in the home country, but even in their imperial domains, the British maintained clear social barriers between themselves and the natives. Thus, even though the British worked with and did business with the natives on the political and economic level, it was understood that British socially and sexually remained in their own world and the natives did the same in their own. (Though insularity can breed indifference and corruption, it can also allow more honest discussion and the devising of more effective action. People are more likely to speak candidly and forthrightly among their own kind than with others around. Anglos among themselves could freely discuss what was wrong with the Indians, Chinese, or Africans, but if non-Anglos were around, they had to be polite and restrain their honest opinions. Chinese among Chinese and Russians among Russians can speak freely about what's wrong with other nations — in relation to the interests of their own — and devise courses of action that are thought to be good for their national interests. But American whites in government are always around Jews, blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and others, and that means they cannot speak freely lest they offend other groups, and they must come up with policies that satisfy international Jewish interests than just that of America itself.) Of course, these rules were never perfectly adhered to, but they still mattered more in the British Empire than in the empires of other European nations. While some might laud the Spanish and the French for their greater racial tolerance when it came to social mingling and sex — though, to be sure, it was usually white Europeans bedding the native women — , such behavior may have fostered confusion and slovenliness of mental habits.
Also, maybe the color of the skin does affect how people see things. Though a white person is biologically no cleaner than a dark-skinned person, light skin just looks cleaner and purer. Many cultures around the world equate white with cleanliness and purity while equating darkness with danger, contamination, and/or filth. An image of light-skinned and blonde Swedes looks more orderly than the sight of oily and swarthy southern Italians. Peter O'Toole, with light skin and straight blonde hair, looks more dignified — though he was a drunken fool for most of his life — than Joe Pesci with swarthy skin and oily hair. For that reason, maybe a society made up of light-skinned folks is more likely to feel cleaner than one of dark-skinned folks does, and maybe this has a way of affecting their moral outlook as well. Of course, a light-skinned person can be a vile creature just like Miley Cyrus or any number of creeps of Northern Europe. But taken as a whole, maybe lighter skin does affect one's sense of self, which, in turn, affects one's moral view as well. A woman who looks like Olivia Newton-John in GREASE(before she turns slutty) is likely to feel purer than one that looks like some browny-stained gypsy whore.
In the film THE BOUNTY, Anthony Hopkins is socially more uptight but also morally more exacting and more committed to his obligations as an officer. He's a righteous pain in the ass, but his word is as good as gold. He gave his word to his motherland, and he can be trusted to the end. In contrast, the character played by Mel Gibson is more easygoing and is more likable. He comes to freely mix with the natives, and in that sense, he could be seen as more moral by the yardstick of tolerance. But, his abandonment of discipline and a clear sense of identity also leave him confused and stranded in the no man's land of right and wrong. Morality may find harmony with more freedom and equality, but morality is always about hierarchy of values and behaviors. Even under greater freedom and equality, morality demands that people act in certain ways, respect certain rules, uphold the rule of law, and unite against those who violate the core principles of society. Thus, while morality can improve with tolerance, it cannot be overly permissive. Freedom in a modern society means one must be able to control oneself as he's no longer under the thumb of an autocratic government or repressive community that is always forcing him to do the 'right thing'. Morality in a democracy means control of self, not freedom from control. And for self-control to be instilled into individuals, we need families and schools fulfilling their duties of raising children properly and teaching them skills and knowledge. Otherwise, youths will turn out like Tupac Shakur or Miley Cyrus; and a society where most kids act like that will crumble overnight.
Tolerance is necessary in any healthy moral system since strict moralism implies the hope of attaining 'virtutopia', but such would be possible only if every person is born saint. Just like teachers have to be tolerant of mistakes made by students and gradually guide the students toward correct answers and higher knowledge through trial and error — after all, it is faulty practice that makes 'perfect' — , a society has to make room for the moral lapses and failures of people. Also, as essential as social form and manners are to morality, society should not confuse proper form per se with morality and/or higher knowledge, or else, the end result could be something like feudal Japan or Confucian China. In Japan, the proper conduct and social forms became so synonymous with virtue that it had the effect of creating an overly neurotic and anxious social system, not least because someone without proper manners could be killed on the spot by a samurai. In the end, ancient Sparta with its impossible ideals of perfection didn't turn out so well either. Also, the obsession with proper forms could mean that an unscrupulous bureaucrat or authority figure could always find some trivial issue and exploit it to harass and/or persecute social inferiors. (The corrupt bureaucrat in the story of THE LOYAL 47 RONIN looks for excuses to squeeze bribes out of a minor feudal lord.) While the positive side of the Japanese way was punctuality, thoroughness, and expertise in many facets of life and profession, the negative side was the creation of a society more concerned with appearance and presentation than heart and soul. It also led to a culture of cowardice where people were so anxious/afraid of being caught doing something wrong — or doing it the wrong way — that many Japanese preferred to lie than deal with the truth. There was too much shame and too steep a price to pay for having done something wrong or in the wrong way. According to Japanese ideals, such a person should confess his wrongs and stoically face punishment(which, in feudal times, often meant painful death), but human nature being what it is, most Japanese preferred to lie for the sake of self-preservation. Too often, facing the truth meant shame and death(in order to restore one's honor), so it was better to lie, live, and keep one's wealth. In a healthy moral society, those who admit the truth should face punishment but also be praised for their courage to confess and right their wrongs. But in a severe social order like Japan, facing the truth often meant harsh punishment and near-certain death, so the only option was to lie if one wanted to live. Though Japanese military men have been admired for their courage in their wars — even in WWII where they were the 'bad guys' — , much of this courage was really borne of cowardice of ultra-shame and harsh punishment meted out to those who didn't live up to standards. And although some junior officers did sacrifice their lives — for punishment for having assassinated 'corrupt' politicians — in the name of serving the Emperor, they were driven by a slave mentality that demonstrated its worth through thoughtless servility than thinking individuality. (Oddly enough, such a mentality was romanticized by a Jewish Liberal Edward Zwick in THE LAST SAMURAI starring Tom Cruise. I guess even ultra-reactionary passions are okay as long as a white guy joins with the non-whites against forces — modernizing Japan — aided and abetted by the white powers.) In the case of China, the ideal of higher knowledge and wisdom became so closely intertwined with manners, grace, and proper calligraphy that pomposity and conceit came to trump genuine substance in truth and meaning.
So, while truth and morality need to be presented or practiced through proper forms, the latter, in and of themselves, should not be made synonymous with the former. On the other hand, it generally helps the cause of truth and morality for people to practice the proper ways of doing things. Even the way we speak has a way of affecting how our minds work. Though science can be practiced and communicated through Ebonics, its very character as a dialect tends to degrade and mock rational thought. The essential message of the Declaration of Independence can be conveyed through Ebonics, but the result makes clear that style, while not the same as substance and meaning, can add to or subtract from the substance and meaning. It's like a movie isn't just about characters and plot-line but about camera angles, mood, music, pacing, and the like. While a movie that's all style and no substance ain't much, a movie lacking in any discernible style isn't fully realized. It's like how people dress or cut their hair does say something about them, how others see them, and how they see themselves, and those factors do affect behavior.
Anyway, on the matter of National Socialism's peculiar political character in the modern world, it continues to fascinate as well as disturb because, despite the official historiography, it cannot simply be pigeonholed into a master-rule narrative or slave-rebellion narrative. In the Western empires around the world, there was clearly the case of the powerful, modern, advanced, and wealthy Europeans/whites ruling as the 'master race/class' over the relatively backward, weaker, poorer, and/or even primitive folks who eventually rose up in 'slave rebellion'. There was no question as to who were the 'masters' and who were the 'slaves'. Even when and where European powers ended the practice of slavery — their own, that of other imperialists, or that of the natives — in their overseas empires, they were the masters who presided, alternately benignly and brutally depending on the 'necessity', over the native masses who, as time passed, began to feel as 'slaves' of foreign domination. Even if the white man spread many blessings of social progress and technological innovation to their colonies or imperial outposts, it became increasingly humiliating for the natives(especially the native elites with their pride of right to rule)to have to take orders from a foreign master race/class who put on airs of superiority.
It's become conventional to associate the racial/national attitudes of Hitler and the Nazis with those of European imperialists of all stripes(but especially the Anglos as they were most committed to enforcing the strict color line on the rationalization that whites would best manage their own affairs in their own sphere and non-whites would do likewise in their own as well; today, it's like Zionists saying Jews are best off among themselves and Palestinians are likewise best off minding their own business among themselves, but, of course, when Jews do it, it's not a problem as the Jewish-dominated media in the US, Canada, and EU make an exception for Jews no matter what they do; anyway, as far as the Anglo imperialists were concerned, mixing the races also mixed and/or contaminated the values, customs, and ways of doing things, and such was seen to be negative for both sides. And in their defense, it could be argued that the racially divided Anglo Empires ran things more efficiently than the racially mixed empires of France and Spain; in other words, the less 'fair' and more discriminatory system worked more fairly in bureaucratic and legal terms; it's like for the science of biology to work properly, it must discriminate against non-science such as Intelligent Design and Creationism; early Christians, Chinese, and Muslims didn't maintain a clear dividing line between reason/logic/facts and mysticism/spirituality/orthodoxy, and so their 'science' tended to be muddled and 'contaminated'), and this owes to the fact that Hitler was a great admirer of British Imperialism — as well as the Manifest Destiny westward expansion in America at the expense of the Indians who were driven into segregated Reservations — and was convinced of the superiority of the 'Aryan' and Nordic 'races' over all others. Hitler not only shared the racial attitudes of European Imperialists but pushed them to ruthless extremes that came to even justify mass enslavement and mass extermination, indeed even of fellow Europeans who were seen to be tainted by mixtures of non-white blood; the Slavs, for example, became the main targets of Hitler's imperialist plans. This side of National Socialism was indeed a form of Master Race/Class ideology, indeed one so extreme that it gave pause even to British, French, and other European imperialists who'd taken possession of much of the world. Just like Spartans offended many Greeks by enslaving fellow Greeks — whereas most Greek city-states enslaved foreign 'barbarians' — , Nazi Germany was especially frightful to many Europeans because it waged war of conquest, enslavement, and even extermination on fellow Europeans. (WWII was different from WWI in that, even though the earlier conflagration was about whites killing whites, it was not a war of conquest, enslavement, and extermination. Despite all the ugly war propaganda, no side saw the other side as less than human or deserving to be conquered and enslaved forever; it was rather a war of gaining advantages that went out of control.) This may be why the Third World doesn't see Hitler as such a bad guy. Many non-white folks see him as having given the West a taste of its medicine, and it must be said that it's rather amusing for France and UK to take pride in their resistance to imperialist Hitler when they had imperial holdings all over the world and even used extreme violence to quell rebellions well into the 60s.
However, there was another side of National Socialism that can only be understood through the Slave Rebellion narrative. This duality becomes readily apparent when we consider the status of Jews in modern Germany. Despite all the Nazi rhetoric about 'Aryan' supremacy and Jewish inferiority, many Jews had de facto become the master race/class in modern Germany, especially following WWI when a bunch of Marxist Jews nearly toppled the German government to set up a Soviet system. When they failed, the German banks & stock markets, media, medicine, culture, and legal system largely fell into the hands of finance capitalist Jews. While one can justify Jewish wealth, influence, and power in Germany along meritocratic grounds, it still doesn't negate the fact that Jews were, prior to the victory of National Socialism, among the most powerful groups in Germany and, in terms of proportionality, by far the most powerful group. Therefore, if the Master Class/Race ideology of the British and other European imperialists were imposed on non-white peoples all over the world who were indeed less advanced, less powerful, less influential, and less wealthy than the Europeans, the National Socialist movement in Germany was, in large measure, about Germans(who were socially, economically, and politically under the power of Jews) uniting and struggling to depose the master race/class of Jewish power that had its tentacles twirled into nearly every important facet of German culture, economics, and politics. To be sure, many German Jews were patriotic and loved German culture and history — and were grateful for the social reforms that greatly expanded their liberties and opportunities — , and it's even truer that most Jews were not super-rich finance capitalists exploiting the stock markets while the German middle classes were losing their life-savings. Even so, there's no getting around the fact that Jews in Germany were greatly over-represented among the tycoons and the elite institutions of law, academia, and media, all of which were enabled by those providing the funds. Also, Jews in the UK and US worked in tandem with Jews in Germany to increase the Jewish share of power, influence, and wealth. It's like American Jewish capitalist tycoons even funded the Russian Revolution and Bolshevism — not out of any love for communism but because their tribal loyalties favored Jewish Reds over the 'antisemitic' Whites. A Jewish capitalist will favor a Jewish capitalist over a Jewish communist, but he will favor a Jewish communist over a gentile capitalist or rightist. Indeed, notice how tolerant even the Jewish Left is of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel; Jewish Liberals prefer to side with 'extreme' Jewish rightists than with Palestinian Liberals who call for an end to Zionist Occupation and goodwill compromise at a two-state solution.
Anyway, while National Socialism was a Master Race ideology, it gained power in part as a Slave Rebellion supported by masses made destitute during the new peace following World War I. Even during the darkest years of the Great Depression, some Jewish financiers amassed immense fortunes while German middle classes saw their savings wiped out in a matter of days. Though many decent middle class Jews were similarly affected, German Jewish tycoons and their international brethren made off like thieves in the night via insider trading and currency manipulation — just like George Soros is doing all over the world without any criticism from the 'progressive' community, not least because he funds so many of them and because he's Jewish like most leaders of the 'progressive' movement. Just as troubling was the fact that many Jews with control of German media and arts/culture spread decadence, ugliness, and moral rot just when what the German national community needed most was a sense of unity and values. If the Jazz Age in America was at its height during the boom years but then gave way to a more somber national culture during the Depression years, Weimar Germany was a place where the rich and privileged were having the time of their lives in decadent cabarets and spreading such decadent rot all around just when so many Germans were destitute and had to surrender their entire savings to buy a few loaves of bread. And Jews in entertainment and culture were spreading porn and using German women as pieces of meat as American Jews do today with their control of porn, pop music industry, and mass entertainment. (Disney under Jewish control might as well be Jizzney for it produces the likes of Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Christina Aguilera, and other quasi-prostitutes.) And in social and cultural critique, the Jewish elites mocked and subverted every value or tradition held dear by many Germans, and of course, we see the same tendency among the Jewish master race/class elites in America in our world. (Though Jews rail against 'antisemitic' propaganda as a 'canard' about the Jewish globalist agenda, they go out of their way to validate the accusations. National Socialists and 'anti-Semites' charged that Jews had an agenda to turn white women into shikse whores, to racially mix the white race out of existence, to spread porn and other filth, to promote homosexuality and other perversions as healthy and normal, to take over the finance of nations, to weaken national borders and overwhelm whites with the tidal wave of color, to make gentiles worship Jews as gods, to mock and subvert the identities and cultures of gentile majorities, to use Christian morality to fill whites with paralyzing guilt, to turn white women against white men, to turn white children against white parents, and gain control over all forms of information. Look around the world today, especially in the US-Canada-and-EU, and these charges by 'anti-Semites' all ring true. Since WWII, Jews have been telling us how ridiculous and outrageous those fears and accusations were, but they carried out them out to the letter, and lately, the likes of Tim Wise and Frank Rick are gloating that the Jewish mission has been accomplished in breaking the backbone of the white race. So, isn't it funny how Jews tell us that 'anti-Semites' just told a lot of nasty 'canards' but then fulfill every one of those 'canards' and even have the temerity to lecture to white people that the demise of white power and unity is a good thing? Now, that's some chutzpah along with the
chutz-putsch. It's like how blacks bitch about how 'racist' white folks once used to see them as wild lascivious ape-like savages but then go out of their way to act in ways that only demonstrate that blacks love to act like ape-like savages via rap culture and the like. "Don't call me a savage but worship me for acting like the biggest savage the world has ever seen." It's like a drunkard saying, "Don't call me a 'drunk' while I drink and puke all over." Of course, National Socialism was a disaster and turned out to be a great evil once Hitler decided on war. And Hitler and his cohorts were no less nasty and vicious than the Jews, and ironically, they ended up doing what they accused the Jews of doing: they lied through their teeth, their wars divided and pitted whites against whites, and when the smoke cleared and dust settled, the Jews, despite immense losses in the Holocaust, were positioned to gain the most, especially in America that became the undisputed power center of the world — though the USSR did post a challenge for a few decades. So, I do not say Hitler and 'anti-Semites' were forces of goodness because they were essentially correct about the Jewish agenda. One can be right about something and still go about the wrong to way to fix the problem, thereby making the problem even worse. WWII not only destroyed the hope for white unity in Europe and America, but the Holocaust gave Jews a great arsenal in neutralizing their enemies/rivals with charge of 'antisemitism' that, henceforth, became associated with mass killings and other outrages. It's like a doctor can be right in diagnosing the disease but very wrong in treating it, thereby making it much worse than before. And Hitler was the worst doctor in history. Though his diagnosis of Jewish power and threat was on the extreme and hysterical side, he was essentially right about the nature of the Jewish agenda. But when it came to dealing with the Jewish problem, he administered the radical Teutonic surgery on Europe that made things much worse for everyone. Similarly, while Marx was insightful and correct in many of his critique of capitalism, his proposed cure — communism — made things even worse where it was tried.)
