Sunday, July 7, 2019

Symbiotic HinJew(or Hindu-Jewish) Power Complex — The Implications of the Jewish-Hindu Alliance for the Future of Power Politics

Sundar Pichai does the bidding of Globo-Homo Zionist-Imperialist Google Jews in crushing the freedoms of whites and Palestinians. It's hardly surprising as Hindus were among the most useful collaborators of the British Empire. 

Power isn’t simply about individuals having lots of money or groups having lots of influence. It’s also about alliances, partnerships, and trusts. In the end, what finally led to the fall of National Socialist Germany was the problem of alliances. In 1941, all of Europe except the UK was either allied with Germany, under German control, or neutral. Furthermore, Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. Germany was also allied with Japan. The only major direct threat to Germany was the U.K. that however hadn’t the means to invade or destroy Germany. Nor did it plan to. It was mainly playing defense. If Germany had maintained its alliance with Soviet Union and pressured Japan to come to terms with the US, it could very well have come out on top. Granted, Germany’s alliances were problematic. Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany were ideological enemies; therefore, their ‘friendship’ was cynical than principled, built on mutual fear than trust. Furthermore, Germany’s alliance with erratic and desperate Japan was also deeply problematic. It became alienated from KMT-ruled China that had been favorable to Germany. But worse, there was the danger that Japan might become entangled in a war with the US, into which Germany might be drawn. (However, if Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor BEFORE Germany invaded Russia, it’s unlikely that Germany would have declared war on the US. On the other hand, it’s unlikely that Japan would have attacked the US naval base IF Germany hadn’t already invaded Russia and seemed to be winning.)
Another problem for Germany was the ostensibly neutral USA lurking in the shadows. The Anglo-American elites felt a certain closeness with Anglo-Brits, and besides, FDR and those around him wanted a world war to boost government spending & ramp up the economy, to defeat the Far Right(which was loathed in liberal intellectual circles whose soft spot was for communism), and use the crisis to take over as the new world hegemon. Thus, even though the US didn’t officially enter the war until 1941, it had been aiding the UK behind the scenes to make things tough for Germany. FDR also pushed the anti-Japanese embargo to provoke a war in the Pacific(that would hopefully be linked to the war in Europe). Anyway, the relevant lesson here is that German power rose when its game of diplomacy was careful not to alienate MANY sides at once. To make itself palatable to the capitalist West, Nazi Germany presented itself as the sworn enemy of Soviet Communism. But when relations with the UK and France deteriorated, Adolf Hitler made the masterful plan of aligning with the Soviet Union, the other great power on the continent of Europe. However, when he attacked Russia, he had no major allies left except Japan, which was however no match for the US. Italy was a third-rate power, and with Germany at war with both UK/US and Russia, it was a zero-sum game of win-all or lose-all. Germany lost everything.
Violating this Pact proved to be most fatal to Nazi Germany. It had no major allies left in Europe.
Jewish power is awesome, the most powerful power in the world today. And yet, Jewish power wouldn’t have amounted to much without its crucial alliances with non-Jewish groups, the Gentiles. Granted, Jews don’t so much seek alliances with other peoples as they seek alliances with the elites of other peoples. If anything, Jews seek to suppress the populist-nationalism of most peoples since such passions pressure the ethnic or national elites to represent and lead their own peoples in exchange for their loyalty and support. For example, the Turkish masses want the Turkish elites to serve Turkey and its people. Such nationalism-populism among goyim is threatening to Jewish power because Jews need goy elites to serve as the cuck-collaborators to Jewish Power. Jews need goy elites to suppress & silence their own peoples and form alliance with Jewish elites. In the past, the Jewish underdog-elites sought the graces of the goy top-dog elites, especially when Europe was still mostly ruled by kings and princes. Even back then, Jews tried to nudge goy kings and princes into lending their ears to Jews than to their own subjects. Today, Jewish top-dog elites demand that their goy underdog-elites do everything in their power to suppress & silence the 'siren song' of nationalist-populism. Consider the case of Hungary where nationalism-populism means the people insisting on the preservation of Hungary as the nation for Hungarians. Viktor Orban has heard the nationalist-populist cry and implemented policies and values meant to cement the bond between the Hungarian elites and Hungarian masses. They are also meant to unite the Hungarian future with the Hungarian past, i.e. present-day Hungarians are encouraged to feel a deep sense of bond with their ancestors and land. Now, why are Jews so triggered by this? After all, don’t Jews promote the same themes in Israel that is defined as the eternal homeland for the Jews? Furthermore, as Hungary is friendly with Israel, why are Jews so virulently anti-Hungarian? It’s because the center of Jewish Power is not in Israel but in the global networks within goy nations. Jewish minority elites in goy nations have far more power than Jews in Israel; indeed, the reason why Israel matters so much to the US is because the Jewish minority effectively controls America. Because the main power of Jews depend on Jewish Minority Dominance in goy nations, Jews denounce and denigrate ANY sign of nationalist-populism in goy nations. After all, populism means the Voice of the People, and nationalism means Elites as representatives & defenders of their own nations, peoples, and lands. A nationalist-populist UK would be state where the majority of white Britons demand national sovereignty and security and where the British elites, as the leader-defenders of Great Britain, comply with patriotic demands.