The issue of National Socialism is especially confusing in relation to the idea of Friedrich Nietzsche. While anyone who knows anything knows that National Socialism twisted the ideas of Nietzsche, some believe that Nazism and Nietzscheanism had much in common in the concepts of the Will to Power, the force of charisma, the aura of the irrational and the creative(over rationality and clarity), and the notion of the 'superior man'. Others believe that there is no real philosophical link between Nietzsche and Hitler at all and that Nietzsche's ideas came to be entirely misconstrued because of the textual manipulations of Nietzsche's wicked anti-Jewish sister and the cynical propagandizing of Nazi ideologues. The way I see it, such argument is rather pointless since there wasn't and never could be any correct way of interpreting and implementing the ideas of Nietzsche. They were too multi-faceted, imaginative, visionary, contradictory, and even satirical(and even self-mocking) to constitute any kind of logical system of thought like Marxism — though, to be sure, every -ism has been reinterpreted(even rardically) by every new power that adopted it.. Marxist theory, true or false, was what it was from morning to night; it was premised on a consistent and stable world view, at least in theory. In contrast, Nietzsche's 'truth' was dependent on the time of the day, on the feeling of the moment, on sudden bursts of insight or vision, etc. Thus, what might seem totally true in the morning could seem utterly false at night. What might seem glorious at one moment might seem merely gory in the next. For Nietzsche, thinking was a kind of performance art through words. Like music and dance, one could never be sure where the ideas or visions might lead. Thus, Nietzsche emphasized the 'creative' and the 'charismatic' over the certain and sure. While Marxism wasn't without passion, it was more about zeal than inspiration. Marxists accepted the ideas of their master-philosopher to be utterly true, and their passions were devoted to serving those iron truths. In contrast, the emotions of Nietzscheanism weren't welded to a set of ideas but to the promise of another high with yet fresher ideas, insights, and visions; it was meant as heroin for the elites than opium for the masses. Marxist passion provided fuel to the locomotive of history as Marx saw it. Nietzschean fire, like the gift of Prometheus, could set the world aflame with no clear direction. There was no set rules to Nietzscheanism. Therefore, it could not be followed like a manual or guidebook but as an exhortation for others to be as wildly imaginative in their own right as Nietzsche was. So, paradoxically, the only way to be true to Nietzscheanism was to be untrue to it and follow one's own muse or bliss(as Joseph Campbell put it) and find one's own truth or be one's own Zarathustra(and anti-Zarathustra at the same time). Thus, Freud, Jung, Hitler, Sartre, Foucault, Rand, and others could be said to be true Nietzscheans in their own way since they, inspired by creativity and vision, arrived at their own visionary truths. Indeed, it could even be applied to communist rulers like Stalin and Mao who, despite their ideological orthodoxy, gained great power as living gods and made the people serve them than vice versa. All these quasi-Nietzscheans were 'right' because they were 'wrong' if we follow that the point of Nietzcheanism is to encourage different individuals to fight for different visions, ideas, and imaginations — which accounts for the fever-dream quality of so much of his writing. In other words, Nietzsche wasn't teaching people WHAT to think and feel but showing people HOW to think and feel. A good teacher doesn't try to make his students agree with everything he teaches them; rather, he tries to guide his students on HOW they should think, solve problems, and seek out new problems to solve.
|Hitler - Nietzsche
So, in this sense, the proto-fascists were more in tune with Nietzsche, not because they agreed with what Nietzsche's personal views on politics or society nor because they agreed amongst themselves, but because their sense of truth/destiny tended to be creative, mythic, inspired, and 'irrational' than the sene of truth espoused by the rationalist left that zealously upheld a set of enlightened 'rational' principles. And if communist leaders pledged their allegiance to the unalterable truths as revealed by Marx and Engels, fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler defined truth as whatever erupted from within their inspired and visionary souls to further the power and glory of their nations, races, and histories. Thus, Mussolini and Hitler were more exciting and charismatic leaders than were the communist bosses, but they could also be more volatile and unpredictable, treating history as a grand opera or a blockbuster movie where anything is possible. Though Fidel Castro later became a communist, his formative emotional experiences were fascist-nationalist, and that may account for his theatrics and charisma.
Of course, reality being reality, even the rationalist and materialist ideologues were forced to be 'creative' by circumstances. Thus, Lenin revised Marxism, and Stalin revised Marxism-Leninism, and Mao revised Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and the Sandero Luminoso movement in Peru revised Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism to fit their own egos and circumstances. Indeed, every ideology in practice is — and had to be — a 'perversion' or corruption of the original ideology that was, itself, a corruption of previous ideologies. No practiced form of Christianity conforms to the Christianity as preached by Jesus. And the New Testament is surely a corruption by its authors of what Jesus might really have said. And whatever Jesus actually may have said was surely a 'corruption' of the Torah and Jewish tradition. It's like the US Constitution in practice has been, at best, only half-faithful to the original intent of the Founders because every interpretation 'corrupted' its meanings and intents. .
Though Nietzsche is said to have changed, directly or indirectly, the way people see and think about the world, he was himself a product of the 'Zeitgeist'. He saw all around him the artists, poets, and musicians doing things more startling and invigorating than merely passing the torch of tradition. Rather, they were 'radically' transforming what they observed, mastered, and experienced into new visions. Though Richard Wagner was very much a part of a long-standing musical tradition, he expanded the range and scope of music far beyond what all previous composers had not even dared to imagine. There were great changes happening all around, and the world was waiting for someone to put the essence/spirit of those changes into words, and Nietzsche turned out to be that man. Because Nietzsche and his ideas were very much the product of the times, there would have been something like Nietzscheanism even without Nietzsche — just as something like Kafkaesqueness would have existed without Kafka — , but no one could or did put it better into words than he did. Though WWII made Nietzsche rather unfashionable for a time due to the association of his ideas with Hitler and the ideology of the 'master race', the 1960s Rock music was a variation of Nietzscheanism in practice with artists like Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger-Keith Richards, John Lennon-Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Pete Townshend, Roger Waters, Jimi Hendrix, and many others who weren't content to pass down the musical tradition they'd practiced and mastered. Dylan took everything he loved — folk, blues, country, Rock n Roll, ethnic music, pop music, etc. — and transformed it into something astoundingly new. And the Beatles and the Rolling Stones composed songs that sounded familiar in some ways but also unlike anything that had been heard before. Though popular music had always been evolving, the 1960s made a real difference with the triumph of the Will to Personality, as if the quest of every musical artist was open up entirely new frontiers and even chance upon wholly new dimensions. Thus, songs like "Satisfaction" and "Purple Haze" are something much more than a blues song or Rock n Roll. More than examples of a genre of music, they are stellar achievements borne of a force of will committed to breaking through the other side. If important changes in popular music had happened by the decades, it changed within years or even months in the 1960s when what was 'right' was the thing that felt right at the moment of inspiration within the personal will. Dylan, for one, broke through the sound barrier of folk musical culture and got heckled and even demonized for it, but it had to his way or the highway.
More than any other people, Jews were the masters of Nietzscheanism for, as a wandering rootless people, they've become adept at taking something of another culture and transforming it with their formidable creativity, wit, and imagination. But Jews were also the most anti-Nietzschean of groups in that Nietzscheanism, as a cult of nihilistic Romanticism, called for total emotional investment in the vision or destiny, come what may. A full-blown Nietzschean, no matter how shrewd or cunning in his means, must at some point be willing to risk everything to gain or lose his chosen end. In this sense, Hitler was Nietzschean to the end for he fulfilled the drama his chosen destiny from his spectacular rise to the top to his even more spectacular fall with the destruction of his world. It had to be triumph or tragedy, and either way, it had to be grand and operatic. In contrast, Jews, due to their mental habit shaped by thousands of years of survival as calculating middlemen and moralistic religionists, could never give themselves so passionately or romantically to such a grand either/or proposition. Jews can be very creative and innovative, but deep down inside, their hearts are Nibelungen-Alberich-ish than heroic-Siegfriedian. Jews would rather remain in the shadows and pull strings from the above than put themselves forward, and this is true in war as in peace. (Just look at the Iraq War where Neocons pulled the strings while goyim such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld — and gullible gentile soldiers sold on mindless gungho-ism — did the bidding of the Zionists and paid the ultimate price for failure, whereas Jews continued to 'eat like effendi'. Though there are powerful Jews in government, they prefer to remain low-key and let goy politicians and generals to serve as the 'face of power', thereby fooling Americans that Jews only play a subservient role in government, but that would be believing that the puppet-master serves the puppet than the other way around.) Jews tend to be like the devious general in PATHS OF GLORY than a much publicized officer or soldier making all the noise — and usually getting all the blame. Thus, Jews feel divided about the prospect of having a Jewish president in America. With their money and media power, Jews could easily promote and put a Jewish man or woman in the White House, but Jews worry that Americans will see their nation as totally Jewish-run-and-owned. Jews wanna own everything but still prefer using a lot of 'buffers' like the Corleone family in THE GODFATHER. Clinton, Bush II, and Obama were all buffers. Another reason why Jews don't wanna put themselves forward is most of them ain't too pretty. Therefore, when a Jew like Bob Dylan, Lenny Bruce, Barbra Streisand, or Woody Allen does put himself or herself forward, he or she tends to be in the mocking comic-nasty-witty mode than in the heroic mode. Jews are like the Loki character in THOR. Never to be trusted. Though Hitler was a liar and a dirty son of a bitch, he was totally — and in his own estimation, heroically — committed to the sacred destiny of creating the 1000 Yr Reich, and as such, he saw himself and his vision of history as legends of a grand spectacle. Though Jews have their own great plan of world domination, they prefer to remain secretive of everything they do. Jews want to pry into everything about us — and if we resist, we are called 'antisemitic' and 'paranoid' — , and Jews want to hide everything about themselves — and if we pry into their affairs, we are called 'antisemitic' and 'intrusive'.
Hitler had an openly stated mission and then lied and cheated to realize it, but the Jewish mission isn't even open. If Hitler was honest about his vision and then lied to achieve it, Jews are not even honest about their agenda — which is Jewish global supremacism — and would have us believe that Jews have always been suffering saints all throughout history, and therefore, all gentiles must go out of their way to help, hug, and save Jews, which is why America is a land of dumb Christian conservatives living paycheck to paycheck donating funds to Jews who are worth trillions.
Anyway, even though Nietzsche denounced 'slave morality', his concept of the Will to Power has most meaning to gain in relation to a slave rebellion. Conan the Barbarian is a superior man because he rose from slavery to mastery. He proved his mettle, courage, and daring by climbing from the bottom to the top of 'badassery'. It's like boxing champions are admired because they paid their dues and fought their way to the top. If championship in boxing were hereditary, then how could one be sure if the current champion is really made of championship material? There was special dramatics to the rise of Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali because the lowly 'black slave' had risen and totally whupped, beaten, cremated, humiliated the 'white master' and even sexually conquered the wife, daughter, sister, and mother of the utterly ass-whupped 'white boy'.
At any rate, it could be argued that the slave rebellion — led by actual or virtual slaves — narrative is crucial to the true fulfilment of Nietzscheanism for the genuine greatness of a man can only be proven if a slave fights, struggles, and maneuvers his way to the throne. Whatever one thinks of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, there's no question that they were masterful players in the game of power who went from the bottom to the top. They were political or military Conan the Barbarians. And the story of Western Civilization is astounding in the way that the Europeans, who'd been ravaged by the Barbarian Invasions and the long so-called Dark Ages, came to surpass even the greatest civilizations and empires of the world — Persian, Moghul, Chinese, Ottoman, and etc. — to become masters of the world. And the Germanic peoples surprised the world time and time again. Though conquered and enslaved by the mighty Romans, they eventually rose from slavery to gain mastery as the conquerors and plunderers of the Roman Empire. And though Prussia and other German states were relatively weak, divided, and lackluster compared to other great European powers, they united to form the most powerful political, economic, and military — and in some ways cultural and intellectual — bloc in the West, easily defeating France in 1870 and shaking the entire world in WWI and WWII despite being vastly outnumbered. To truly prove your worth, it helps to show that you started at the bottom and fought yourself to the top. (One thing that holds back the Western Right is the legacy of the cult of white superiority. Whether or not whites are generally smarter and more creative/dynamic than most other races, power grows stale without the element of struggle, and slaves have more to gain and less — or nothing — to lose than the masters do in the fight. Thus, slaves have the offensive position while the masters have the defensive position; slaves want to climb higher or at least vengefully pull the masters down, whereas the masters feel they have no place to climber higher and should either enjoy their superiority or guard it from those below. Though it feels better to be above looking down than below looking up, it's looking up that animates one's Will to Power, whereas those above looking down feel either complacent or anxious. It's like the king and the knights in PARSIFAL have grown weak and weary, and it takes an outsider to infuse the holy order with new vitality. Just like the Eternals in ZARDOZ come to feed on the power of Zed — Sean Connery — the outsider, the German elites came to embrace Hitler and his Nazi gangsters because the latter had the vitality and fighting spirit that the overly 'dignified' and privileged establishment elites lacked. Though the German elites were willing to fight and die nobly, they were afraid to fight down-and-dirty in the new disorder of things, but Hitler was willing to fight rat-for-rat as well as tit-for-tat. And the psycho-political appeal of Obama to the Liberal elites was similar. After so many politically 'inbred' same old same old from within the same circle of establishment power, Obama seemed exotic, fresh, and vital enough to make a difference and regenerate a feeling of 'progress' and 'change' in American Liberalism, which was really something of a joke since, more than any other candidate, Obama is the total creation and pet monkey of Jewish-and-homo elites who control the Democratic Party. Anyway, as long as the Western Right thinks in terms of "we white masters should maintain or regain control of the slaves by divine or biological right", they won't have the true revolutionary spirit to fight and win. Even if they want to remain masters or regain mastery, they must adopt the cult of slave rebellion and strike out with full fury against the current globalist elites dominated by Jewish supremacists, homo neo-aristocrats, and Liberal Wasp collaborators or 'house whites' who look down on 'field whites'. This is why Jews still peddle the victim narrative for themselves; it isn't merely guilt-bait white gentiles but to fire up future generations of Jews with vicious and vengeful fighting spirit. 'Never Again' is conjoined to 'Again and Again Kick the Whitey with Righteous Rage'. Though Colonel Kurtz in the original screenplay of APOCALYPSE NOW by John Milius went too far — in Coppola's film version, he was crazy beyond crazy — , he had a point in understanding that the ONLY way the Americans could win the Vietnam War was to become jungle warrior-poets themselves. "Up here is the truth. How much truth can you take, Captain? I've made sense of this war — war as you've never known it. We revel in our own blood; we fight for glory, for land that's under our feet, gold that's in our hands, women that worship the power in our loins. I summon fire from the sky. Do you know what it is to be a white man who can summon fire from the sky? What it means? You can live and die for these things—not silly ideals that are always betrayed. What do you fight for, Captain?" Americans had the means to win but not the will to win. Americans, feeling so big and powerful, didn't want to get too involved to win. It thought the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong would get the message with enough bombs and firepower heaped on them. Also, Americans, feeling morally righteous, were loathe to sink to the level of jungle guerrilla warfare or shocked to discover that Americans were doing some 'bad stuff' in Vietnam. Therefore, what was needed was a total change of mind. American soldiers had to go 'native' and fight for the same primordial, warrior-spirit, and tribal impulses that animated their courageous and irrepressible communist-patriotic enemies.) For this reason, even though Nietzsche had a low opinion of 'slave morality', its core concept of Will to Power can truly be realized only through a slave rebellion narrative. The difference between Christianity and Nietzscheanism is thus less an issue of favoring slaves over masters or favoring masters over slaves; the difference is that Christianity sympathizes with slaves AS slaves whereas the Nietzschean glory is for the slaves to topple the masters to become masters themselves. In this sense, the so-called Alternative Right community's understanding of Nietzscheanism is deeply flawed for they think the established master races/classes — white Europeans as the result of centuries of world domination — should, by some divine right, always have the right to rule over others. But such a power, even if the product of genuine vision and talent of earlier generations of whites, has not been tested and proven among those who merely inherited it. Thus, the Nietzscheanism of the Alternative Right crowd is political thought resting on its laurels and petulantly expecting the world to revolve around the power of one's own people because... well, just because. Even if the Alternative Right community is correct that white people have higher IQs than most other races and may have personality traits and physical characteristics that have been essential to the development of the West, having superior qualities doesn't mean anything unless they are applied ruthlessly and relentlessly. Why did the tortoise beat the hare? The hare was naturally faster, but it took its own mastery for granted.