Now, such nationalism-populism wouldn’t necessarily be dangerous to the Jewish community. Plenty of nations have learned to treat their minorities with decency and respect. Indeed, there are no pogroms in Hungary and Russia despite their being on the hate-list of most Jews around the world. If anything, Jews are well-protected there and face no threats. Then, why are Jews so hostile to goy nationalism-populism? It’s because they are now addicted to supremacist power and are no longer content with survival, security, and affluence. Jews are now in neo-imperialist-and-hegemonic mode and want the world as their oyster. Of course, Jews, being ever so clever, play a sleight-of-hand trick with terminology. Even though THEY THEMSELVES are for tribal supremacism, they demean any people who resist Jewish supremacism as ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’. So, even though the ONLY thing that Hungary wants is to preserve itself as the national homeland for its ethnic folks, Jews demean Viktor Orban and his supporters as ‘haters’ and ‘neo-Nazis’. Jews spew the same kind of filth against Syria and Assad. Jews in Israel and Zionists in the US can use their muscle to wage Wars for Israel and wreck nation after nation. Israel can have all the nukes it wants while, at the same time, using the US and its puppet-states to sanction the economy of Iran, a nation that has no nukes. We live in a crazy world where Jewish Supremacist-Terrorists accuse others of ‘supremacism’ or ‘terrorism’ for daring to say NO to Jewish greed, perfidy, and monstrosity. It’s like a slave-master calling his slave ‘uppity’ for wanting to be free. If white people desire freedom from Jewish globo-homo-hegemony and imperialism, vile Jews smear them as ‘white supremacist’. Self-determination is to be denied to white people because a free people might say NO to the Jewish globo-homo supremacist agenda. The ONLY way for Jews to ensure white submissivism is to deny and forbid white agency & autonomy. It’s like dogs must be denied their independence IF they are to be trained to serve their human master. If you want to take control of someone’s body, first control his heart and mind. As Jews control media and academia, they fill white goyim with ideas and images devised to subvert white pride, freedom, and independence. Jews are the hands, white goyim are the clay.
If Jews were huge in number and had a sizable nation of their own — like Russia, China, India, Iran, etc. — , they would be less paranoid about power. If there were 500 million Jews in a nation about the size of India, Jews might feel assured of their presence in the world EVEN IF they didn’t control other nations through networks of capital(money) and capitals(elite cities of governance). But the only Jewish-majority nation in the world is Israel, which is tiny despite its historical and spiritual significance as the Holy Land. And this is why Jews are so utterly adamant about sinking their claws deep into other nations. Without control of other nations, especially Anglo-made ones that are most successful in the world, Jewish power wouldn't be so formidable.
Now, why are Jews so insistent on world domination? After all, Armenians also have a small nation and a global diaspora, and they too have done rather well as a ‘middleman community’. Still, when was the last time you heard of Armenians seeking to take control of other nations and the world? Why are Jews so unlike Armenians? There are three reasons: (1) Covenant that makes Jews believe they are the Chosen of God and History. (2) Higher IQ that makes Jews look upon gentiles as dogs and cattle to control. Jews think, "Why should dimwit goyim have so much when WE JEWS are smarter and better? Those dummies should be serving us like cattle and horses exist to serve mankind." (3) Stronger personalities. Jews got chutzpah, a pushy doggedness that is maniacally driven like rats and gophers gnawing or clawing their way through everything. To understand why the Jews do what they do, one needs to think like a Jew. It’s like Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER PART 2 says that, in order to understand one’s enemies/rivals, he has to put himself inside others’ shoes.
A nation like China or Russia doesn’t need to take more land to feel big or important. Even though Russia has interests beyond its borders and even though China is eager to expand its economic reach, both nations are important on their own. Like the US, they are almost like empires unto themselves. They don’t really need the world to be world powers. In contrast, a smaller nation like UK needed an empire in order to be great. Indeed, without an empire, the name ‘Great Britain’ is rather amusing. Even with the fall of worldwide communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia still remains the biggest nation on Earth with a sizable population. And even in Maoist isolation and poverty prior to its turn to market economy and entry into the global capitalist system, China was an important nation that had to be reckoned with. In contrast, Great Britain and France without their empires could not be great powers. They could be prosperous nations and advanced economies but nothing more. Same goes for Germany and Japan. Despite their big economies, their presence on the world stage depends utterly on the US for trade, markets, and security. If Germany or Japan were to go to war with the US, they could be destroyed overnight because neither is food-and-energy independent. Their riches totally depend on the thumbs-up of the US as world hegemon.
To an extent, the state of Jewish power is somewhat akin to that of Great Britain as the greatest imperialist power. Great Britain was small, but its ambition was boundless. This led to a contradiction and imbalance in the British character. In a balanced world, a modest-sized nation should have modest ambitions. And there was once a time when the British desired no more than that as they were more concerned about foreign invasions than invading other peoples. But once the British secured their island fortress and mastered sea power, they began to broaden their horizons, especially as their main rival, the Spanish, fell into precipitous decline. France being a continental power concentrated more on army than navy, not least because the European mainland remained a hotbed of military conflicts until the end of World War II. And then, the industrial revolution happened with Great Britain far ahead of other nations. In industrial power, UK was unmatched until the rises of Germany and the (Anglo-founded-and-ruled)USA in late 19th century. Because UK was so far ahead of most of the world, the British got to feeling superior to rest of mankind. They were of a small island nation but so enterprising, smart, innovative, disciplined, rational, and etc. In contrast, most of mankind were lazy, backward, stagnant, incurious, dull-witted, barbarian, or even savage. If the entire world had advanced along with the British, the Brits would have had a more balanced view of the world: "We achieve things, they achieve things. We gain in power, they gain in power." But the Brits began to outstrip most of the world in power and wealth. Especially the non-white races seemed mired in savagery, barbarism, or backwardness. In a balanced world, Indian subcontinent and Imperial China should have been much more powerful than the British. But when the Brits went there, they saw stale civilizations mired in complacency, willful ignorance, superstition, and despotism. British were disciplined but respected the right of individuals. Oriental Civilizations, though advanced to some degree, were all about customs and obedience, leaving no room for progress and reform. The only real exceptions seemed to be the French(though it too began to lag behind Northern Europe and failed to become a truly industrialized nation until after World War II), Germans, and the Americans. But then, the French were long a great people. And Germans were racial cousins of the Anglos. And the US was essentially an extension of Anglo Civilization. A possible non-white exception was Modern Japan, but its rise depended wholly on imitating and copying the West. Could Japan have sparked a social-and-economic revolution on its own? We’ll never know but probably not as it was too regimented and repressive to allow the sort of sparks that led to the industrial revolution in the West.