Also, as people are necessarily moral creatures — and the West is morally more advanced than other peoples — , moral superiority doesn't necessarily correlate with intellectual, economic, or military superiority. If a rich smart person does wrong to a dumb poor person, we would have to say the latter, as a victim, has moral advantage over the former. Morality is a form of power and also a great equalizer. Otherwise, we might as well say smart rich people are always right while poor dumb people are always wrong. As long as the historical moral narrative of the West is controlled by Jews, it will selectively remember past events to demote whites as the moral inferiors of Jews and Negroes — and straight normal real-sexual people as the moral inferiors of homosexual deviants and/or perverts. (Indeed, one area where whites are highly energized and motivated is in their zealous will to climb the moral mountain from the hellish pit of sinfulness, though with the understanding that they must never try to topple Jews and Negroes who deserve to occupy the uppermost position for themselves for all eternity. Whites notice that they are richer and 'more privileged' than other races and feel guilty about it since the Jewish narrative has them believing that 'white wealth was built on non-white blood and sweat'. The moral zealotry of whites proves that the slaves are more motivated. Whites feel as moral slaves than as moral masters since they believe themselves to be spiritually shackled with the chains of their historical evils — rather like Marley in A CHRISTMAS CAROL — , and therefore, they have a powerful will to prove their moral worth and be freed from the shackles of sin. The source of such mentality actually goes back to the spread of Christianity during the Roman era. Christianity made gentiles feel guilty over the death of Jesus — even if Jews were especially blamed for it — and their general feeling of unworthiness before God, and such feelings of moral slavery shackled with sinfulness made Christians want to prove their worth as good folks so as to, one day, be liberated from the chains of the flesh and admitted into the free paradise of Heaven. Christians became more moral because they were made to feel morally less worthy; such sense of moral slavery before God motivated them to prove their moral worthy by spreading the Gospel, doing good work, praying, atoning, reflecting, and all that. And among all the religious groups, Christians are the only ones who feel sorry and atone for the 'evils' they may have committed in the practice of their religion. Of course, it needs to be said that even though Christians used torture and other horrific methods, such were something Christians adopted from the pagans — both Roman and Northern European — than something that intrinsically grew out of Christianity itself. A kind of syncretic fusion of Christian righteousness and pagan brutality resulted from the meeting of two worlds, but it was Christian Civilization that gradually and eventually got rid of all such cruel ways. Indeed, even the practice of hunting down and burning witches was something Christianity inherited from pagan practices. Even today in Africa, pagan tribes hunt, torture, and kill men and women accused of using witchcraft to spread bad mojo. Anyway, while the white motivation to prove their moral worth can be positive — at least under the gaze of the Almighty God — , it is dubious and dangerous when whites try to prove their moral worth before Jews and blacks. Jews and blacks, as moral judges of whites, now feel like gods and are even worshiped as such by silly whites who seem to think every Jew is a Holocaust victim and every black is some Magic Negro whose ancestors in Africa were living in Edenic harmony and bliss before whites came along and messed everything up. While it's true that some whites did have power over some blacks and some Jews and abused their power, it's also true that whites brought lots of advantages to blacks and Jews who were brutal, exploitative, and wicked in their own ways. So, when history is boiled down to the simple moral narrative of 'bad whites must prove their moral worth before saintly Jews and blacks', it may motivate whites to be better people but it also encourages Jews and blacks to be worse and nastier people overloaded with moral narcissism, god complex, preening self-righteousness, and insufferable arrogance. Jews are now at a point where they rob billions and then rationalize it on grounds that their grandfather wasn't admitted to some Wasp country club. So, whites need to wake up and stop seeing themselves as moral slaves before the godly moral masters comprising Jews and Negroes — and even freaking homos. They need to see themselves as moral equals of Jews and Negroes who have their own dark histories and even darker futures — given where the world is headed — and see themselves as the economic, political, cultural, and/or demographic slaves of Jews, Negroes, homos, and other enemies of Western Civilization all over the world.) And of course, part of the reason why Jews have gained such power to control the Western narrative is because they are even smarter than whites. Jewish power has a Nietzschean element in that they went from the bottom to the very top. But if the ideal Nietzschean hero basks in his power and glory, Jews, no matter how much wealth and influence they amass, prefer to remain relatively low-key when it comes to their power. Jews want to be very visible as noble victims and lovable funny guys-and-gals, but they want to be invisible as a powerful people who are pulling the strings. Jews understand that one of the problems of Nietzschean hero-worship(as well as self-worship) of the Great Man is that it has a way of paving the way for a sudden fall. If a man or a group is said to be so great and godly, it has to maintain its aura of invincibility and awesomeness at every moment, but in truth, even the greatest of men are flawed, make fatal mistakes, grow old and ill, and are mortal. Therefore, maintaining the aura of absolute greatness is no easy feat, and in the long run, an impossible feat. Also, the heirs of the Great Men tend to be weaker due to the law of 'regression to the mean' — especially because Great Men often marry and have kids with pretty women without brains or talent — and because they, having inherited their wealth and influence, don't have fire in their belly. So, Jews have decided not to create an aura of super-duper power around themselves that might make the gentiles who vastly outnumber them expect too much from them. Also, their children are raised to be paranoid and anxious than comfortable and complacent, thus making them hoard and gain more than be magnanimous and generous. Thus, even as Jews are the master race/class in America, they maintain the mentality of slave rebellion. They are the Crassuses of America but still act like Spartacuses.
Caddyshacking white America with the narrative that would have us believe that some Wasp country club's denial of admission to Jews in the past constituted one of the greatest injustices in human history. The moral logic of such argument spreads the canard that the robbery of billions by nasty Jews on Wall Street owed to some trauma of Jews who survived the golfocaust that denied them the right to tee off and sink the hole while ogling at the blonde 'shikse' daughters of Wasps. So, if a Jew robs you of your entire wealth, just remind yourself that HE is the victim deserving of sympathy; he was just trying to work out his neurosis stemming from his millionaire grandfather not having been admitted to some country club.
In contrast to Jews who keep their power 'invisible' — by masking it with goy puppets or forbidding any discussion of Jewish power via retaliation by blacklisting those who do, as Rick Sanchez found out — , gentiles tend to show off their power, and such bragging rights tend to make them vulnerable to criticism and mockery — after all, if they claim to be so great, why are they so fallible? — , and it tends to make their heirs complacent and second-rate. We can see this in the spoiled and weak sons of dictators all over the world. Gaddafi made huge claims for himself, but as time wore on, he failed to live up to his myth, and Libyans tired of him and camet to despise him as a clown. And Gaddafi raised his sons to be spoiled-rotten playboys who expected to inherit power and wealth from their pa. Kim Jong-Il, the son of Kim Il-Sung, was worthless, and his son Kim Jong-Un is even a bigger idiot whose national priority is inviting a basketball freak to party with. Saddam Hussein was grooming his trashy sons to take over after him, and the result would have been Iraq becoming dumb and dumber. The passage of power from Nehru to his daughter Indira and then to her son Rajiv Gandhi hardly did wonders for India. And the GOP elected its worst candidate in George W. Bush, the imbecile son of George H.W. Bush. Perhaps, there was something to the fact that the three greatest Republican presidents — Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan — all came from humble backgrounds and had to climb to the top. And though Nixon is much reviled, his is one of the great political stories in American politics, and he also made the tough climb from the bottom to the top. One could make a case for Theodor Roosevelt as one of the greatest Republican presidents, and of course his origins were privileged. Nevertheless, he was sickly and asthmatic as a child, and maybe that drove him to prove his mettle to himself and in the eyes of the world; he had to prove that he was equal or even superior to any man. As for Assad Jr. who is currently fighting for his life in Syria, he seems to lack the political savvy and cunning of his father who, at the very least, climbed to the top by outmaneuvering and neutralizing potential rivals. The general tendency of hereditary rule is 'from down to crown to clown to back down'. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao might have understood this law of power. Hitler didn't have any children, and Stalin and Mao were very harsh with their own children — constantly reminding them that their positions for granted just because of their bloodline — and had to plans to groom any of them for future rulership, whereas some other dictators raised and indulged their kids as spoiled-brat princelings who came to expect all the goodies in life for granted, thus leading to dissipation of the bloodline and decadence of political governance.
Recently, there's been some controversy over Amy Chau's new book on the subject of what makes certain groups in America more successful than others. The book,
THE TRIPLE PACKAGE: HOW THREE UNLIKELY TRAITS EXPLAIN THE RISE AND FALL OF CULTURAL GROUPS IN AMERICA, argues that for a group to climb the tree of success/power and to hold onto its fruits, it requires three traits working in tandem — one or two on their own won't do. It's like three sticks will only stand as a triangle if their ends are joined together. The group needs a sense of superiority and discipline but also a sense of inferiority; this sense of inferiority can be circumstantial or psycho-cultural. In the case of the circumstantial, a group with special pride or sense of destiny may be under the thumb of a greater power and may therefore feel compelled to work hard to reach the top to prove its worth as being equal or even greater than that of the current power-holding elites. But circumstantial sense of inferiority is likely to fade once the group reaches the top realm where circumstances and conditions will no longer remind of them of their inferior status. In contrast, a group with a psycho-cultural sense of inferiority may feel a sense of grievance even when it becomes the new ruling class of a society. There was an element of this in the Protestant Work Ethic. If Mexicans dream of working like ants so that they can, one day, take it easy like grasshoppers, the German and Anglo populations who were instilled with the Protestant Work Ethic believed that they should keep working like ants even when they could afford to take it easy like grasshoppers. They felt that nothing should be taken for granted. Since God put people on Earth to be diligent, productive, and sober, it only made sense that good people should be disciplined and productive than lazy and taking-it-easy, which was considered sinful in wasting the time given to man by God. 'Work' in this sense didn't necessarily mean working for profit; it could also mean doing good work to further the social progress of a community and even by spreading the Gospel in other nations. Furthermore, the sexually puritanical(relatively speaking, of course) nature of Protestantism probably had a way of fostering individualism and channeling their 'boing' energies towards producing goods and services than children. In contrast, Catholicism put a greater emphasis on family and kinship, and that led to men and women devoting more of their time towards having lots of kids and thinking in terms of clan and blood relatives than of individuality with personal ideas and ambitions. Of course, these strains were not consciously understood by Catholics or Protestants who only thought that their way was the best way to serve God and Jesus. But their different approaches toward spirituality had the effect, even if unintended, of emphasizing different habits and social tendencies.
Even so, while Protestant Work Ethic had a sobering effect on the Anglo/American populations, it didn't necessarily foster a permanent sense of resentment and inferiority/insecurity toward other groups except perhaps in the area of ostentatiousness. One could argue that since Anglo Protestants were not allowed to be as lavish, colorful, and show-offy as Latin Catholics and other cultural groups were, they resolved their envy and resentment by gaining more power and wealth. One can kinda see this in the case of Warren Buffett who is not an ostentatious person — like trashy Tony Montana or some Chechen gangster chieftain — but who keeps working hard to rake in more and more billions. If you can't wave it, save it.
But all said and done, Anglo Protestantism wasn't an world-view revolving around intense resentment of others. Anglos might have been full of superior feelings toward others, but they didn't develop a way to feel permanently psycho-culturally inferior. The combination of superiority and inferiority may have been more a hallmark of the Catholic Irish, but in relation to Chau's theory, we could argue that the Irish favored the idea of toughness over superiority, and toughness isn't necessarily synonymous with superiority. Irish valued being tenacious and were obsessed with power, but they were not known for a preening sense of superiority that came to define certain other peoples. Irish power was survival-oriented than supremacy-oriented. Thus, Irish tended to be builders of machine politics than of empires. They thought in terms of close-knit power-for-ourselves than expansive power-over-others. In contrast, Jews love to gain control over the entire world through their web of finance, law, and media power. Thus, Irish political power in the US tended to be local and city-based, whereas Jewish power tended to interconnect across all cities and all around the world, which is why the once Irish-ruled cities eventually came under the domination of International Jews and their mini-me elites the homos.
Jews, unlike Anglo-Protestants, did develop a sense of resentment that was more than circumstantial, whereby, even when Jews gained the most power and wealth, they continued to have huge chips on their shoulders. Partly, this may owe to the Holocaust, but if that is the main reason, Jewish resentment should ebb away as WWII fades into historical memory. But, what we are seeing is Holocaust growing ever more potent as the new religion in the West, with Jews bitching about their historical victim-hood in ever more brazen and self-aggrandizing terms. Also, there is Holocaust as historical tragedy and the Holocaustianity as quasi-spiritual cult, the New Testament for the Jews or the Jew Testament. No matter how tragic a historical event may be, its hold on the collective imagination naturally passes away in time — I mean who worries about the Mongol hordes today? — unless it is turned into a secular religion. If Jews lacked a psycho-cultural sense of inferiority/insecurity/resentment, they would have allowed the Holocaust to pass away as just another horrible event in history. What commands our reverence and worship today isn't so much the Holocaust the tragic historical event but Holocaustianity the new religion of the West, and Jews went out of their way to formulate such a religion because their psycho-cultural sense of inferiority/insecurity/resentment pushes them to embrace paranoia as a shield against gentile nations — even ones that did most to defeat Nazi Germany — and to use 'collective guilt' to make gentiles endlessly guilty of having tyrannized the poor, saintly, and powerless Jews. While Jewish leftists have encouraged the masses to hate and attack the wealthy class of gentile aristocrats and capitalists, they always defended rich Jews from the rage of less fortunate gentiles. (If poor white and non-white masses hate rich white gentile elites, the rage is fully justified morally and politically, so say the 'progressive' Jews. The white gentile elites are said to be greedy, vain, repressive, and tyrannical; therefore, they deserve to be hated, reviled, and even brought down low, just like the members of the monarchy and aristocracy during the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. However, if the poor gentiles masses — white or non-white — fix their sights on the rich privileged Jew elite, they are said to be 'resentful', 'envious', 'hateful', and 'paranoid' against well-educated and highly cultivated people who are said to be so generous, wonderful, kindly, and enlightened. Even the Jewish left retroactively defend the rich Jews of the Austro-Hungarian Empire against the gentile masses who resented the Jews as greedy and parasitic.) Partly, such a psycho-cultural mind-set may have developed from the condition of Jews as minorities all around the world, i.e. no matter how rich and influential they might become in a particular community, the goy elites and masses might unite once again to take everything from the Jews and kick them out. The Jewish mind-set also owes to the religious tradition that ordained the Chosen People to co-exist among the far more numerous goyim(thought to be less blessed than the Jews) — and furthermore, unlike Christians to whom the Messiah did reveal Himself and unlike Muslims to whom Allah sent the final Prophet, Jewish religion has continued to teach that their ultimate destiny is yet to be fulfilled — , but the Jewish mind-set also owes to the secular Jewish attitude(even if Jews won't admit it openly) that they are more intelligent and cunning than dimwit goyim. Spiritually or intellectually, Jews feel superior to others but also know that they must live as vulnerable minorities, and this fact reminds Jews at all times to never take anything for granted.
There may also be a physiological reason for the never-ending resentment of Jews. While there are plenty of good-looking Jews, many Jews tend to be rather funny-looking(and even ugly in a very peculiar way that is the visual equivalent of the ridiculous-sounding Yiddish with words like 'a grubber yung', 'ayn klaynigkeit', 'aroisgevorfene gelt', 'der tate oysn oyg', 'gevalt geshreeyeh', and other space-alien-sounding phrases). Therefore, no matter how rich or successful a Jew becomes, he or she looks in the mirror and sees an ugly Jew or Jewess, and then he or she imagines the better-looking goyim thinking of him or her, even if privately, as the 'ugly Jew'. Like the character in Edgar Allan Poe's THE TELL-TALE HEART, the Jew is always imagining others thinking and saying the worst thing about him or her. While such a thing can drive a Jew crazy(even crazier than the Jew in the joke that goes "how do you drive a Jew crazy? Put him in a round room and tell him there's a penny in the corner", though only a Polish Jew would fall for such a trick), Jews are also able to use such paranoia as a shield against a goy order that might be plotting against them. Though a Philip Roth's novel is called THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA, the book's main concern is the possible plot of White Gentile America(especially Anglo-Germanic America) against the JEWISH-America, especially as there had been a time where two visions of America were in conflict with one another. One vision was rooted in Anglo-American history and felt a racial kinship with other Northern-European Americans while another vision of America was dominated by the ethnic narrative of massive immigration — and increasingly Negro as well. The two visions clashed in WWII and in the early years of the Cold War. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, many Anglo-Americans and German-Americans disfavored getting involved in the war, partly out of desire for 'peace' but also because they felt that Northern European stock shouldn't be fighting other Northern European stock, especially as World War I had been a disaster because UK and US got involved against Germany. But Jews and Polish-Americans — and other ethnic groups whose brethren in Europe were conquered by the Nazis — wanted America to become involved, and among these groups, Jews were the only ones with real power. Italian-Americans were fellow ethnics, but as their home nation of Italy was allied with Germany, they felt ambivalent about the war. But Pearl Harbor changed everything, and Jews and Liberal Wasps paved the way for a new vision of America that favored the immigrant/propositional narrative over the Anglo-American settler/conqueror narrative that, as years went by, was associated with crypto-Nazi ideology.
But the American Right had a second chance with the end of WWII ended for the new enemy was the USSR ruled by Godless 'Asiatic hordes' and because so many agents of communism and radical leftism in America were Jews. But McCarthy pushed things too far and easily fell into the trap set for him by Liberals and Jews who sought to discredit anti-communism by associating it with his drunken thug-like antics. The main reason why so many Jews have loathed McCarthy and anti-communism is less ideological than tribal. After all, Reagan was staunchly anti-communist, but Jews didn't necessarily hate him because, by that point in history, international communism had turned against Jews/Zionism and even leftist Jews had lost faith in communism as a moral or workable system. But in the late 40s and the early 50s, there were many Jews in the American radical left that, to many fearful Americans, Jewish power and radical leftist influence came to be almost synonymous — even if few dared to say so in the shadow of WWII where so many Jews had been killed.
Anyway, Jewish paranoia has been an instrument of mind-reading to see the 'real person and his mind' behind the mask. It's like the Bob Dylan song "Seeing the Real You at Last": "Well, I sailed through the storm/Strapped to the mast/Oh, but our time has come/And I'm seeing the real you at last." The difference between the Jew and white gentile is this: If a white gentile goes to a Jew and says, "I'm like so-and-so and such-and-such" in a positive way, the Jew will say, "Bullshit! You are NOT as you say you are but really like this-and-this and that-and-that," 'this-and-this' and 'that-and-that' meaning that, consciously or subconsciously, you are 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobic', 'homophobic', 'antisemitic', 'odious', 'noxious', 'rabid and virulent', 'toxic', 'micro-aggressive', 'stereotype threat-ist', 'hateful', 'paranoid', and on and on. And white gentiles, having been spiritually softened by centuries of naivete-and-earnestness intrinsic to Christianity, easily fold under such accusation and pressure. When white gentile elites had kept the Jewish power at bay, white gentile masses obeyed and followed the white gentiles in the service of white Christian power, but now that white gentiles in the West have surrendered their political, economic, and cultural authority to Jews, white gentile masses don't have sufficiently powerful minds, hearts, stomachs, and balls of their own to stand up to the Jew and push back; they are like a body without a head. Anyway, reversing the example given above, suppose a Jew goes to a white gentile and says, "I'm so-and-so and such-and-such" in a positive self-promoting way. Unlike the Jew who mocks, critiques, and rebuts the white gentile's positive view of himself, the white gentile of today is likely to totally agree with the Jew's view of himself and get on his knees and, with tears streaming down from his eyes, meekly ask the Jew, "Can I suck your dick?" If white gentile masses over the many centuries tended to have negative opinion of Jews, it was because the white gentile elites kept the Jews in their place and maintained their own authority over the white masses. But without such counter-Jewish authority at the top, most white gentiles are likely to just fold and go along with the Jewish authority since the long Christian tradition of the West prepared white folks to naively support the powers-that-be like innocent sheep. If white gentile masses can so easily be led to believe that homosexuality is healthy, normal, and rainbow-like via manipulation of the Jew-controlled media and education, what can they not be led to believe and obey? You see, the Jew feels free to go to a white goy and say, "I'm see the REAL YOU at last", and the white goy is likely to favor the Jew's critique of him over his own assessment of himself. Jews, the masters of psychology and manipulation, thus come to own the souls of whites just like Shylock gained the heart — literally — of a goy boy. Furthermore, the white gentile gets on his knees and thanks the Jews for diagnosing the hidden mental/moral disease within himself and pledges to his utmost to purge his soul of the sickness so as to be worthy of being approved by Jews, Negroes, and homos. As Paul Gottfried wrote: "I was not disappointed that Lowry and his fellow intellectual pygmies caved in and fired their most talented thinker and writer(John Derbyshire). But there was an amusing side to this outrage. Before the adolescent crew kicked John out, they raked him slowly over the coals. While groveling toward the left as he was 'parting ways' with John, Lowry complained about how Derb's piece 'lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible.' My thought at the time was that I'd like to see the clueless Lowry match wits with John by trying to prove that John's assertions were 'indefensible.' It would be like having a featherweight pick a fight with Mike Tyson during his prime." American Conservatives, even as they playact at opposing Liberalism, desire nothing more than to be approved by Jews, Negroes, and homos, most of whom are the enemies of Truth-and-Vision conservatives. Even Conservatism Inc. is premised on the proposition that 'conservatism' is better than 'liberalism' because its ideas will be better for Jews/Zionists, Negroes, and homos. There's nothing about how Conservatism is worthy because it's better for white majorities who constitute the backbone of Western Civilization. American Conservatives have accepted their miserable lot as the accused/defendant in relation to Globalist Liberalism — controlled by Jews — that relishes its role as plaintiff, judge, and even the jury. So, Conservatism doesn't defend itself on its own grounds or for its own people but on the basis that it's ultimately better for the enemies of white race and white power. Of course, Jewish Liberals don't buy it, and Neocon Jews only pretend to buy it so that Conservative dummies will go on loving Jews and supporting Israel more than America and Europe themselves. Conservatism-as-defendant not only stands accused but tries to argue that its position is actually more advantageous to the plaintiff who is suing him for everything he's got.
Anyway, if the Jew promotes himself positively as such-and-such but if a white gentile were to say, "No, you're lying. I see the REAL JEW at last," the Jew will not accept nor tolerate any critique, argument, mockery, and analysis of the true nature of the Jewish character and power. Instead, the Jew will seethe with rage and spit venom at the white gentile and accuse him of being 'odious', 'noxious', 'hateful', 'paranoid', 'pathological', 'extreme', 'antisemitic', 'genocidal', 'Nazi-like', 'rabid and virulent', 'vicious', 'ugly', and etc. So, even though the Jew insists on 'seeing the REAL YOU at last', you are not allowed to 'see the REAL JEW at last'. When it comes to the 'truths' about Jews, we have to take Jews at their word. Jews tell us, "just look at the mask we wear, drop your fear, love us, praise us, trust us, and worship us, and never ever try to pry behind the mask to see the REAL JEW at last. Never!" But if we show our positive mask to Jews, they say, "Fuc* you, your mask is phony, behind the facade you are an odious, noxious, vile, vicious, ugly, hateful, and disgusting scumbag, and your entire soul needs to be purged by us and your daughter's pussy needs to be purgated by the Negro penis for you Nazi white scum to be redeemed." In other words, the ONLY way whites can be redeemed is through white geneticide overseen by Jews and their bouncers the Negroes. In APOCALYPSE NOW, a character says, "Never get out of the fuc*ing boat!", and all sensible white folks must remind themselves over and over, "Never trust Jews!" Arrogant and devious Jews tell us not only how we should see and think about them but how we should see and think about ourselves. Between us and the Jews stands a two-way mirror through which Jews can see us but we cannot see them; it is also a mirror that can be warped by Jews to distort our own reflections. Though Jews often bitch and whine that they are misunderstood by a world that is all-too-'antisemitic'(or outside the sphere of Jewish-Zionist globalist power), what really angers Jews is when gentiles understand them all-too-well. In truth, Jews want to be misunderstood — in accordance to their own propaganda, of course — because if white gentiles understand and see the REAL JEW AT LAST, Jewish power would come under considerable scrutiny and criticism. This is why Jews make such great fuss about the most ludicrous examples of antisemitism and would have us believe that ANY anti- or counter-Jewish views and expressions — even the most rational and cautious ones — on the level of THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. It's like how politically correct Liberals would have believe that any race-ist view — even the most factual and rational — is on par with the venom of the KKK or the Nazis. It's a form of guilty-by-association-with-extremism. Some ideas, even if expressed in the most non-extreme way, are always said to be 'extreme' by association. Of course, if you say that Liberals are like communists, you are being 'paranoid' and 'extreme', whereas if you say Conservatives are like the Nazis or the KKK, you have the moral upper-hand and it's up to the Conservatives to prove the accusation otherwise, which is why the likes of Rich Lowry go out of their way to purge American Conservatism Inc. of anyone with the slightest whiff of rationalist and fact-based racial or race-ist views — 'race-ism' meaning 'race + ism = belief in the existence of races and racial differences and/or the need for racial consciousness'. Anyway, Jews don't want us to see the REAL JEW AT LAST. They want us to be like children and swallow everything they tell us of themselves. So, we get movies like Barry Levinson's AVALON where Jews are so lovable and All-American-as-Apple-Pie-with-Cream-Cheese. And making-fun-of-Jews is allowed only for Jews who make themselves so endearing, hip, and/or cool(as with SEINFELD or Seinkefeld). And of course, we should just laugh at Jewish neurosis, and most of all, laugh at the Jews' endless jokes about us that are far nastier than the soft-padded and soft-peddled jokes about Jews. This is why Jews really hate Veit Harlan's JEW SUSS. While it was meant to be an antisemitic film by the Nazi regime, the result is actually something far more interesting and provocative. Even though the Jew is the villain, he is also the most interesting and complex character. As most of the German characters — even the 'best' ones — are rigid, stilted, one-dimensional, and robotic, the Jewish villain oddly becomes the most human(if not humane) character with something like psychology and insight. In a dark way, he has the most admirable qualities since he knows how to play the game, whereas the Germans only seem to know how to obey and go along with conventionality. The Jewish character looks like Stanley Kubrick, and I'll bet Kubrick was attracted to Harlan's niece because he saw so much of himself in the devious Jew of JEW SUSS.