Russia was another strange case. It was a white European nation but somewhat ‘oriental’ and backward. It seemed capable of advancing like rest of Europe but always seemed to lag behind in technology and organization. And yet, it was so huge. Russia seemed like the exact opposite of UK at least within the white world. Brits were an industrious, capable, and free people in a small nation, whereas Russians were a lazy, messy, and incompetent people in a huge nation. Still, because Russia was so big, the lazy Russians could just rest on their landed laurels and be a great nation(as Napoleon found out when the sheer size of Russia wore his army down). In contrast, the Brits could take nothing for granted because they had to have an overseas empire to be great in power. Russian power could be as ‘slovenly’ as a bear, whereas British power had to be taut as a big cat. Brits always overestimated Russian power, needlessly getting entangled in conflicts of the Great Game that, in the long run, proved to be bad for both sides. America was also a problem for UK though for different reasons. In a way, the US was to UK what Christianity was to Judaism. Jews feel both pride and loathing in relation to Jesus and the religion He birthed. On the one hand, Jews feel awe that one of their own founded a great religion that inflamed the world and captured the hearts and minds of countless goyim. Imagine that, all those millions and millions of goyim kneeling before a Jewish carpenter with odd ideas. On the other hand, Christianity is the God that got away as far as Jews are concerned. As such, Christianity became a competing and then dominant religion over Judaism. Likewise, the Brits felt great pride that their own Anglo kin founded the United States as a new nation with promise and destiny, and indeed, the US grew by leaps and bounds largely because of its core Anglo stock with its know-how and enterprise. And yet, United States was born out of disobedience and, unlike Canada and Australia, developed in direct competition with UK as a potential hegemon. Also, in order to distinguish themselves from their Mother Country(especially as their founding myth was that freedom-loving colonials rebelled against British tyranny and exploitation), Anglo-Americans molded a new identity that de-emphasized their ethnic origins in the British Isles. From the story of Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers to Andrew Jackson(who fought in the War of 1812), the American theme was one of ‘breaking free of British tyranny and the Old World'. It’s no wonder that in World War I and World War II, the British discovered that, even as the Americans were willing to lend a hand, it came with a steep price tag. If the American colonials stiffed the bill to the British Crown after the costly French-and-Indian War, American neo-imperialists in WWI and WWII were most eager to collect every sixpence for services rendered to the Brits. The Tea Party was nothing compared to the Gold Party.
Both Jews and Hindus have had a long experience of dealing with the West. The Jews had it with just about every European group, though they reached the greatest height by serving and then usurping the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans. Jews also reached great heights in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution, but egalitarian communism ultimately proved to be antithetical to Jewish talents. Jews also came to prominence in Modern Germany, a key European power, but the friction between Jewish prophetic-radicalism and German counter-prophetic-radicalism burned it all down, leading to destruction of millions of Jews and Germans. In the end, Jews failed in Russia and Germany. And due to the power of class and tradition, Jewish power remained limited in the UK despite its great wealth and influence. It was in the US that Jews finally gained the upperhand, and with the US as the lone superpower, Jews enforced their Judeo-centric will on UK, France, Germany, and etc. Even on Japan that now submits to ‘gay pride’ parades.
Unlike Jews, Hindus mainly experienced the West through a single power, the Anglo-Brits. It was under British Imperialism and through Anglosphere that Hindus were brought to modernity, united into a proto-national entity, educated in London, and ferried across the seas to serve as coolies, middlemen, and soldiers for the British Empire. So, both Jews and Hindus gained a tremendous deal via their contact with Anglosphere(and Anglo-made US). And until the latter half of the Twentieth Century, both groups played a subservient role vis-a-vis the Anglos though the dynamics were already changing fast in early 20th century that saw both the stirring of Zionism and Indian Independence Movement.
But there was a key difference. Indians sought independence from Anglo rule whereas the Jews relied on Anglo-power in the UK and Anglo-American power in the US to make the Jewish nationalist project of Zionism possible. In other words, if the Hindu Movement was for independence from Western Imperialism, Zionism could only succeed under the protection of British Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism(with support from the USSR as well before Stalin soured of the Jews). Also, if Indian Independence was about kicking whites out of the subcontinent, the founding of Israel was essentially about half-white European Jews, the Semito-Aryans, booting the native Arab browns from what was then Palestine. Granted, Jews had a two-pronged approach in their national aspirations. On the one hand, Jews cajoled and pleaded with Western Imperialist powers to use their ‘white supremacist’ power to aid the Zionists in ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the bulk of Palestine to be re-branded as Israel. On the other hand, Jews justified the founding of Israel as a sanctuary from 'antisemitism'(and the Next Holocaust) of white folks as intransigent Evil Supremacists. After all, why couldn’t Jews remain in Europe after WWII if Hitler and the Nazis were defeated? Weren’t the Bad Guys gone from the world stage? Apparently, Jews could never be safe in the presence of lots of white people who may one day decide to Go Nazi again to round up innocent Jews for the death camps. So, the argument was Jews needed a homeland AWAY from Evil Whitey... except that the irony was that Jews needed the support of Evil Whitey to lay claim to Palestine and expel 700,000 Arabs from their ancestral lands in a war provoked by Jews.
For this reason, many Hindus have had mixed feelings about Jews and Israel. On the one hand, Hindus appreciate the Jewish Narrative of sanctity borne of victim-hood at the hands of Evil Whitey, but Hindus can’t help noticing that Israel was created essentially as a neo-imperialist enterprise against a brown people. Another difference between Israel and India is, of course, the size. Israel is a tiny nation whereas India, at 1/3 the size of the US, is one of the largest nations. What Jews in Israel and Hindus in India have in common is ethnic diversity, but there is a crucial difference between how Judaism sees Jews and how Hinduism sees Hindus. According to the Covenant, all Jews are equally blessed by God(though to be a certain kind of Rabbi, you need special ancestry, just like in order to be ‘made’ by the mafia, you have to be 100% Italian), whereas Hinduism developed as a complex caste system, the purpose of which was to keep the various Hindus divided by profession, marriage, and residence. It was a spiritualized form of apartheid. Thus, if Judaism was about the unity of Jews, Hinduism was about the divisions among Hindus. Also, if the COVENANT blessed all Jews equally as the Chosen, the Hindu concept of KARMA said some Hindus, those of the uppermost castes, were most favored by the cosmic laws whereas others, those of lower caste and animals, were less favored or disfavored. In this sense, it’s amazing that India has come together as one nation under Hinduism. To be sure, modern Hinduism, like modern Islam, underwent profound changes in order to be palatable to modernity(that has affected every corner of the world). Even the Hindu National Party isn’t for official discrimination against people who were formerly designated as the ‘Untouchables’. Also, introduction of modern democracy has created the impression that ALL Indians take part in the national pageant though, to be sure, India was, up until the 1990s, pretty much a one-party dictatorship like Japan under the Liberal Democratic Party. Though the Hindu National Party initially came to power on the basis of economic issues, it thinks very much like the Israel Likud Party(headed by scoundrely Netanyahu) and Turkish Justice & Development Party(headed by rascally Erdogan). What the Likud and AK(Justice & Development) parties realized is that economic issues aren’t enough. After all, the economy has ups and downs all the time. To gain dominance, a political party or movement has to capture the cultural and ‘spiritual’ loyalty of the populace so that, even during down times, enough voters will stick with the Party out of sentimentality and emotional commitment. In populist politics, irrational power of commitment is greater than rational power of calculation. Consider the power of love. Even in troubled marriages, the spouse may stick through thick and thin out of love. As Tammy Wynette sang, "Stand by Your Man."

And a mother loves her children even they go bad because they’re hers. In religion, why do people stick with faith in God even when so much goes wrong? Why not blame God? They choose not to because God is beyond reason. He is a holy being, the ruler of all that is. This is why a people who gain irrational or ‘spiritual’ power over another people are crucially advantaged. Jews understood this all to well, which is why they used Holocaustianity and the cult of ‘White Guilt’ to make white people look upon Jews as the holy god-race especially blessed by God or History and sanctified by Tragedy. Jews studied human psychology and know that people are drawn to power in two ways: Awe for might & Respect for righteousness. Mere might can lead to awe but also fear and loathing. It’s like we are in awe of earthquakes and hurricanes but also dread them. Mere righteousness can lead to sympathy but also contempt because the meek and powerless come across as pathetic. A far more resilient kind of power combines the display of superiority with righteous sympathy, and Christianity came upon the most potent formula for this kind of power. The Passion of Jesus makes people feel sympathy for the poor decent man who preached love and understanding. The sympathy makes people feel morally righteous. But if Jesus had merely been a good person who got beat, his mission would have been one of the countless lost causes. Also, His humiliation and death would have elicited pity than respect. But the Resurrection of Christ made Jesus out to be the Son of God, the immortal Being. Jesus defeated death, rose to Heaven, and returned to inspire the Disciples. And that was awe-inspiring. Jews understand this dynamics all too well. Jews know that people look up to power & wealth, and Jews of course got lots of power and wealth. But Jews also know that people can easily feel envy and resentment toward the rich and powerful. In Western History, rich Jews had often been targeted, fairly or not, as a bunch of piggish a**holes. ‘Mighteous’ power works more-or-less on a rational basis. Those with power and money win over allies(who want a piece of the pie) but also make lots of enemies. Therefore, Jews figured they needed to shield their ‘mighteous’ power with righteous power. Righteousness is often irrational and ‘spiritual’, especially when a certain people are associated with blessedness in the eyes of God or verdict of History. As Holocaustianity made Jews the righteous race that suffered the ‘greatest horror of all time’, Jewish Power gained both a material-rational and moral-irrational(‘spiritual’) basis. A whole bunch of cuck-collaborators flocked to Jewish Power for a piece of the pie out of rational calculation for material interests, but they've also stuck by Jewish Power out of irrational-‘spiritual’ reasons because the reigning neo-theology of the West made every Jew a kind of christ-figure. Like Jesus was both the great Son of God and a righteous victim, Jews came to be seen as both a triumphant race that can accumulate stinking loads of money and a tragic race that effectively died for the Sins of Western man.
James Woods as Max in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. He manages to both take all the money AND become a tragic figure to Noodles.
Marc Chagall: The White Crucifixion
Same goes for the Negroes. Even though much is made of the tragic history of lynching, all this white worship of the Negro has more to do with Negro triumph in sports(as the lone racial superpower of athletics), rap music, and sexual prowess. Whites feel especially sad and guilt-ridden about the black tragedy because they look upon blacks as a god-race(after Jews). American Indians suffered a much greater tragedy than the Negroes(who, if anything, gained so much by having been brought over to the New World), but there isn’t much interest in their tragedy because they’re seen as a bunch of losers. Same goes for all the Muslims who died in Wars for Israel. For most Americans, Muslims are a bunch of worthless good-for-nothing ‘Muzzies’ despite the horrible deaths of 100,000s. And there isn’t much respect for Hindus either.
While plenty of Hindus succeeded as entrepreneurs or professionals in the US, they lack the 'viscerality' of blacks in sports, oratory, and music. Hindu presence in American Culture has mainly been about their funny accents, especially in connection to THE SIMPSONS. Furthermore, whereas white souls have been drummed endlessly with tragic tales about Jews and Negroes, most white folks(especially in the US) know and feel nothing about the tragedy of Indian history. When Hindus bleat on and on about how they too were wronged terribly by Evil Whitey, there is an element of Victim Envy, especially as the cult of White Guilt underlies so much of Western Thinking since the rise of Political Correctness. Of course, all three groups — Hindus, Jews, and Negroes — gained as well as lost in their experience with white peoples, but Jews and Negroes have selectively decided to emphasize their victim-hood at the hands of Evil Whitey. As this factor has imbued Jews and Negroes with so much moral mileage, the often-imitative Hindus want a slice of the White Guilt Pie as well. And for this to work, ALL WHITES must be blamed and made to share in the collective guilt. Notice how not only Anglo/Irish whites with deep lineage in the US but ALL whites in the US are made to atone for Slavery. (Jews are the only ones who are exempt from collective White Guilt about slavery, which is rather hilarious since Jews played a prominent role in the slave trade and in the managing of finances in the Antebellum South.) And notice that both Jews and Hindus blame white Americans for their troubles with OTHER whites. The Shoah was a German thing and, if anything, White America did its part in defeating Nazi Germany, as did the UK. But for some reason, the US Capitol has a Holocaust Museum and all Americans, especially white ones, are made to feel ‘White Goy Christian Guilt’ for what happened to Jews at the hands of Nazi Germans. But the US had NOTHING to do with the rise of Hitler. If US is guilty of anything in regard to Jews, it’s in having aided Zionists in the destruction of Palestinians, but there is hardly any discussion of Nakba in American Politics. If Jews make white Americans feel guilty about the Shoah(done by Germans on the other side of the Atlantic), Hindus now argue that White America, Canada, and Australia must atone and pay for what the Brits did in India. Even if America, Canada, and Australia were founded and/or developed by Anglos, what do British actions in India have to do with non-Indian lands? For example, if Anglo-Canadians are ‘guilty’ of anything, it would be their taking of lands from the indigenous folks. Same goes for the US. And in Australia, the Anglos took the land from the so-called Aborigines. So, even if we were to accept the White Guilt Narrative, whites wronged different peoples in different parts of the world. While Hindus made good sense to argue that Anglos must leave India that should be ruled by Hindus themselves, they make NO SENSE when they argue that non-Indian lands must make way for massive Hindu immigration-invasion and dotkin colonization because of what the Brits did in India. It’s like Palestinians have good reason to demand the Right of Return, but imagine a bunch of Hindus arguing that Israel should let in tons of Hindus because of what had been done to the Palestinians. Hindus are trying to steal the Victim Pie of other peoples: "You guys suffered and are owed a debt, so WE collect it." In Canada, ‘victim pies’ should go to indigenous folks and in Australia to its aboriginal natives. After all, they are the ones who lost their lands to whites. But Hindus with their Dotzpah say they should have the main rights to the ‘victim pies’. Hindus are as unscrupulous as the Jews.
DOTKIN LOGIC: Because Anglos took the lands of American/Canadian Indians, Asian Indians should take over those lands via massive immigration-invasion. Why not argue Asian Indians should be given licenses to Casinos in Indian Reservations?
Hindus and Jews have some things in common. Both are peoples with ancient roots that go back thousands of years, something that can’t be said for most peoples around the world. Their longevity has to do with the fusion of ethnicity with spirituality, the most resilient formula for survival. In our time, both Jews and Hindus tend to be anti-Muslim though for different reasons. Jews have issues with Iranians and Palestinians, but as the Muslim world is so divided, Jews have forged defacto alliances with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the Muslim world, the Hindu world is far less divided, but then, Hinduism is mostly restricted to India with only pockets of co-religious communities throughout Southeast Asia. In a way, Hindus aren’t so much anti-Muslim as anti-Pakistan and anti-treason among their own kind(as diehard Hindu nationalist believe that Asian-Indians who converted to Islam long ago betrayed their own race and culture). In other words, Hindus feel little or no animus against Iranian Muslims or Malaysian Muslims. Rather, Hindus are angry with former-Hindus who went over to Islam. It’s a matter of ‘narcissism of small differences’. It’s like Jews especially hate fellow Jews who convert to Christianity or Islam. Furthermore, in the West at least, the term ‘Hindu’ has a broader meaning as, despite religious differences, the habits and attitudes of many Muslims from the subcontinent are remarkably similar to that of their Hindu brethren. The majority of Pakistanis are ex-Hindu-Muslims whose ancestors converted centuries ago. Racially, they are indistinguishable from Hindus just like Catholic Europeans and Protestant Europeans most often cannot be told apart by their creeds. So, terms like ‘Hindu’, ‘dothead’, or preferably 'dotter' or ‘dotkin’ don’t necessarily mean someone of Hindu faith. Fareed Zakaria is a Muslim-born Asian-Indian but looks like any Hindu and could therefore be included in the Dotkin Category. Also, his way of thinking is remarkably similar to that of bonafide Hindus from India. It’s like Jews who gave up Judaism and became atheist communists still remained Jewishy in their personalities and attitudes.
Fareed Zakaria, an Indian Muslim but looks and thinks like Hindu Dotkins in the West.
When we speak of Hindus, we must be far more careful in drawing a distinction between Hindu elites and Hindu masses than when we speak of Jews. While plenty of Jewish masses may not see eye-to-eye with the Jewish elites, the fact is a sizable portion of the Jewish population is in elite fields. Over 50% of Jews make more than $100,000 a year, and by some estimates, 40% of the top 1% in the US is Jewish. So, there is a great parity in achievement and attitude among Jewish masses and Jewish elites. Also, most Jews in the West are Ashkenazi and closely related in blood. In a way, the Abrahamic race is like a Brahminic race unto themselves. If there are high Hindus, middle Hindus, low Hindus, and gutter Hindus, Jews prefer to see their entire race as members of the High Race of Abrahamic-Brahmins or Abrahmins.
In contrast, India is a much divided nation despite Hindu nationalism. In a way, it’s a far older version of what happened in Latin America. The ancient Aryan invasions into India were like the white Spanish-Portuguese invasion of the New World. If the Hispanic invaders promoted some degree of race-mixing — mostly white male and brown female — , the Indo-Aryan elites resisted or outright banned miscegenation, but over thousands of years there was considerable interbreeding that blurred the lines between the conquerors and the conquered, but then not to the extent that certain racial distinctions cannot be noticed to this day. (And in Latin America, despite the promotion of race-mixing, there is a rough parallel between racial and class hierarchies: Generally, higher the class, whiter the race.) In modern times as the result of Western Influence, Indian reformers have sought to do away with caste and meld all Indians in a melting pot, but the fact is, on the cultural and social level, differences remain. (If southern Italy and northern Italy still remain divided in many respects, one can appreciate the far bigger differences among the peoples of India.
Yet, precisely because India is so diverse and divided, it has paradoxically led to a kind of national unity. Divisions can lead to strife and crisis IF distinct populations exist in territories roughly claimed as their own. Consider the breakups of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Some of it was peaceful, some of it violent, but in every case, there were peoples with a more-or-less clear sense of ‘who we are’ as opposed to ‘who they are’. But in India where racial distinctions, class distinctions, linguistic distinctions, and religious distinctions have been all-over-the-map(plus the fact that the Indian elites tend to be far more Western-educated-and-prone than other national elites, not least because Indian higher education is taught in English, a language that remains ill-known to the majority of Hindus), it’s been difficult for most groups to gain the critical mass necessary for a separatist movement. If there are 1000 people made up of 10 groups of 100 people each, each group of 100 might choose to go its own way. But suppose there are 1000 people where each group consists of only 5 people. As most groups lack critical mass for autonomy, they have no choice but to stay within the whole under a comprehensive rubric. In India, the common theme for the great majority has been Hindu identity, but this has been as problematic as effective. Unlike Islam where all Muslims are equally blessed by Allah, Hinduism has had a long history of picking and favoring winners over losers, and this aspect of Hinduism will not go away suddenly despite the best efforts of Hindu Reformers to turn the religion into a national identity. But on the other hand, Hinduism has been more effective than Islam as a national theme because Hinduism, like Judaism, is specific to a people whereas Islam, being a credo-religion, can be adopted and claimed by any people. While there are Hindus outside India, India is the undisputed homeland of the Hindus. In contrast, Pakistan can’t make the same claim for its brand of Islam. For one thing, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan despite India being a Hindu majority nation. Also, the egalitarian ethos of Islam led to much internecine warfare among Muslims because EACH Muslim group or nation feels it is as good or better than other Muslim nations. In contrast, the emphasis on hierarchy led to less intra-conflicts among Hindus. Granted, one thing that has held India together is a certain haziness as most dotkin minds are rife with superstitions. With minds overloaded with so many contradictions and confusions — Hinduism is far fuzzier than other religions about the boundary between reality and fantasy — , most Hindus in India have had a difficult time in establishing who and what they are. Indeed, this was one reason why the Brits, who had a very clear sense of their identity in the racial and cultural sense, were able to rule India for so long. A sharp needle will go right through a soft and fuzzy pincushion.
Indian identity is essentially that of conquerors being swallowed up by what they conquered. In a way, the Aryan Conquerors in India were like the Mongols who invaded China. But if Chinese regained control from the Mongols, many of whom were absorbed into China, the descendants of the Aryan Conquerors remained in power over the millennia even as their bloodlines became more mixed with the darker-skinned Dravidian folks. In this sense, India is most like Latin America where the white race, despite mixing with natives, is still in control and will likely remain so for centuries to come, especially as the brown indigenous folks seem to lack the fire of inspiration and independence. What Indo-Aryan elites have in common with Latino-Aryan elites is their need to keep the population together by scapegoating Evil Whitey. Even though both Indo-Aryan elites and Latino-Aryan elites practice various means, ranging from subtle to blatant, to keep their power and privilege over the darker-skinned masses, they also seek to obfuscate their own racial-conscious practices by directing the Ire of racial injustice against Northern European whites, especially the Anglos, who’ve fallen completely under the spell of White-Guilt-ism.