|Ziegler - Harford - Hooker
Anyway, there is much to learn about the Way of the Jew in Harlan's JEW SUSS, and that is precisely why Jews don't want us to see it or to think about it; they just want us to think "it's a vile antisemitic movie that viciously defames the noble Jewish people who are so very wonderful and perfect; it's a vile antisemitic movie that viciously defames the noble Jewish people who are so very wonderful and perfect; it's a vile antisemitic movie that viciously defames the noble Jewish people who are so very wonderful and perfect", which is rather like "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over and over. Jews want us to be dull boys and girls in thinking about the true nature of the Jew. While there is something undoubtedly vicious and ugly about Harlan's JEW SUSS, it is also a subtly penetrating look into the Way of the Jew. And, just as the communist film I AM CUBA, despite its anti-capitalist message, cannot help being impressed by the allure of capitalist materialism, JEW SUSS, despite its purported exposé of the REAL JEW, cannot help being impressed by the more intelligent Jew who relies on his Will to Power — or more impressively, the Wit to Power — to get what he wants. JEW SUSS was a work meant to serve the ideology of a vile regime, but it is anything but a brainless and simple-minded film about the nature of Jews. It is one of the most penetrating films on the Jewish Question for the simple reason that film industries in America and Europe, being so heavily dominated by Jews, restrained from negative depiction of Jews and because the Nazi-dominated film industry in Germany lost so many talents to exile and ended up with too many hacks making second-rate escapist genre movies or dim-witted propaganda about Jews. Harlan's JEW SUSS is an exception to the rule because its Jewish character, even as the villain, is the only fully human character with something like personal desire and individual will to get what he wants by engaging in the game of power. Indeed, JEW SUSS may be a key piece of the puzzle in understanding the obsessions of Stanley Kubrick, but most film folks would prefer not to 'go there'. Just like the Catholic Church once forbade any discussion of Earth revolving around the Sun, there are certain taboos that psycho-culturally forbid us from discussing the darker side of Jewishness — though some Jews do this amongst themselves through coded messages. Even when Jews come pretty close to spilling the beans of their neurosis — as in David Mamet's HOMICIDE and David Cronenberg's RABID and eXistenZ — , they hide some key details that can be deduced but are generally left un-deduced by most viewers because to deduce such would mean that you just had an 'antisemitic' thought. So, it's there, but it's not there, but it's there. As James Wood said of the ending of ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, "you know, but you don't know, but you know." This is the creative conundrum facing first-rate Jewish artists. As genuine artists, they want to explore and expose the truth with courage and insight, but to do so would be tantamount to spilling the beans about the true nature of Jewish power, and that might give ammunition to 'anti-Semites' who dare to speak truth to Jewish power. As artists, they prefer hard truths over comforting myths, but they must still wrap the truth in myth(and taboo) in order to prevent the goyim from saying, "Ahhhh, so that's how the Jews are REALLY like!" So, even though they, like Galileo, want to tell us that the Earth revolves around the Sun, they still obfuscate our vision with a lot of Ptolemaic smoke-and-mirrors. They can never be truly honest about themselves and their tribe in the way that Eugene O'Neill or Ingmar Bergman was about himself and his culture. A goy artist might say, "I suck and we suck because I suck and we suck", but Jewish artist will say, "I suck and we suck because you goyim who suck make me and my people suck", so the ultimate blame for Jewish problems — even when admitted — always falls on the goyim. And of course, Kubrick was no different, which is why even as his fans pore over all the details of his films, huge blind spots remain about him because there are certain no-go areas that we are not supposed to notice. If some Germans with partial Jewish lineage tried to hide the truth of their ancestry during the Nazi era, Kubrick was a Jew who hid a 'psycho-Nazi' part of him. This isn't to say he wasn't proud of his Jewishness or that he admired Hitler but to say (1) he had certain sensibilities that were aligned with quasi-fascist ideas and visions and (2) he knew that, on some level, the anti-Semites, the Nazis included, understood the true nature of Jews better than the mindless lapdog philo-Semites in the post-war era who really don't have a clue. Just as Jews thought critically of goyim, 'anti-Semites' thought critically of Jews, whereas the childlike, naive, or cowardly philo-Semites just swallowed everything fed to them by Jews as good medicine. So, even as Kubrick loathed the Nazis — they would have killed him and his family too, after all — , he could enter into their skulls and see the Jews through their eyes, and on some level, he knew they were onto something. How did he know this? Because he was Jewish on the inside and he knew his own nature: devious, cunning, manipulative, calculating, shrewd, and perverse. And he knew the Jewish community had many such types who had to revolve around goy power but, in the end, sought to have the goy world revolve around Jewish power. Though Kubrick would likely have made the kinds of films he did regardless of what he knew or felt about Veit Harlan's JEW SUSS, one could argue that many of his films are at least informed by Harlan's film. In Harlan's movie, the sly and cunning Jew has his eyes on the 'Aryan' woman and smoothly makes his move to come between her and naive/earnest 'Aryan' male(s). He acts as if he's a respectable man who's only looking out for their best interests when, in fact, he's really after the woman. Kubrick used Kidman and Cruise the same way. The 'All-American' Aryanish couple of Hollywood felt honored to work with a genius like Kubrick. They were willing to go out on a limb for him, and they put all their trust in him. Even as Kubrick was invested in making a work of art, he surely took pleasure in humiliating and subverting the couple. Kidman, though ostensibly working as an uncompromising artist, was put in all sorts of compromising positions not much different from that of a porn performer, hooker, or one of those nude women at the super-rich folks' orgy. And Cruise could do nothing but watch the maestro camera-humping his wife. If Cruise were a director and Kubrick an actor, would Kubrick have allowed Cruise to use him and his wife in a similar manner? Cruise earnestly convinced himself that Kubrick was only invested in making a work of art even though Kubrick's camera phallus rudely came between Kidman and him and for a long shooting schedule; Cruise might as well have been Alex undergoing the Ludovico Treatment in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Reportedly, Kubrick even spoke to Kidman as if she were a porn performer than a fellow artist. Thus, as with the couple in the film, a wedge(Kubrick's camera phallus)came between the real-life 'Aryan' couple in a JEW-SUSS-manner. Though Kubrick was off-camera, he was effectively 'film-fuc*ing' Nicole Kidman as the whore while Tom Cruise was essentially emasculated, castrated, and cuckolded by cinema's Jew Suss/Dr. Mabuse. Though Cruise and Kidman weren't an ideal match in life, they'd managed to make their marriage work, but their collaboration with Kubrick obviously took a toll though neither was willing to admit it. The marriage broke apart soon afterwards, and lo and behold, Kidman became a total whore and even got it on with Lenny Kravitz, a Jew and Negro rolled into one. Cruise, scarred by the experience, decided to settle for an innocent brain-dead cutie pie Katie Holmes and redoubled his commitment to Scientology to regain his self-confidence as a masterful dude, but his third marriage didn't work out either. Though working with Kubrick may have wielded Cruise and Kidman their greatest film, a towering work of art, in another way a devious Jew subverted and perverted them real good. If JEW SUSS tried to expose the Way of the Jew, Kubrick practice the Way of the Jew brilliantly with Cruise and Kidman on the set of EYES WIDE SHUT. Though Ziegler is made out to be the sleazy Jew, his on-screen presence distracts us from the sleaziness of Kubrick, and EYES WIDE SHUT is a great sleazy work of art that could only have been made by a devious and dirty son of a bitch. Just like Wall Street Jews hyped Bernie Madoff as the 'bad Jew', thereby distracting public attention from other Wall Street Jews, our focus on Ziegler hides Kubrick's -psycho-sexual manipulation and exploitation of Cruise and Kidman that borders on the pathological and sadistic. Some have remarked that EYES WIDE SHUT fails as an adaptation of TRAUMNOVELLE(Dream Story) or DREAM STORY since New York of the 1990s is so different from Austria of the early 20th century, and the criticism is no doubt valid to a point. Certain aspects of EYES WIDE SHUT do seem anachronistic despite the contemporary updating of the story because 90s sensibility is so different from that of Europe at the turn of the century. Indeed, even the socio-cultural difference between the 90s and today is striking as, for example, the big majority of Americans would have laughed at the notion of 'gay marriage' back then. Even so, the joke is on the person who thinks he or she and his/her time and place are so different from and so much more advanced than an earlier period, because, after all, the rules may change but the underlying mental dynamics remains the same. For example, we like to think that we are less 'hateful' and 'judgmental' today than in the 1950s, and it's true enough that there's less hostile feelings toward blacks and homos. And yet, there's been a radical rise in the hatred of 'privileged' white males, and today, those opposed to 'gay marriage' are judged and condemned as not only wrong but evil, mentally diseased(with a phobia), and 'less evolved'. Hate exists as before except that the targets have changed. We like to say that the McCarthy era was 'hysterical' and 'paranoid' and that we've come a long way since those 'dark times'. While it's true that we are no longer 'paranoid' and 'hysterical' about the leftist threat, we are today obsessed with 'racism', phantom KKK, would-be white male rapists of blacks at places like Duke, and demeaning as neo-Nazi everything related to the science of race. And if you look at the blacklisting of Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas, our society is no less censorious and repressive than America in the 1950s. It's a matter who is doing the censoring and who are being censored.. According to the Liberal paradigm, it is 'hateful' to have hostile feelings toward blacks, Jews, and homos, but it's not 'hateful' to seethe with venom at white males(at least conservative ones), Palestinians, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, and patriotic Europeans who reject NWO globalism. So, our age is no less hateful than before; it's just that the meaning of hate has been partisan-ized to such an extent that hate is called 'hate' ONLY WHEN the objects of hatred happen to be favored by Political Correctness. So, Jews bitching endlessly about Europeans with 'dark nationalist' sentiments, white conservatives, Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese(at times) isn't considered hateful or paranoid. But if you make the mildest criticism of Jewish power, you are full of 'hate'. Similarly in the area of sex, we like to flatter ourselves that we aren't repressed as we once used to be. We like to say we live in an open society where people can speak and express themselves freely verbally and sexually. But paradoxically enough, skankery has become the new prudery, as when a bunch of film/culture critics complained that the lovers in TWILIGHT didn't rip off their clothes right away and screw each other's minds out. So, the neo-prudish skankerites are not content to be skanks themselves; they are offended when some people still write stories that reject skankery. And it's not enough for feminists to choose career over family; they must be judgmental in denouncing women who choose child-rearing over careering. And, what happens today if you were to detail the fecal penetrative nature of homo 'sex'? You are attacked and destroyed as a 'foul' person with an invective that is downright Victorian. The Liberal community would have us perceive homos as clean-cut like the characters of 1950s TV family comedies. And even as feminists make a big deal of talking, speaking, and marching about the Vagina in the spirit of 'liberation', there's an air of Stalinist officialdom about it, of collectivist conformism. It's not about 'my free self and my pooter' but 'we sisters and our collective iron cunt'. And even though Liberals claim to detest the kitschy, irrational, manipulative, hysterical, and inflated propagandizing of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, consider the kitschy mass hysteria at 'gay pride' rallies where so many idiots waving their 'gay rainbow' flags act no different from the mindless minions who waved the red flag or shook the Little Red Book under communism. And consider the rise of pop-fascist imagery in Hollywood films even as Liberals would have us believe that everything associated with fascism was evil. Especially after the fall of communism, with capitalism centered in places in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and London becoming the only game in the global village — and with both the American 'left' and 'right' going all out for Wall Street and 'free trade' — , one could argue that a new aristocracy now rules the world. Even though so much has changed since the early 20th century, it's as if, especially with the 'end of history', a neo-aristocraticism became the main mode of the global world order. In the 90s, with WWII a receding memory and Cold War finally over, Jews could finally finish what they began in the early 20th century. Early in the century, Jews had been taking over the elite institutions of European society by leaps and bounds. And even though gentile aristocrats distrusted Jews, they also depended on Jews for financial expertise and loans. And as the privileged classes were into art and culture, they inescapably fell under Jewish influence as so many Jews wielded immense power in literature, media, law, and culture. One difference between then and now was that one could be critical of Jewish power and influence then, and some legal and social obstacles still remained between Jews and the gentile world. Jews had a love/hate relationship with the gentile elite world. On the one hand, as the 'unwashed masses' were generally rougher, more hostile, less generous, and culturally more conservative, Jews found them unpleasant, at times even frightening. In contrast, even 'antisemitic' aristocratic and elite types had some manners and played according to certain discernible rules and honor, which Jews could exploit. Also, as aristocrats were better educated and into leisure, they were open to Jewish contribution to culture, even as they maintained their ambivalent feelings about Jews. And yet, there were some bastions of power that the gentile elites wanted to keep for themselves, and this made Jews angry, just like exclusively Wasp golf clubs pissed off Jews in America. So, some Jews figured, 'the hell with the aristocrats and elites' and committed themselves to radical politics to lead the gentile masses against the gentile elites. But many Jews with property and privilege obviously didn't want that. Instead, they worked the political/economic spectrum from social-democracy to free market liberalism to secure ever more territory for Jewish power. And Jews were gaining more year by year in every European nation, and if the trajectory had been allowed to run its full course, Jews might have dominated Europe by mid-century. But several events messed things up. WWI may have destroyed the power of the aristocracy, but in its absence, it paved the way for nationalist and/or populist movements that messed up the trajectory of Jewish power. After all, even as Jews resented the aristocrats, the latter had provided Jews with favors and protection against the unwashed masses. With the fall of the traditional elites, politics became a battle of popular will shaped and guided by demagogues on the left and right. Though many Jews placed their bets on the populist left of communism — as the populist right tended to be 'antisemitic', though Fascist Italy was, for a time, open to Jews, possibly because the Italian elites hadn't suffered the fate of aristocrats of European nations on the losing side of WWI — , communism was, in the end, not good for Jews as ultra-egalitarianism put a brake on Jewish genius and individual will to power. If not for WWI, the trajectory of rising Jewish power in German and French territories may have led to Jewish dominance of all of Europe. And even in Russia, Jews were making tremendous gains just prior to WWI. But WWI and then the rise of communism and National Socialism derailed the trajectory of the rise of Jewish power. To be sure, Jews gained a great deal during the period of the Weimar Republic and the early Bolshevik rule, but the problems wrought by the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of Nazis in Germany, and the shrewd cutthroat maneuvering of the Georgian Josef Stalin led to the fall of Jewish leadership in Russia. Hitler and Stalin both ensured the setback of Jewish power that had sought to take advantage of the turmoil of the aftermath of WWI. After WWI, Jews thought they had a golden opportunity made possible by the fall of the aristocratic/traditional gentile elite order, but the new order following WWI was too shaky to ensure stable support for the trajectory of Jewish power. And then WWII happened that led to mass extermination of Jews that was followed by mass exile of remaining Jews to Israel and America. Also, the Cold War revived the hopes of many 'progressive' Jews for a worldwide revolution. As a result, a good deal of Jewish genius was wasted on an ideological dead-end that would come crashing down with the end of the USSR. Finally, the Jewish community as a whole could focus all its attention on a common goal with the end of the Cold War. The trajectory that had been interrupted with WWI was finally revived with the end of the Cold War. All Jews gave up on radical leftism and adopted a form of 'cultural leftism' to expand Jewish power, and signs of this came into full fruition in the Clinton 90s. In this 'end of history' scenario, Jews were becoming the new aristocracy without ideological restraint, shame, and division that marked so much of the 20th century. That the Clinton presidency ended with his pardoning of Marc Rich the globalist oligarch Jew was all the sweeter for Jews. Jews even came close to owning all of the Russia in the 90s. And even though Jews didn't directly dominate Europe as it did the US and Israel, the fact that Europe is dependent on the Jew-ruled US and has been burdened with the 'guilt' of the Holocaust meant that Europeans could never criticize Jews or disobey Jewish-dominated discourse emanating from the US. It too is under the thumb of Jewish power. Jewish neo-aristocrats came to rule all. Thus, EYES WIDE SHUT is both anachronistic and timely because what we have witnessed since the 90s is the rise of neo-aristocraticism hogged by the Jews who've set free of the grand ideological disputes that dominated the world since the end of World War I to the end of the Cold War. It's as if the suspended trajectory of Jewish power in the early 20th century has finally been bridged with the fulfilment of Jewish power in the late 20th century. What both periods have in common is the sense of the natural order of aristocracy. Old aristocracies may vanish but new ones take their place. Equality is dead as ideology and reality. History is the story of power, and power is never equal. Even in communist nations, new aristocracy arose, as illustrated by George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM. It's just the way things are, the way of power. Communism and 'progressive' ideologies rejected, denounced, or criticized such view of mankind, but the old ideological dichotomies began to fade in the 90s. So, despite all the revolutions, wars, struggles, and horrors of the 20th century, it began with a proud and confident aristocracy and ended with a proud and confident (neo)aristocracy. The difference is that the gentile aristocracy has been replaced by the Jewish neo-aristocracy, but aristocracy is aristocracy. And of course, homos, the perennial hangers-on and stooges of the aristocrats, are the most favored groups of the globalist Davos Man. Similarly in THE SHINING, we get a sense of the constant nature of power. The Overlook Hotel could be seen as a metaphor for the Way of Power and Privilege. The Old Rich may be gone, but the dream of power and riches never goes away. It's always there, making each new generation pursue its dream of gold that never grows old. Indeed, watching THE SHINING today is even stranger because the mega-riches today make the riches of yesterday seem quaint by comparison. When THE SHINING came out, the income differential between the richest Americans and middle Americans wasn't that great. Also, given the rise of New Deal in the 30s, the expansion of the middle class in the 50s, the rebellion of the 60s, and momentum of the Civil Rights and other movements — and with US setback in Vietnam and the still formidable power of the USSR, not to mention the political turmoil of the Carter presidency — , the world seemed to be moving toward greater equality and 'social justice' in the late 70s when THE SHINING was being made, to be released in 1980. So, someone watching THE SHINING in 1980 would have thought in terms of 'egalitarian spirit of today' vs 'bad old rich of yesterday'(depicted in the ghosts of rich folks who haunt the Overlook). But given the unprecedented rise of the new rich since the mid-90s with new technology and new finance under the regimen of expanded globalism and deregulation, today's mega-rich make even the richest people in the past seem downright proletarian. The privileged ghost-folks in THE SHINING look like penniless hobos compared to the Zieglers of the world in EYES WIDE SHUT. Consider the young Jewish geeks who've made billions almost overnight. Since American conservatives have been pro-rich for so long, they offer no resistance to the rich and carry on with the patriotic fiction of protecting billionaire 'victims' from the 'socialist' government, even though the majority of the super-rich are Democrats who pretty much own the very politicians who supposedly push 'socialism' on us; in many cases, 'socialism' amounts to expensive policies that only the rich can afford, thereby driving out poorer people who can't afford to be as 'socialist'. As for the Jewish Left, they no longer care about the Revolution since their own kind has inherited most of the fruits of capitalism. And since the gentile Left is dumb and just takes orders — and money — from the Jewish Left that is funded and owned by Jewish billionaires, there's no real attack of the super-rich from the Left either, despite all the phony huff-and-puff about the 1% vs the 99%. So, just like there's a connection between the 1920s super-rich at the Overlook ballroom and the 1980s dream of riches and power(in the mind of Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING, there are lots of commonalities between the world of privilege in early 20th century(in Schnitzler's novel) and world of privilege at the end of the 20th century in EYES WIDE SHUT. A kind of ur-aristocraticism dominates the world. 'End of history' is essentially the end of the ideology of equality and the end of unity to resist the neo-aristocratic rise of Jewish wealth and power. Anyway, Kubrick was a penetrating artist in more ways than one. Penetrating into the truth of the matter but also penetrating to violate the gentile.
|Jew Suss
|"Would I hurt a fly?"