In a way, Hindus are an ideal people for collaborating with Jewish globalist-imperialists. While Hindus take pride in their independence struggle, they also have long record of having constructively collaborated with the British. In some ways, the British had more problems dealing with the Irish than with Hindus despite the fact that there are many more Hindus who were of a very different culture. And this side of Indian-ness never faded. Even after the British left, the elites continued to communicate in English. Even today, Indian higher education is mainly in English like in Singapore. The Indian nationalist elites didn’t so much do away with British Imperialism as take over the roles that the British had established for themselves. Thus, in a way, the Indian nationalists inherited the ways of the British Empire. Also, even though Indians were proud to have struggled for and won independence, they never forgot all the rewards that came with being part of the Anglo-Spheric Empire. And many in the Indian diaspora, when given the chance of moving to India or the UK(or one of the white commonwealth states), chose the latter. Even though their hearts were with India, their bodies felt more comfortable and cleaner in white lands despite an odd white lad calling them a ‘wog’ or ‘darky’. As UK decline in power relative to the US, it was only natural that many Hindus would plan to move to America. Or Canada or Australia with lots of land and opportunities. And this is why Jews came to appreciate Hindus as a most useful ally. Jews not only see Hindus as allies against Islam and China but against whites as well. Unlike blacks and like homos, Hindu elites tend to be high-achievers, and such talent is good to have on one’s side. Jews have also sought an alliance with the Chinese diaspora, and in some ways, Jews are closer to the Chinese at least in one regard: A good number of Jews have married Chinese women whereas Jewish-Hindu marriages tend to be relatively rare. And Jews have trained plenty of East Asian ‘yellow dogs’ in the way of PC to use them against whites. If there’s one difference between East Asians and Hindus, it’s in their respective personalities. Whereas East Asians tend to be earnest, Hindus tend to be calculating. East Asian earnestness may be due to genetics but also to the fact that East Asians come from more cohesive homogeneous nations. Thus, like Swedes, East Asians tend to be more trusting of one another and obedient to the prevailing dogma. They take it to heart with greater sincerity. In contrast, as Hindus come from a world of so many divisions and distrust, they think more strategically than ideologically. While many Hindus surely believe in what they say, they also regard ideas as tools to get the upper-hand. They haggle for ideas. British legal tradition also played a role in the development of the modern Hindu character. While the Brits were into Rule of Law, national unity, cultural discipline, and all that, their legalist culture made for a less ideological society. Mastery of law(and verbal skills and wit) trumped Dominance of Ideology or Religion. The lawyer than the philosopher became the central figure of Britain. If the philosopher seeks The Truth for All Time, the lawyer seeks the truths of the moment that may win him the case. The lawyer is far more malleable and fluid in his thinking that the philosopher, ideologue, or theocrat. Indeed, the guiding liberal-democratic ‘values’ of Britain were more the work of legal scholars and professionals than of Big Thinkers. As Hindu elites sent their children to study law in the UK, India became filled with lawyerly types who became more adept at arguing points and making cases than seeking deeper truth and meaning. Needless to say, Jews also became masters of the law. Granted, both Jews and Hindus have a long tradition of law in their religions and customs, but both took a lot from Anglo/American law and gave it a tribal twist.
Because Anglos and Anglo-Americans continued to de-culturalize themselves and define themselves more by ideals, values, and process than rites, rituals, and customs — even British rituals of tradition became ‘clean’ and ‘dignified’ over time — , their Rule of Law made them favor legality over identity. In contrast, because Jews and Hindus maintained their cultural distinctness, their use of English and American laws became increasingly slanted toward tribal interests. Between legality and identity, the latter will win out IF it is strong. But identity will lose out to legality IF it is weak. Sadly, Anglo/American/Canadian identity grew overly generic, bland, idealistic, and individualistic, and that meant Anglo-folks of UK, US, and Canada were increasingly willing to bend over backwards to favor the law in fairness to ALL(regardless of race, creed, or color) than to preserve their own kind. In contrast, precisely because Jewishness and Hinduishness remained particularist and distinct, Jews and Hindus increasingly used legality to serve their own identities... even while spouting the Anglo/American ideals of Rule of Law and fairness to all. Just ask the Palestinians. And consider the Hindu Justice logic that says the US must let in millions of Hindus because of what was done to American Indians and blacks. Huh? America owes something to Hindus because of what happened to Negroes and the Red Man?