Because Jews could not be God-like according to Judaism, the corollary was God could not be man-like(like so many pagan gods). Since God was freed from anthropomorphism or animal-morphism, He could be as powerful as one could imagine Him to be. He wasn't contained within any limitation associated with worldly forms. No matter how one may imagine the power of a man-like god or animal-like god, his or her power is bound by the form he or she is trapped in. Even Superman, as powerful as he is, can only be at one place at one time. But a God that is totally free from the semblance of creatures of the world can be infinitely powerful, infinitely everywhere, infinitely infinite. Since Jews could not be godlike themselves, they could never imagine themselves to be individually powerful like the pagans who thought the actual blood of the gods coursed through their veins as the result of inter-spiritual sex between their ancestors and the gods. So, Jews might have felt weaker and more vulnerable as individuals since they could only be entirely human than be semi-divine as many pagan folks saw themselves. And yet, because their God could be as powerful as He could be, Jews could, via association with Him, also feel as the most powerful and invincible of peoples: the paradox of ultra-power through ultra-humility. Because Jews were the most humble among the ancient folks — as none of them could be half-gods like pagan folks — , they were paradoxically capable of imagining the most powerful God. Since the Jewish God couldn't be like humans with all their limitations and flaws — as indeed most pagan gods came to be — , He could be totally spiritual, totally perfect, and totally powerful. And in being bowing down to this God, the humblest of peoples, the Jews, could win His blessing and gain supremacy over the world. And of course, Christianity essentially squeezed this concept into the story of a single Man named Jesus who embodied both humblest and the most megalomaniacal characteristics of man. And because of the moral content of Jewish culture, a vague notion of righteous 'victim' took root and eventually pushed aside the physical notion of the 'loser'. For most of history and in most cultures, it was a matter of winners and losers. Winners won, and losers lost, and that was that. Obviously, it was better to be a winner than a loser. No sports team wants to be the loser. But once power became moralized, especially by the Jews, the narrative of winners vs losers began to morph into one of wicked oppressors and righteous/sanctimonious victims. Under this spiritual scheme, a person or people could lose physically but still win spiritually or morally. As all cultures had a moral sense, such view was not unique to the Jews. After all, TROJAN WOMEN is full of sympathy for the Trojans and damning of the victorious and ruthless Greeks. Even so, it was really the Jewish tradition that did more to favor the righteous loser over the wicked winner, and this dynamics wasn't simply about individuals but could be about entire peoples. Even so, it was really Christianity that bestowed the honor of righteous victim-hood to all peoples. In contrast, Jews were only interested in their own righteous victim-hood and didn't shed any tears for the wrongs done to others — especially by the Jews — , and we can see the same psycho-moral pattern today. While many white gentiles acknowledge and feel guilt about the Holocaust — as well as 'genocide' of American Indians and black slavery — , Jews only gripe about their own historical victim-hood — and those of their current political allies, Negroes and homos — but feel no guilt about all the terrible things Jews have done over the centuries and especially in the 20th century, with considerable Jewish participation in the mass killing and spreading of communism, not to the mention the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the aegis of Zionism. Anyway, we were saying something about 'ghosts', actual or metaphorical, in the films of Kubrick. 'Ghosts' are all around us because there's more to reality than physical or material things. Consider a game of chess. At the most physical level, we see pieces on the board. But what really make the game are all the invisible thoughts and calculations taking place inside the minds of the players. Each player not only tries to weigh his own possibilities but tries to read the mind of the opponent.
|Crazy ho spills the beans
|Man Who Killed Kennedy
|Who's the real 'traitor' in the family?
felt most distanced from him. As he was so immersed in 'business' and tried to protect his family from it, he became more intimate with the game of power than with family life. It's like the song "Cats in the Cradle" by Harry Chapin. In actuality, 'business' becomes his true family, which is also true of Nixon in Oliver Stone's film. Of course, one reason why Michael was so 'blind' was because it's human nature to fixate on those with power and overlook those without. As Hyman Roth was the big fish, Michael focused on the powerful Jew while taking for granted the loyalty of weak & stupid Fredo and the trust of his kindly wife Kay, a 'good girl' who, after all, married him despite his disappearance from her life for several years in THE GODFATHER. Similarly, Bill in EYES WIDE SHUT, as a medical professional who works with rich clients, sees his wife as essentially a domestic partner and incapable of any 'big idear'. In THE USUAL SUSPECTS, the detective underestimates Kevin Spacey's character because of his beta-male act and gimpy leg. In WILD BILL, Hickock drops his guard against the loser kid who turns out to be one who kills him. And Jesse James was killed by a 'coward'. And it is the 'loser' guy who finally pulls the trigger in BULLETPROOF HEART, aka KILLER. This is perhaps why the white gentile establishment was taken by surprise by the rise of Jews. Jews were supposed to be Holocaust victims, pawn-brokers, a humble people who'd been misunderstood and mistreated for too long. I mean, wasn't it time to give them a break! So, while the Wasp establishment lowered its guard, the Jews gained the power and came to own Wasps as their whores who, as collaborators, could keep their goodies if they served the Jews. It's like Mike Tyson took his power for granted and took Buster Douglas lightly, but look what happened. If you want to keep the power, you never lower your guard and you never waste your sympathy on a group that is as intelligent, motivated, and hostile as the Jews. Whites underestimated the rise of blacks and homos for the same reason. They just saw blacks as poor Negroes who be wanting to be recognized as a 'man' and saw homos as just a bunch of fairies who just wanted to be left alone. Little did they know that blacks wanna kick white boys' ass and hump white girls, and little did they know that homos are, by nature, a bunch of sneering, sniveling, and snotty neo-aristocrats. If you're a good-looking straight male, a homo might smile at you and act 'nice', but he really wants to pummel your ass with your whanker. Homos not only love fuc*ing people in the ass physically but socially, politically, and culturally.)
Anyway, the problem isn't only that Jews were not allowed into Wasp country clubs. It's that even when they were allowed in, they looked around and still felt as the funny-looking Jew in contrast to the better-looking and cleaner-looking Wasps. I mean if you look like Anthony Weiner and full of egotism, it's not gonna be pleasant when you look in the mirror and see someone as ugly as Beavis staring back. Beavis, being dumb and 'innocent', doesn't mind what he looks like, but a smart guy like Weiner is bound to feel resentful.
Amy Chua is getting at something more than power and success. After all, the title of her book speaks of the RISE AND FALL of groups in America. Why did so many elites and empires rise, fall, and vanish? Why were some civilizations defeated time and time again but always managed to spring back and regain power and respect? It's like a sports theorist wondering what makes some teams continue to have winning seasons — and even if they have some losing seasons, how they manage to regain the trophy. Lots of teams have won championships, but relatively a small number have had long winning records. Consider the domination of the New York Yankees from the 1930s to the 1950s. Or the San Francisco 49ers in the 80s and first half of the 90s. Many empires all over the world rose to great heights, but most of them completely vanished into the thin air, gone for good or subsumed into other cultures or civilizations. Why did it happen to some peoples while others, even though conquered and humiliated time and time again, managed to come back and rise to great heights once again? The two groups with the longest winning record are the Jews and Chinese. In many ways, the Jewish story is more compelling as Jews had to maintain their identity as a minority over thousands of years in vast majority gentile lands. In contrast, China's geography protected it from most other powerful civilizations, and therefore, it only had to deal with periodic invasions from barbarian peoples — who were also Asiatic in appearance — who would, in time, be absorbed into the superior Chinese culture. One might make a case for the resilience of the Chinese community in Southeast Asia, but it was natural for the Chinese to maintain their own identity given the relatively backward cultures of the natives. In contrast, Jewish cultural survival is all the more surprising since they rubbed shoulders and went head-to-head with some of the biggest, most advanced, and most awesome civilizations and empires the world had ever seen: Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Christian Europe, Ottoman Empire, and etc., many of whom could have been said to be, at the time at least, superior in culture and achievement to the Jews. So, why did Jews manage to cling to their culture and identity more than other peoples? Some might say it had something to do with the Jewish concept of God, but maybe it also owes to the 'democracy of identity' among Jews as well. In many pagan civilizations, the power of identity was monopolized essentially by the elites. The rulers represented the identity and pride of the community, and most people were little more than servants, slaves, chattel, riff-raff, and etc. Thus, if the elites fell, the identity was destroyed along with the elites, and the masses were left with no pride of identity since it had been hogged by the elites. In contrast, Jewish identity was equally shared by all, and its mythic origins began not with a royal family or great heroes but with a humble man named Abram who was told to scalp his penis as a Covenant with God. Thus, even though there were rich Jews and poor Jews, powerful Jews and weakling Jews, elite Jews and ordinary Jews, they were all bound together by the 'democracy of identity' whereby God was said to have loved all of them regardless of their riches/power or lack of it. Also, as ALL Jewish males were made to scalp their penises, all Jews felt as part of a single tribe. In other cultures, the elites might have certain markings to set themselves apart from the masses, but among Jews, universal circumcision among males had a unifying effect. Thus, even when Jewish elites were crushed or destroyed, the Jewish people maintained a strong sense of identity because even the lowliest of Jews had a Covenant with God through their scalped penises. It also probably helped that Jews were an idea folks than an icon folks. Icons are heavy and hard to carry if a people were defeated and exiled, but ideas can be carried on scraps of paper or in the mind. Perhaps, Confucianism had a similar 'democracy of identity' impact on the Chinese. At least ideally, it gave all Chinese the hope that their sons could study and pass exams and be part of the civilized gentry class. And the word-centrism of the Chinese may have made it easier to carry their identity outside China, because, even though the Chinese took pride in their land known as the Middle Kingdom, their kingdom was also the kingdom of the mind where Chinese anywhere could keep their Chinese identity and tradition by spouting Confucian cliches and writing calligraphy. Word-centrism allowed Jews and Chinese to travel all over and still manage to preserve their own culture, and this gave them both a kind of quasi-cosmopolitan edge, but, at the same time, their identity never surrendered to the ideal of universalism — as may be happening with the Christian West — as Jewishness and Chinese-ness still remain racial, tribal, and particular identities. The Catholic Church would like everyone to become a Catholic, but no matter how much Jews and Chinese may spread their tentacles or dragon claws around the world, they don't want everyone to be Jewish or Chinese. The more Christianity fulfills its mission of universality, the more the white Christian or Christian-moral-informed European folks lose their particular identities. In contrast, the more Jews wanna be Jewish and the more Chinese wanna be Chinese, the more they become Jewish-centric or Chinese-centric. In contrast, the credo-centered religion of Christianity and credo-centered ideology of Americanism are bound to fail their founders-and-their-progenies the more they fulfill their missions of universalism. If Christianity's ultimate goal is to Christian-ize or Christian-moralize the entire world, then the Western spreaders of Christianity will become subsumed by the Christian-ized tide of color that will engulf the ever shrinking white populations of the West who were the original Christian power-holders. And if Americanism's ultimate mission is to create a nation that is color-blind and bestow equality and liberty to peoples from all over the world, then the white descendants of the original founding stock of America will be swallowed up by the tidal wave of color. For a long time, Christianity and America became almost synonymous with white people since the former developed in Europe and because whites were the overwhelming majority founders of America. But if in the end, both are more universalist than particularist in nature, whites are bound to be swallowed up by the world order they've created and expanded all around the world. The more Christianity and Western Liberalism succeed, the more they eventually undermine the power of their promoters. If you turn basketball into a universalist game, blacks will beat you even if your people invented basketball. This is something that Jews and Chinese don't have to worry since the very ideas of Jewishness and Chinese-ness are particularist at their roots. Though portable and quasi-cosmopolitan due to their word-centrism, Jewishness and Chinese-ness are not about turning the world Jewish or Chinese but rather about using the world to increase Jewish or Chinese power/wealth/influence. It's we-niversal than you-niversal.
Amy Chua, given books like DAY OF EMPIRE and BATTLE HYMN — as well as TRIPLE PACKAGE — , is obsessed with power. She's less interested in freedom and liberty per se than how freedom and liberty can be used to gain power because, after all, freedom without power is nothing. Beavis and Butthead are as free as anyone else in America, but what they do amount to? Freedom has meaning as the freedom to gain power for history is the story of power. Though some leftist scholars now focus on the powerless of history, that too is game of power since such scholars — often Jewish, mulatto, or Asian — are really trying to shame white gentiles to gain power over them. Discussing the powerless of past history doesn't help them as they are all dust in the wind; rather, it helps those in the present who use the past to justify their own empowerment, and empowerment means not only gaining power against the powerful but gaining powerful over others. It seems what Amy Chua loathes most are slackers who're just happy to be free without direction or ambition in life. After all, squirrels and sparrows are free too. History is made by power, and so, freedom is valuable only to the extent that it leads to power. In a nutshell, her view of the world isn't much different from that of Tom Vu, the 'legendary Asian pimp'. "You a loser, get out of my way... Take a look at them from head to toe... of course, they have nothing... stay away from them... learn from success, not failure..." So, what are the keys to not only success but keeping the fruits of success and seeding them for even greater success? And if tragedy were to strike and rob a people of the fruits of their success, what is the crucial formula for them to rise again? Why did Germany and Japan, so terribly wrecked in WWII, rise to economic heights? Why is Haiti still the same stinkpot before and after the earthquake? How come Detroit, once one of the leading cities in America, became a city of no lights? To be sure, blacks are always the exception because, while most peoples have much to gain or lose depending on their cultural emphases, there isn't much of a difference between blacks who do things right and blacks who do things wrong. The problem is essentially biological, with too many blacks being either not smart enough or not self-restrained enough. Though Chua and like-minded thinkers may focus on delay of gratification, such trait is as much the result of genetics as social conditioning. Also, such conditioning may be more effective among some groups like whites and Asians because, by nature, they may be more respectful toward authority. It's like dogs are easier to train than cats because of the differences in natural temperament. Cats generally don't care how you feel about them, whereas dogs are very sensitive about how you feel about them. (Consider the social form of tipping among Americans. It could be that blacks are less likely to tip because they're less sensitive about offending others. While blacks are ultra-sensitive about others offending them, blacks don't care if they give offense to others. In contrast, whites and Asians worry about giving offense to others; they are naturally wired to be 'nicer'. While their niceness may be sincere to some extent, it could also be the expression of their fear of being thought un-nice. What's funny about America today is that three least sensitive groups — the wild-ass Negroes, the pushy Jews, and sneering homos — are the ones making the biggest stink about how everyone should be sensitive toward them.) So, the higher levels of 'self-control' among whites and Asians may owe not only to SELF-control but fear of external control if they were to get out of line. A white person or an Asian person may feel greater shame at being ostracized by others, whereas blacks are more likely to say, whereas blacks are more likely to say: "fuc* you and suck my dick or kiss my big fat ass." So, while whites and Asians are also capable of acting wild and crazy, they fear being 'caught acting the fool' more than blacks do. Though MLK has been much praised and revered, the actual man was much like the person in the linked video, who, in turn, looks like the MLK-Bouncer-of-the-Mall statue in Washington D.C.
Anyway, one general rule of longevity/power is the fusion of the slave and master narrative. Paradoxically, for the masters to remain masters, they must infuse their master-identity with slave-identity. For one thing, it has a way of reminding the young ones born into power and privilege that the power and wealth they enjoy had been earned through ambition, hard work, and discipline of their ancestors and should never be taken for granted as manna from heaven. Also, the slave narrative has a way of keeping the masters filled with anger, and anger is not only aggressive and energetic but righteous. Also, the slave narrative lends moral justification to one's side, i.e. one's own side deserved to win because it had been wronged by the previous masters who'd enslaved them and from whose bondage they broke free and fought their way to the top. Such narratives also exist in the story of the gods. In Greek mythology, the Titans sought to wipe out their children, the Olympians, and the triumph of the Olympians was thus a slave rebellion against their brutal parents, and their victory gained an element of moral righteousness. United States was founded on a slave rebellion narrative though American colonials were hardly slaves of the British Crown and even though some of the Founding Fathers were themselves owners of slaves. Such a narrative gave moral justification to the new masters of America. While clinging to their elitist power, they felt as noble leaders who'd led a 'slave rebellion' against the tyrannical crown of England. And of course, the entire history of Christianity was founded on spiritual slave rebellion of Jesus. Though Jesus didn't rebel physically, He still resisted Roman and Hebrew authorities and chose to die than bow down to their power. He rebelled spiritually by having His spirit triumph over the material powers of the world. This idea enabled future Christian rulers to see themselves as humble servants of the Great Lord who'd been killed by unjust authority. So, even though Christians rulers were themselves ruthless and devious worldly masters, they beheld a kind of slave rebellion narrative that made them feel morally righteous and justified in their power. Since their Lord had been whupped real bad and killed most cruelly, they didn't regard their power as merely worldly power but righteous power blessed by the Heavenly spirit aligned with the enslaved and oppressed all over the world. It was this element of humility within the heart of power that allowed the Christina West to survive for 1,600 years despite so many upheavals and setbacks. In contrast, the supremely arrogant rule of the Nazi Germany had no chance of second life after its ignominious fall because, in the end, its concept of power had nothing to show for itself but supreme and absolute arrogance. Once Hitler led Germany into war against the USSR, Germany could either win all or lose all with no other possibility in between. In contrast, the Christian concept of power always reminded Christian masters of the world that there is a higher truth and that their power can only be justified by the blood of suffering Christ who was whupped and killed worse than any slave. Though Hitler did build the National Socialist ideology partly around the slave rebellion narrative — especially against Jews — , his mania about the racial superiority of the 'Aryans' was so extreme that he dispensed with any moral consideration of power. Once war with the USSR began, the power struggle became purely a matter of which race is better than which side is more justified on any moral grounds. Of course, there was German propaganda about how Germans were ridding Europe of the Jewish and Bolshevik virus, but there was also the stuff about how Germans were so superior that they had every right to crush and enslave the Slavs and even kill them in huge numbers.
In military terms, Hitler increasingly lost his patience and self-control as he pushed events forward. Though he came to power with iron control over his impulses — even his impassioned speeches were carefully prepared— , once his appetite was whetted for more victory and glory, he began to act like a degenerate gambler, and in the end, he was fighting a fantasy war inside his head than the actual war in the real world that he was losing badly. Such boldness can pay huge dividends, but if one wagers everything on a single bet, one is likely to lose everything, and the Nazis totally lost everything in WWII. Thus, slave consciousness is useful for those who seek power for it reminds them of the possibility that any people could end up as slaves, and therefore, to avoid such a fate, one should play the game of power with caution because not doing so can lead to total defeat and slavery. Hitler rose from the gutter and had become familiar with poverty, but he was so sure of 'Aryan' superiority and his own greatness that he eventually came to take for granted that his inspiration and vision would lead Germany to total triumph. And with the swift victories over France and with UK reeling and fleeing desperately across the English Channel, he came to favor boldness over caution at every turn because, after all, he'd been proven right while all those who'd urged caution had proven to be wrong. Since he'd been right thus far, history must have been and will always be on his side, especially since he was so convinced of the superiority of the 'Aryans' over other peoples. With less fear of defeat and of the possibility of German people relegated to slave status, Hitler threw all caution to the winds. Henceforth, he could win everything or lose everything, and he lost everything. Of course, history would judge him differently if he'd won everything, but a wise man knows that the horrors of losing everything far outweigh the bliss of winning everything. Personally and historically, the happiest moment cannot compare to the most horrible. Happy can never be too happy whereas horrible can be horrible beyond horrible. The joys of a happy occasion like graduating from college, getting married, or watching TWILIGHT cannot compare with the agonies of being tortured or watching JEANNE DIELMAN. It's better not to win big than to lose big.
Given Hitler's loss of impulse control as the war dragged on, he violated one of the principles of the Triple Package. While a sense of superiority combined with an inferiority/insecurity complex can propel an individual, a people, or a movement forward, it must be remembered that without impulse control and some kind of mechanism of caution, the energies can run out of control and lead to destruction. Of course, Jews themselves have sometimes tended to forget this valuable lesson either due to excessive prophetic or intellectual arrogance, chutzpah, greed, or contempt. Jews like Allen Klein, the manager of the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, eventually lost their friends as the result of too much greed and pushiness. And indeed, the Holocaust cannot be properly understood if we see it solely as a case of totally evil Germans just deciding out of the blue to kill a whole bunch of saintly innocent Jews out of some crackpot ideology. Though Jewish media tell us about the 'antisemitic' perceptions about Jewish communism, finance capitalism, cultural subversion, and the like that paved the way to the Holocaust, the fact is a lot of Jews were involved in radical, subversive, and/or dangerous movements that understandably alienated and angered a lot of Germans and other Europeans. This was especially troublesome given that Jews were acting like this in non-Jewish lands.
In consideration of the problems Jews sometimes stir up in gentile societies, there's been a school of Jewish political strategy calling upon Jews to not 'rock the boat' too much. Why act so obnoxious, pushy, and heinous, thereby upsetting even gentiles who initially felt no ill will toward Jews? It's like even leftist Europeans who want to sympathize with Gypsies or Roma often end up hating them because so many Gypsies act in horribly scummy ways. (We've all grown up with stories about decent gentiles who went against the grain and saved Jews from the Holocaust, and during most of my life, I would have said I, as a moral person, would have risked my own life to hide and save Jews if something like the Holocaust would break out again. But today, considering the Jewish role in massive financial robbery, anti-white agenda, open borders to destroy the racial integrity of the West, the promotion of anti-white interracism that encourages white women to become 'mudsharks' and have mulatto babies, the radical homo agenda, the destruction of the Middle East and massive horrors visited upon Arab Christians, the political war on Russia for having resisted Jewish oligarchs, the promotion of porn culture, and the blood libel of expending gentile blood to fight Wars for Israel, I certainly would not aid Jews if the Second Holocaust. I wouldn't take part in the Second Holocaust, but I wouldn't lift a finger to save Jews. Jews often bitch and whine and ask, "why didn't enough Europeans do something to save us from the Nazis?" Well, look at what Jews have done to the West in the past 50 yrs, and there's your answer. Even in films such as ANGRY HARVEST by Agnieszka Holland that are sympathetic to the plight of Jews, the relations between desperate Jews and goyim who help them are fraught with ambiguity because many of the Jews had once been richer and more privileged than the goyim, who'd indeed been treated as horse-dung by Jews who saw themselves as rightful masters over the 'dumb Polacks', though, to be sure, Germans also treated Poles as inferiors. So, when all hell broke out, most Poles didn't care to save Jews during WWII and didn't care to save Germans when the time came to expel them out of territories annexed by Poland after the war. Poles remembered contemptuous Jews and arrogant Germans.) But there's another school of Jewish strategy that takes pride in being pushy, demanding, and chutzpahtic. Alan Dershowitz, one of the most hideous and vile Jews in American life and politics, even wrote a book arguing that Jews should flaunt their chutzpah. If not for the Holocaust and its associated cult cooked up by the Jewish-controlled media, there would be a lot of anti-Jewish feelings in both America and Europe. Jews are now so powerful, corrupt, arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, contemptuous, hypocritical, hideous, heinous, vicious, ugly, and hypocritical that it'd be natural for the people to rise up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. But because of the cult of the Holocaust, many people either choose to use code words or repress their true feelings, but both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have certain counter-Jewish undertones. Of course, both sides will sincerely deny that they have any animus against Jews. Even so, much of the current disaffection with the American government and economy can be traced back to the New World Order created by Jewish financial control, media control, government control, legal control, and foreign policy control. Whether it's Saul-Alinskyite big government-ism or Ayn-Rand free market-ism, a kind of extremist zeal has taken over American politics, culture, economics, and life. Look at many of the most powerful people in American government or economic system, and they are Jews who undermined political, economic, legal, and moral principles to amass more fortune, power, and influence for themselves and their own kind. So, if not for the cult around the Holocaust, there would be honest rage among the gentile masses. But because of the cult of the Holocaust or Holocult, we go on pretending that even greedy and unscrupulous Jews are respectable, admirable, and trustworthy people. Unless Jews do something really horrible and make a mess of it — as with Bernie Madoff and Jordan Belfort, though even their abuses were spun to make Jews seem the main victims — , they are protected from all kinds of misdeeds and scandals, and the rest of us better not mention that Jews have great power and often abuse power for their self-aggrandizement at great cost to the rest of us who are forced to foot the bill and bail them out. The financial collapse of 2008 was essentially the result of new rules and instruments created by Jews, but most of the Jews who exploited the rules to plunder the economies of the world not only got to keep their ill-gotten loot but were bailed out to rake in billions more while the rest of America sunk into severe recession. Deep in their hearts, honest and decent Jews(and such people do exist) must know that a lot of powerful Jews are behaving very badly and that if the gentiles masses were to know the real truth — and were to break free of the mental chains of the Holocaust cult — , they will stand up and speak truth to Jewish power and even unite to punish the Jewish elites. In a way, Jews, smart as they are, came to be filled with excessive moral arrogance to learn the OTHER lesson of the Holocaust. The first lesson is that extreme racial supremacism and radical antisemitism can lead to unspeakable horrors, and therefore, we should be careful about scapegoating all Jews for social or national problems. But the OTHER lesson is no less important. Contrary to the Jewish-centric narrative, not all Jews were innocent and wonderful members of society, and too many Jews acted horribly and viciously during the inter-war period as either psychopathic communists, verminous finance capitalists with no remorse about the millions they stole from the suffering gentiles, or hideous subverters of morals and traditions of gentile nations. It was because Jews have not learned that OTHER lesson that so many of them act so recklessly and arrogantly on so many levels: economic, political, social, moral, cultural, historical, etc. David Mamet is a very talented playwright and film-maker — and as an artist is capable of depth and complexity, even if the meanings tend to be buried or hidden — , but as a social activist, he sees all of history and society as poor Jew, poor Jew, and poor Jew beset by evil, nasty, ugly, and hideous gentiles. Some conservatives may be glad to have him on their side, but Mamet's view of the entire history of the West can be summed up as "you scummy white Christians oppressed and killed us." His 'conservatism' is really just a means to use the American Right to stand up for Israel and rich Wall Street against the 'antisemitism' of the American Left, but of course, Mamet has plenty of allies and friends among Liberal Jews who manipulate the American Left to rail endlessly against the 'racist' and 'antisemitic' American Right. It's really Liberal and Neo-conservative Jews working hand-in-hand behind the scenes to make gentiles fight gentiles along the ideological divide, which indeed wouldn't be so deep if not for Jewish manipulation. (Everyone may own his or her own TV set, but what comes through the TV is decided by a small cabal of Jews who monopolize almost all of the media. You own the hardware, but Jews have the power to send messages through the hardware to take over your mind.) After all, one of the biggest issues that divides gentile Liberals from gentile Conservatives is 'gay marriage' — it is also used to divide Russian whites from American whites lest the latter come to admire Putin and Russians as proud nationalist folks who stood up to Jewish domination — , but why did so many white Liberals become so impassioned in the first place about such a bogus issue that would have them believe that the idea that fecal penetration among men is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between men and women? Both American Liberals and American Conservatives can come to an agreement on the need for Tolerance for homos, but such an agreement would close the ideological gap between the gentile Left and the gentile Right, and of course, Jews don't want that. So, Jews have radicalized the homo agenda and turned into a case of "if you're not with us, you are against us." In other words, it's not enough to tolerate homosexuality as a deviancy. Instead, against all common, biological, and moral sense, we have to convince ourselves that homosexuality should be 'welcomed' and 'celebrated' as being of equal biological and moral value as real sexuality between men and women that produce life. If not, you are EVIL. Liberal whites are as brainwashed as the Red Guards with their Little Red Book during the Cultural Revolution. They are rabid and hysterical with their mindless worship of all things homo, and Jewish control of academia, media, finance, courts, and government made them that way.
Anyway, given the ultra-chutzpah of so many Jews, it seems they too have forgotten some of the lessons of history and have thrown caution to the wind. Perhaps, all groups eventually revert to their natural mode. It's like there was a time when blacks, under the pressure of having to be a 'credit to their race', tried to act respectable and uphold middle class values. While such blacks still do exist, there are also lots of blacks — even among middle class and rich blacks — who seem to be reverting to their African nature and talking & acting like half-naked apelike savages. Similarly, though Jews have tried not to 'rock the boat' for awhile, they seem to have reverted to their natural personality traits that tend toward nastiness, pushiness, viciousness, and obnoxiousness. Given that Jews are finally showing their true face, one would think white gentiles would be furious and waking up to the Jewish threat. However, the domination of mass entertainment and shameless hedonism — controlled and promoted by Jews — has made gentiles less allergic to Jewish nastiness and viciousness. If and when in the past, Jews mocked and ridiculed non-Jews, gentiles saw it as yet another classic case of Jews acting dirty and nasty, and they did something about it. But the rise and spread of Jewish-dominated mass entertainment has made us laugh along with the Jew even though the main targets of Jewish humor and mockery are gentiles. So, movies like CADDYSHACK, the comedy acts of Sarah Silverman and Howard Stern, and the filthy antics of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich are seen by us not as insults against us but as entertainment to make us laugh and have fun. In the past, if a Jew stole a gentile's wife or daughter, turned her into a whore, and humped her, the gentile would have hated the dirty Jew for his actions. Today, if a Jew does such a thing, the gentile will identify with the Jew and even celebrate the Jew's dirty behavior; he might even be flattered that the Jew made him laugh at his own stupid face by shit-facing him — it's like Khrushchev was made to act the fool in front of Stalin and grew accustomed to his clown persona. (Jews use comedy to fool us into thinking that we are laughing at their expense, but in fact, they are making us laugh to gain control over us — like a pusher pushing drugs — , and in the end, Jews are not only making fun of us but making us laugh at our own expense. It's like the jester in Akira Kurosawa's RAN seems to be acting the fool, but his funny routine is really meant to make fun of his lord. Today, so many Americans make their political decisions based on what's mocked on TV by Jewish comedy writers. So, if Jewish power says we shouldn't laugh at homos but earnestly worship them, that's what we do. And if Jewish power says we should mockingly laugh at people who believe in True Marriage and feel contempt for them as a bunch of 'less evolved' Neanderthals, we laugh along and seethe with venom like a bunch of dummies whose brains are always being molded by Jews who control the messages that stream through 600 million TV sets in America.) And of course, Jews control porn and has even made white guys identify with black males who are pussifying them by humping white women. In the past, when blacks aggressively made their moves on white women, white men felt, "blacks guys are moving on our territory." Today, white boys from a young age are jerking off to images of blacks conquering white women and even porking 'faggoty' white guys in the ass. They've been conditioned and manipulated by Jews who control the porn industry, media, and academia to believe that black domination of whites is something whites should embrace, welcome, and celebrate — or else you're an EVIL 'RACIST'. So today, even when whites lose their pride and power, they identify with and take pleasure in the non-white victory over whites. Since whites are 'racist' and 'evil', they have no right to be pro-white in any way. Instead, the prevailing PC narrative says whites can only root for Jews and blacks winning over whites, demolishing white pride and identity, and using white women to produce non-white kids. (Even as whites continue to lose, whites who welcome their own demise are praised by Jews as 'overly privileged but generous and liberal' whites who are decent enough to share their wealth and power with less fortunate minorities. So, even though whites are losing their power at an alarming rate, they are urged to see themselves as excessively 'privileged', therefore obligated to be magnanimous toward the less fortunate. So, if whites resist, they are denounced as evil. But if whites submit and accept defeat, they are praised with false-appreciation for their generous hearts when, in reality, Jews simply want to tear out and own the entire white heart so that whites can never challenge Jewish master race power again.)
Black women may be jealous of white women who 'steal' black men, but the black penis entering a white vagina is like a knife that murders the white race. Black women love Obama, but what is he the product of? A black man humping a white woman. So, the white woman's vagina was used to produce a black child instead of a white child, and that means her vagina has been converted to a black-child-manufacturing machine. Since blacks see even part-black folks as 'black', any white woman who 'steals' a black man is essentially surrendering and destroying her own racial identity to produce more black people. What was really stolen was her white pussy for it was turned into a Negro-producing machine. So, if black women are jealous of prettier white women, they should wise up and rejoice because when a black guy takes a white girl, her vagina will produce black babies who will feel as a part and be seen as part of the black community. Obama's white mother destroyed her own whiteness by producing a black child who identifies as black and came to be loved by the black community, especially black women. In a way, O.J.'s penis entering Nicole Simpson and producing black children murdered her more totally than the knife that nearly decapitated her. The knife just killed her whereas the penis in the white vagina produced black kids from white pussy. The white vagina was murdered in its function as a organ meant to produce white children. It was remolded as a mulatto-Negro producing machine, and surely, black women have no ill will against mulattos, as plenty of mulattos resulting from black men humping white women are much loved mega-stars in the black community.