Anyway, why wouldn’t Hindus not collaborate with Jewish globalist supremacists? After all, they can have the best of both worlds. When Hindus collaborated with the Anglo-Imperialists, there was much to gain but also much to lose. Anglos brought modernity and progress to India and opened the door for the Indian diaspora all around the world as the British Empire at its height ruled over 1/4 of the world. Still, Indians were under a foreign power and treated as a subject people. And it was shameful that such a rich civilization with so many people and so much land would be pushed around by a bunch of people from a small island who, not so long go, had been barbarians far behind the Hindus in civilization and achievement. Thus, Hindu collaboration in the Age of British Empire was profitable but shameful. Hindus had to give something to gain something. It was collaboration where Hindus were clearly subservient to the British.
But, the new collaboration with the Jews is different. While Hindus do play a subservient role in relation to Jews in the West, the fact remains they have an independent and autonomous nation of their own. Their new collaboration doesn’t come at the price of loss of Indian Independence. Rather, they can have nationalism in India and gain much by working with Jews to control Whitey in the West. And maybe just maybe, Hindus may even take power from the Jews one day. While Jews have higher IQ than the Hindus — the general IQ of India is on the low side — , India has a lot of people and among them are a good number of geniuses and brilliant individuals. Also, whereas too many high IQ Jews are mixing with non-Jews or not breeding, the great majority of Hindus in the West are sticking with their own kind. Also, the culture of family tends to be stronger among Hindus than among Jews. While Jewish brains must rely on goy bodies, Hindu brains have plenty of Hindu bodies to work with. In the long run, global power could come down to a conflict between Jews and Hindus. They are allied now because they have common enemies/rivals/problems with Muslims, Chinese, or whites, BUT because so many high-end Hindus hanker for the jobs and wealth that Jews currently dominate, Jews could come in for stiff competition from Hindus in the future. Though I would bet against it, the Planet of the Apu isn’t inconceivable IF current Indian population-and-migration trends hold up, especially as white and East Asian demographics continue to implode. (Also, even as Hindus and Muslims/Pakistanis feel much bitterness toward one another in the subcontinent, they more-often-than-not see eye to eye when they come to the West. Indo-Muslims in the West are more likely to feel closer to Indo-Hindus than with Muslims of other nationalities.) It will largely hinge on the attitudes of white folks. White people have decided Jews are ‘one of us’. Even White Advocate Jared Taylor has wet-dreams of the Jewish-White Alliance. Almost all white folks worship Jews as the Holy Holocaust people. And so many whites have taken Jews to heart as funny comedians, hip celebrities, brilliant authors, great scientists, and etc. It helps that most Jews are at least 50% white and look it, and plenty of Jews could blend in easily with whites, especially those of/from Southern Europe. In contrast, Hindus will always seem like the Other to whites. Though Hindus were categorized as members of the Caucasian race, there are many kinds of Hindus. Some look almost Greek-Persian while others look almost like Australian Aborigines. Your average Hindu is dark-skinned with facial features that are distinct from those of Europeans(and even Arabs). So, even as whites may find some Hindus endearing, they will never see the dotkins as ‘one of us’. Even among white Libs who make a conscious effort to go beyond race, there is a closer connection to Jews than to Hindus. Among white Christians, the Judeo-Christian connection makes them feel closer to Jews than to Hindus with their alien religion with elephant gods and other forms of idolatry.
Hindus know this, and it fills them with resentment. This is why Hindus are now so eager to play up White Guilt in regard to their own kind. If whites won’t see Hindus as ‘one of us’ and give them a pass like with the Jews, Hindus must seek to control white emotions by manipulating White Guilt. As it stands, Jews have both the White Pass card and White Guilt card. Jews are accepted as white by whites, and they can flash the White Guilt card to browbeat whites into obeisance and cuckery. Even though Hindus have done very well in the US, they lack the White Pass and haven’t yet found a way to milk White Guilt in regards to Hindus(though they’ve had a bit more success in the UK and Canada that were part of the empire that subjugated India). In a way, it’s frustrating for Hindus as to how whiteness can be both a blessing and a curse. PC tells us that Evil Whitey is to blame for everything whereas non-whites are nobler. And yet, the West is still dominated by whites as the main support body. Even now, white votes and white spending power are most crucial in US, UK, Canada, and Australia. As it stands, even whites instilled with PC ‘wokeness’ prefer whites to most non-whites. Despite their constant yammering about Diversity, most white progs hang with other whites and have little interest in other cultures. This is why whites feel so close to Jews. In a way, the dogma of anti-whiteness makes whites draw closer to Jews as the Only Good Whites. If whites suck but if Jews-as-whites are so holy, it means whites must root for Jews as the Only Good Whites, the worthy standard-bearers of whiteness. Same goes for white delirium for Homomania. If whites suck but if white homos are so holy, it means one of the few ways whites can celebrate whiteness is by cheering on the homos, among whom whites and Jews are most prominent. Currently, whites have special feelings for Jews, homos, and Negroes, or the Holy Three but have no such feelings for Hindus. If Hindus were content to find success as immigrant-individuals in the US, this would be no problem, but of late, the Hindus can smell the blood. They sense what is happening: Jews broke the back of white pride, whites have lost confidence and autonomous warrior spirit — white fighting spirit as it remains is that of dogs serving the interests of Jewish Masters — , and white lands and legacy will soon be up for grabs in US, EU, Canada, and Australia. In this mad scramble for the white world, especially the Anglosphere, the Hindus want their share. To get a bigger share, Hindus want to be more aggressive to take more, but aggression needs to be morally shielded/licensed because even a wounded/dying beast will react in panic to overt aggression. Indeed, this is the secret that Jews and Negroes have. They aggressively and obnoxiously take and take from whites, but whites are helpless to do anything about it because Jews and Negroes, as Holy Peoples, have a moral shield around them. In contrast, overt Hindu aggression can lead to hostile reaction from whites. Whites don’t yield as readily to Hindu demands, and this is why Hindus emulate Jews in trying to forge a moral shield for themselves based on British Imperialist ‘exploitation’ of the subcontinent. But another problem for Hindus is that they are targeting the sectors that White Jews dominate. As Hindus lack a moral shield, their excessive ambition is met with push-back. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2008 Wall Street Meltdown, hardly any Jew faced justice even though Jews pretty much dominate Wall Street. In contrast, some low-down corrupt Hindus were targeted and penalized. The fact is the current system is set up so that Jews can get away with just about anything UNLESS they really mess up big time like Bernie Madoff did. In contrast, Hindus can be targeted for much less. Because Hindus know that Jews are a ‘made people’, the god-race of the West, they know they can’t overtly name and target the Jew as the rival. Hindus know that the ONLY American group that can be scapegoated for all problems is white people, especially if they happen to be male, straight, and conservative. So, even though much of the tensions are between Hindus and Jews, Hindus go along with the charade that they are being held back by WHITE people.
What Hindus and Jews have in common is the strategic insistence that whites were entirely wrong while they were entirely right. For Jews, the relationship between the Tribe and whites was always about noble and innocent Jews being wronged by wicked whites foaming at the mouth with ‘antisemitism’. Hindus obviously noticed that Jews(and blacks) gained tremendous power and/or prestige by ‘sacralizing’ themselves while vilifying the Other(whites). As serious students of power, Hindus have decided on the same ploy where White-Indian relations was always about Evil Whitey and Good Dotkin.

That said, because Jews are so powerful and because white power is far from over, Hindus figure that the proper thing is to side with Jews against whites for the time being. Hindus can read the writing on the wall. While white goyim outnumber Jews by a huge margin, the fact remains that Jews control the elite institutions and have the moral-spiritual upperhand over whites. If whites were to shake free of Jewish controls, gain white national liberation, and work together, they could beat the Jews, and then Hindus would most likely side with whites. But as things stand, Hindus sense that Jews got the upperhand while whites are fading dramatically on the world stage. As Jews control the West and seek goy collaborators with Jewish globo-homo supremacy, Hindus are eager to play along... for the time being. Look at Sundar Pichai. That dotkin played along with Jews and got rewarded with CEO position at Google. He does the bidding for his Jewish Masters to rig and manipulate Google to favor Jewish and Zionist interests over those of Palestinians and whites. As things stand, Jews lead, and Hindus follow. Jews came up with Globo-Homomania, and Hindus(and everyone else) just tag along like dogs. But if East Asians and whites of Northern European extraction are earnest in their commitment to the ‘Poz’, not all Hindus are so lame and stupid. They KNOW what is really happening and play along until the game changes.

Jews and Hindus both come from haggly-waggly cultures. Jews became this way because they had to make it in the most advanced part of the world, the Christian West. Chinese became market-dominant in Southeast Asia but didn’t need to be so haggly-waggly because they were up against lackluster third-rate SE Asians. In contrast, Jews had to struggle among smart, tough, and independent whites. Jews needed to be extra-pushy to get things their way. And Hindus needed to be haggly-waggly because the sheer caste, cultural, and linguistic diversity in India didn’t make for a culture of community and shared values. Furthermore, as strict and exclusive as Hinduism was in determining who could be a Hindu, it could be accepting and adaptive with foreign ideas. Non-Hindu gods, cultures, and ideas could be appropriated into Hinduism. Also, the pluralistic localism of Hinduism meant that different towns and villages could have their own extra-gods and spiritual fetishes. It’s like there’s one Hindu sect that reveres rats of all things. Obviously, most Hindu sects feel no such reverence toward pesty rodents, but the thing about Hinduism is the lack of strict central authority, thereby permitting different Hindu individuals, sects, and locales to seek their own path of enlightenment. This has made Hinduism both complex and fascinating but also exasperating and ludicrous. And yet, such adaptiveness may be an advantage for Hindus in crazy globo-homo world where, all of a sudden, countless people have come to worship sodomy as god or ‘godomy’. It'd Bolly-Holly-wood.