Anyway, the seismic change in racial attitudes among whites is largely due to the Jewish control of media, academia, finance, and culture. Today, a hideous Jew can dick-slap and humiliate the white daughter of a white man, and the white man will likely laugh like an idiot and whank off to the Jew's indiscretion instead of getting riled up to strangle the Jew for befouling his daughter. For most white males, films like THE BIRTH OF A NATION or THE SEARCHERS(where tough & proud white men fight the colored races for their racial integrity and the honor of their own women, wives, mothers, and daughters) are seen as the greatest evil. White boys have been so defeated and castrated that they thrill to stuff like DJANGO UNCHAINED. And even though millions of loathsome black Africans are invading the UK and producing tons of mulatto babies with British women whose vaginas have been murdered and remolded into Negro-producing machines, white guys in both UK and US sheepishly and gratefully take moral lessons from someone like Steve McQueen (director of 12 YEARS A SLAVE) who is also married to a white woman whose vagina produces black babies in the very nation of her ancestors. Of course, Jews are laughing and celebrating at the total pussification of the white boys. But Jews being Jews — dirty and hideous — love to rub it in. As if it's not bad enough for white men to lose their women to Negroes, Jews are demanding that all Americans — Conservatives as well as Liberals — bend over to the homo agenda. So, the new editor-in-chief of The National Review is a 'gay marriage' supporting dork who censured Mark Steyn for making an irreverent remark about homos. You see, all white guys must REVERE homos and bend over backwards and forward to the feces-stained homo penis. Look at the sorry sight of Charles Murray sucking homo penis and supporting 'gay marriage'. Even those who continue to oppose 'gay marriage' do so silently. When yet another court in another state legally forces 'gay marriage' upon the people — 'fudgepackers' as judgepackers — , there's no outcry or shaming by Conservatives who hide their heads like ostriches.
|Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda
So, Jews all over the world were a mixed blessing, and in some ways, all great blessings are likely to be mixed since something very great tends to overwhelm our conventional sense of the 'good'. Great things tend to envision bold and new possibilities, sometimes leading to massive social and cultural disruptions and upheavals that are as filled with curses as with blessings. Indeed, every nation that underwent the grand experience of modernization and industrialization knows that great transformations can be traumatic. Even so, if a pre-modern people undergo such a transformation and find themselves the masters of the new order, the changes will have been for their own power, and thus, even if the old ways have been lost, the new ways(at the very least) preserve and serve their sense of identity and unity. But what if, following the great transformation, a people found themselves under the political, economic, and cultural control of an alien people? And that was precisely what was happening in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century. Though Jews were assimilating and contributing greatly to German science, economy, and culture, they were also gaining power over the Germans politically, financially, culturally, and psychologically. They were becoming the master race/class over the Germans and gradually displacing the German elites — just as Jews in Russia nearly came out on top after the massive 'privatization' in the 90s following the end of communism. Of course, as Germany was advancing and things were improving for the masses as a whole, many Germans didn't freak out over increasing Jewish power and wealth. Indeed, if not for the intervention of WWI, the German economy would likely have continued to grow, and many, even most Germans, might have accommodated themselves to growing Jewish power. But World War I changed everything. It led to embittered rage among German veterans. It was followed by a Jewish communist putsch that, had it succeeded, would likely have led to massive bloodshed, even democide of huge numbers of Germans. Had German-Jewish communists taken power, they would have united with their tribal brethren in the newly communized Russia and worked together to smash churches, round up conservatives and liberals, and set up a massive secret police state where countless folks would have been tortured, shot in the back of the head, or sent to the Gulag or Jewlag. The German-Jewish communists failed, but the German economy remained weak, and the German middle class saw their life-savings wiped out. And though Jewish middle class folks suffered the same fate as that of the German middle class, there were lots of Jews in finance who exploited the economic crisis and made off like bandits — like Jewish oligarchs in Russia during the 1990s — , and there were lots of Jews who were promoting porn and using poor/desperate German girls as sex meat. And just when the German people, having been driven to desperation, were looking for cultural leadership and moral inspiration, Jews were promoting the kind of culture that mocked German social/moral values and wallowed in wanton ugliness and degeneration. To be sure, there's no rule that says art has to be pretty or ennobling — and degenerate art can be insightful and fascinating — , but just when so many Germans felt desperate and destitute, rich Jews in Germany were throwing parties, using German women as sex chattel, and trading in works of art where ugliness, contemptuousness, and self-indulgence prevailed. In better times, most people might not have noticed or even might have found something of interest in the new culture, but for so many Jewish elites to act so piggish — like Ziegler in EYES WIDE SHUT — just when so many Germans were suffering created a fatal rift between the German people(who felt as slaves) and the Jews(who seemed to be living high like a neo-aristocratic master class with a coterie of fancy pansy homosexuals). Indeed, even Americans would be outraged today at Jewish malfeasance in this country if it weren't for the fact that nearly all of the media, celebrities, and politicians are in the pockets of Jews. If the American people were to ever find out what rich elite Jews are really up to in this country and how they've come to control the minds of goyim, there could well be another round of national socialism, albeit one without the crazy racial theories of Hitler whose inner core was as vile and extreme as that of many Jews.
At any rate, the history of National Socialism illustrates that the master race/class domination mind-set can co-exist with the slave rebellion mentality. Consider the character of Roy Batty(Rutger Hauer) in BLADE RUNNER. On the one hand, he is indeed a rebel slave who challenges the authority of Tyrell, the master of the world. (Incidentally, in the original novel DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, the Tyrell character is named Eldon Rosen and his corporation is named Rosen Association, but the names were probably changed because 'Rosen' suggest Jewishness — and hint of 'antisemitism' — , and Philip K. Dick probably meant Rosen to be a supremacist German-American-Jew.) But Batty is also a creature who exults in his own superiority and rightful mastery over weak and stupid humans. He disregards human being as weak, ugly, dumb, and feeble; he feels no remorse over killing them. He rebels against Tyrell to gain the secret of longevity, but he also feels that the likes of himself should be masters of the world since they are not only the intellectual equals of Tyrell but strong and beautiful.
Throughout history, if some peoples, as slaves, rose up against their masters to end slavery/inequality once and for all, others rebelled against the masters so that they themselves could be the new masters ruling over others. And in this sense, Nazism has to be seen as both a slave rebellion and master race/class movement. Such a dualistic attitude defined Jews for thousands of years as well. Moses, for instance, rebelled against the tyranny of the Egyptian masters and tried to lead his people out of bondage, but his rebellion also had an element of master race/class mentality. Moses didn't rebel on the basis that Jews are as good as Egyptians but on the basis that Jews are BETTER than the Egyptians and other goyim. As far as Moses in concerned — especially in TEN COMMANDMENTS the movie, which is more exciting than the account in the Bible — , there is only true God, and He chose the Jews as a special people. Therefore, as far as Jews were concerned, all the Egyptian gods were, of course, bogus and fake, and the Egyptians better do as the Moses the Jew demands because if they continue to mess with God's special Chosen People, innumerable Egyptians will be demolished in one holocaust after another. So, Moses' message was that Egyptians better let the Hebrews go because Hebrew slaves are not merely as good as the Egyptians but much better than them. If there is indeed only one true God, and if that God has a special love for Jews over all others, then Jews are obviously superior and should logically have power over others. And indeed, once Jews made it out of Egypt, their next mission was to commit mass killings against Canaanites, Philistines, and other inferor folks to found the nation of Israel for the superior Jews who are the blessed of God. According to the Torah, God will sometimes punish the Jews for their bad behavior and sacrilege, but if Jews honor and worship God in the proper way, He will ensure that that Jews shall have domination over all other peoples of the world. All peoples of the world can receive the blessing of God but only through their rightful masters the Jews. Even though modern folks like to interpret the Moses story as one of slave rebellion, it is also a master race narrative.
|'Chinee' not so good at kung fu fighting.
To be sure, just as Germans gained a lot from the rise of Jewish influence and power(that even reached the status of the master race/class during the Weimar period), Chinese gained a great deal — political, economic, moral(though they still kill dogs and boil cats), scientific, cultural, and etc. — from its 'humiliating' contact with the 'foreign devils'. Though the imperialists could be overbearing and arrogant(and even downright pathological as Japan in its full-scale invasion of China), they also planted most of the seeds that came to fruition in the creation of a new Chinese civilization in China and elsewhere with sizable Chinese populations. Even so, no people wanna be ruled by foreign powers forever, and foreign rule was especially problematic in the case of the Chinese since they traditionally had such a high opinion of themselves as the people at the center of the world. Therefore, the Chinese slave rebellion narrative in the modern era always carried an element of the master race/class narrative. Chinese believe that they are meant for great things and must be one of the great powers — if not the great power — in the world. This doesn't mean that China wants to invade the world outside China, but it does mean that China now wants respect from the entire world; they want to be recognized, revered, and feared as a great power. China can be dangerous in the future due to this combination of slave rebellion mentality and master race mentality. Before the arrival of the foreign powers, China had become complacent in its sense of timeless grandeur. This led to economic, scientific, and political slackness and even stagnation. But once the foreigners kicked them in the butt, Chinese woke up to find their proud selves condemned to 'slave status' vis-a-vis the foreigners. (To be sure, even before the Europeans and Japanese arrived, China had been under the rule of Manchus, but Manchu rule had only demonstrated the superiority of the Chinese ways since the Manchu elites adopted Chinese dress, Chinese manners, Chinese culture, and presumably Chinese food, which was one thing the Chinese did better than most Europeans and Japanese even during the era of the invasion of the 'foreign devils' and 'island dwarfs'.) Therefore, the Chinese, across the ideological spectrum, resolved to liberate their nation from foreign domination and end the 'slavery'; however, given their superiorist sense of history and tradition, they also resolved to regain their status of greatness: a neo-Middle Kingdom.
|Jew and Chua
White rightists need to understand that, even if they reject the 'slave morality' much derided by Nietzsche, they need to embrace the mind-set of 'slave rebellion'. There is no shame in being a slave as long as you have the fight in you like Conan the Barbarian who rose from slave-hood to master-hood. The 'slave rebel' narrative keeps things real and in perspective. The master race/class mentality on its own leads to either excessive arrogance — and delusions of invincibility as in the case of Hitler in WWII — or excessive complacency(as among the Chinese prior to the arrival of 'foreign devils'). In a way, both the National Socialists and Wasp elites were done in by the same thing. Even though National Socialists sought to crush other peoples and rule as slave-masters whereas Wasp-Americans became increasingly idealistic, principled, and magnanimous, the attitudes of both groups were predicated on taking white superiority for granted as an permanent guarantee. Nazi Germans got to thinking that they, being so utterly great, could defeat Russia and easily rule over 'untermenschen'. And Wasp-Americans thought they, being so rich, privileged, and powerful, could afford to be increasingly nice to other groups with no danger to themselves. Both groups were defeated due to their preening over-confidence. In service of bad or good, certainty of one's invincibility leads to recklessness or complacency and finally to defeat. If Wasp and white gentile elites in the 40s and 50s could foresee what America would eventually become in the age of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, they never would have been so indulgent with the nasty Jews. But being so sure of their own power and privilege, they figured it'd be no big deal if Jews gained increasing power in the media, academia, government, economy, and whatever else. Jews waged a two front war in elite culture and popular culture. Jewish intellectuals won over the respect of wasp intellectuals, and Jewish-run Hollywood controlled the fantasies of the masses.
Therefore, for white folks to regain their sense of identity and purpose, they must adopt the slave rebellion mentality/narrative. Now, some people might argue that white Americans are certainly not slaves but all-too-privileged folks in the Land of the Brave and Free. Sarah Palin got in hot water not long ago by invoking slavery in her criticism of increasing government power. But there is slavery as an actuality and slavery as a metaphor or figure or speech, and in that sense, it's not wrong to define the condition of one's people as a form of slavery.
Also, we need to understand that slave-like control comes in many forms. There is chattel slavery where people are owned and sold in body. But there is also mental slavery and emotional slavery. After all, one can control dogs even without the leash. Why do unleashed dogs obey their masters' commands even though they are physically free to run around and do as they please? It's because humans have mentally trained them to obey and do as told: 'fetch', 'roll over', 'sit', etc. So, even without the material reach of the leash, dogs are bound to their masters through the mental leash; they are mental slaves of humans. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley showed how effective the power of mental, emotional, sensual, and pharmaceutical leashes can be. The members of Huxley's vision of the future are physically free, but they think and act only in approved ways because they've been conditioned to obey and never think of going against the system. In today's America, the elites who control education, media, entertainment, law and courts, medicine, and finance control us through mental, emotional, sensual, sexual, legal, narcotic, and monetary leashes. They are the pushers, we are the junkies, and junkies are mental slaves of pushers. Even if we are not chattel slaves of the Jews, the fact remains that if we disobey them, they can destroy our businesses and ruin our reputations through the control of the media, courts, and government. Consider how the Jew-controlled IRS went after the Tea Party. Look at how Christian-owned bakeries are being sued and shut down because they won't bake cakes promoting the perversion of 'gay marriage'.
To be free means to be brave, but look at the sheer cowardice among Americans when it comes to dealing with Jewish power. They are essentially mental and emotional slaves of Jews; they are afraid of being irreverent toward Jewish power. Jewish masters can be irreverent and mocking toward things that have special/sacred meaning to white goyim, but white goyim must revere Jews and their power. Jews can smash your idols, but you better kneel down before the Jews' idols. Jews also control gambling, and people who are addicted to gambling are essentially habitual slaves of Jews. Unless they gamble away their hard-earned money at casinos owned by the likes of Sheldon Adelson, they don't feel alive. And Americans addicted to rap and porn are sensual slaves of Jews who control those vice-ridden industries. Many white girls must listen to rap and 'twerk' their behinds in fantasies of having sex with Negro men, or they don't feel alive. Many white boys must indulge in interracist porn or even homosexual interracist porn to get off. Clever Jews, who are masters of psychology, know how to gain near-total control over a people through mental and sensual means. They know how to titillate, nudge, tweak, prod, and toy with the minds of gentiles.
Now, if a gentile group gained this kind of control over Jews, Jews would indeed call it slavery. Suppose there's nation called Schwarzia where Jews comprise 98% of the population while Palestinians only 2%. Suppose Palestinians have an average IQ of 140 and, via their higher intelligence and tribal networking, have gained great power in Schwarzia. Suppose they came to disproportionately control the finances, the courts, the academia, the culture & entertainment, the mores/values, the historiography, the pharmaceuticals, the high-tech, politics, and government of Schwarzia. Suppose the Palestinians, through selective historiography, instilled Jewish hearts with bottomless guilt and shame over the 'original sin' of Zionist tyranny, Jewish role in communist mass murder, and Jewish nastiness/viciousness as slave traders and usurious moneychangers through the centuries. Suppose Palestinians promote interracist porn to Jews whereby Jewish men are made to feel as pussy-boy dorks while Jewish girls are encouraged to have sex with Arab and Negro men. Suppose Palestinians rationalize their own abuses and corruption by endlessly bemoaning about how Jewish country clubs had once not allowed Palestinians from playing golf or cricket. Suppose all the TV channels in Schwarzia are owned by Palestinians — who make up only 2% of the population — , and all the news that Jews get are filtered by Palestinian censors. Suppose the elite academia are largely controlled by Palestinians, and one of the orthodoxies of Palestinian enforced political correctness is the notion of 'Jewish privilege', whereby Jews must surrender more of their wealth and power to make Palestinians even richer and more powerful. Also, suppose Palestinians fear being surrounded by a vast Jewish population that might one day rise up against the Palestinian master over-class. So, Palestinians push for massive immigration in the name of 'diversity' so that Jews will one day be a minority in what was once their own country. Suppose Palestinians smash Jewish idols of political and historical leadership and heroism — branding them as 'racist' and 'odious and noxious' — and make Jewish children worship the idols that imbue Palestinians moral/historical sanctity while reminding Jews of how rotten they've been and still are. Suppose Palestinian-dominated pharmaceuticals make Jews become addicted to whole bunch of drugs, all of which have side-effects that call for yet more kinds of drugs. Suppose Palestinians pass 'hate speech' laws whereby any Jew who dares to speak truth to Palestinian power or dares to call for Jewish unity/power could be fined and even imprisoned. Suppose there are two political parties, and Palestinian money constitutes 60% of funds to one party and nearly 50% to the other one. Suppose Jews are made to line up and wave 'rainbow flags' to celebrate Muslim polygamy pride parade and Pakistani cousin-marriage pride parade. And etc, etc. Wouldn't independent-minded Jews living under such a system invoke 'slavery' to describe their own condition and plight? I think so. Would such Jews call for a slave rebellion? You bet.
So, what's up with white folks who are living under the yoke of Jewish master class with no scruples and honor?

subset: commoncrawl