How the future will play out with the Hindu-Jew or HinJew Cooperation(with Jews as leader and Hindus as follower) is anyone’s guess. But for the time being, they are rather united because both are eager to grab as much from the beached white whale. They are eager to suck as much milk as possible from the white teat. Also, as Jews are tough, competitive, & rude and Hindus are mean, nasty, & dogged, they are stressed out from dealing with their own kind. As much as Jews stick with Jews and Hindus stick with Hindus, Jews know other Jews are a**holes and Hindus know other Hindus are a**wipes. They know that white people are much nicer, kinder, and fairer. And for the time being, white people still have much of the Magic Dirt, Magic Money, and Magic Goodness. Also, nothing unites Jews with other Jews like the bloodlust of leeching off whitey. And nothing unites Hindus with other Hindus like the bloodlust of sucking on whitey. It’s like wolves are united in their shared instinct to bring down a caribou or moose for food. And nothing unites Hindus and Jews(and other non-white groups) like the bloodlust of taking from whitey. In THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA, sharks and fishes of all kinds come together in feeding frenzy upon the marlin. It’s the way of the world.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

Notes on Review of CABARET(dir. Bob Fosse) by Trevor Lynch — Weimar Decadence and the Nazi 'Cure' — Nature of Creativity



For Trevor Lynch's Review of Cabaret, Click this Link: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/07/bob-fosses-cabaret/

I managed to ignore CABARET all these years — I was never a fan of Bob Fosse and musicals in general besides — , but upon reading the above review, I checked it out, and yep, not my cup of tea. It reeks of sleaze(without a real sense of danger), and Liza Minnelli is one of the most repellent screen presences ever. She looks like a cross between Raggedy Ann Doll and Malcolm McDowell in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Her character is like a freako Lena Dunham impersonating Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller.
Like many artists who came to film-making from other fields, Fosse never developed a sure cinematic style of his own, which accounts for the peppering of his movies with obvious and intrusive visual antics(usually with editing) to demonstrate cinematic prowess. A true master of cinema doesn't have to remind us at every turn that he’s making-a-movie. If anything, he renders the making-of-film invisible and subordinate to the final product. ALL THAT JAZZ is half-interesting(at least it was to my younger self when I’d seen nothing like that prior), but it too is marred by excessive razzle-dazzle of cutting, lighting, and odd angles.
Granted, the very great Orson Welles also moved from theater to cinema, but his genius transferred theatrics into cinematics with masterly ease. Stagecraft merged with screen-magic. In contrast, Fosse's theatrics stick out of his films. The difference between Welles and Fosse is that between compound and mixture. Welles’ method is a chemical process whereas Fosse’s method is merely the physical joining of one art-form with another. And because Fosse could not rise above the stage-centrism of his performance arts background, he relied excessively on editing, a technique unique to cinema, to earn film-making credentials.
Other than that, I find Cabaret-style music to be mostly cringe-worthy, and it's all the worse in CABARET because everything is overripe, wearying, and putrid. At the very least, the American Vaudeville scene was without pretension. In contrast, the Cabaret scene had the affectations of bohemian chic, a conceit that made it even worse. We can enjoy a movie like STRIPES(with Bill Murray) for what it is. It doesn’t pretend to be a serious work of satire. In contrast, CABARET masquerades as an Important Art Film. Its musical acts lack the light-hearted spirit of a number like "Dreaming of You" in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or other breezy American musicals. Instead of freshness, there's the stale air of putrefaction, as if we’re watching musical acts done by ghouls(like the ones in CARNIVAL OF SOULS).


Politically, CABARET is a dishonest and stupid movie, especially irritating because it tries to have it both ways: Apologia of Immorality as Liberation but also Morality Tale about looming Tyranny. (In rare moments, one wonders if the film is actually a criticism of Weimar Period for indulging in mindless decadence than waking up to the dangers of Nazism. Indeed, the most touching moment is the wedding scene where two Jews reverently reconnect with their roots in a traditional ceremony. Immorality is hardly an effective weapon against a 'moralized' movement like Nazism or communism. Shanghai decadents and the like were swept aside by Mao and his communists, as shown in THE LAST EMPEROR and FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. Perhaps, this accounts as to why today’s decadence and degeneracy as been moralized than merely liberalized. As globo-homomania is regarded as a ‘spiritual’ crusade, it has the New Moralists on its side. In current America, Cabaret isn’t merely a club but the new church. Stonewall Riots are commemorated as akin to the Resurrection of Jesus. Thus, if few people were willing to die for Weimar Germany, many are willing to fight and die for Weimerica as a ‘moral’ principle.) Culturally, CABARET is THE SOUND OF MUSIC for the artsy set. Oddly enough, both movies ironically end up giving the Nazis their due, as Lynch's review points out. While the wholesome family in THE SOUND OF MUSIC is staunchly anti-Nazi and 'good', they represent in looks and manners exactly the kind of people that the Nazis would have endorsed. They are like the idealization of the Perfect Aryan Family except that they're Anti-Nazi. In contrast, one might say CABARET is a celebration of freaks and weirdos, exactly the kind of 'degenerates' and reprobates denounced culturally and morally by the Nazis. It’s like watching the satanic rituals in ROSEMARY’S BABY. The fact is they do really come across as ugly, repugnant, and demented, as if to admit that maybe the Nazis did have a point. Such perception would have been ‘accidental’(or perhaps incidental) than intentional on the film-makers’ part, but it’s nearly inescapable, especially for those who are preordained to disdain overt displays of excessive decadence. (A much greater work about the life in theater and music is TOPSY-TURVY, a genuine masterpiece by Mike Leigh who, until then, was mainly known for neo-kitchen-sink or bitchin-stink dramas that were mostly wearying.)

The film reminds us of what Paul Johnson said of Modern Art in general: Nazi persecution lent it an air of tragedy and significance it otherwise might not have had. Among anti-fascists in the Liberal West, the idea was "If the Nazis hate it, it must be good." After all, if the Nazis were Evil Incarnate, everything they opposed must have been on the side of angels. In the dreary film FARAWAY, SO CLOSE by Wim Wenders, we see traumatized angels throwing tantrums at the Nazi exhibition of Degenerate Art. With so many problems around the world, one would think angels would be preoccupied with matters other than a Modern Art exhibit, but such is the conceit of deracinated cosmopolitan artists. Since the satanic Nazis were opposed to degeneracy, degeneracy must have been good, or so the anti-Nazi logic would have us believe. If not for the specter of Nazism, one would have to wonder WHAT cultural value the trashy musical numbers in CABARET have. It’s like Jews, even the most noxious and corrupt ones, invoking the Holocaust Card — my so-and-so was a ‘Holocaust Survivor’ — as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Never mind one’s lack of intrinsic virtue because one is bestowed worth simply as the hated-of-Nazis. Similarly, Antifa, a gathering of lunatics and thugs, has been bestowed 'meaning' and 'purpose' because they presumably fight 'Nazis'. And illegal invaders are 'dreamers' simply because their presence is an affront to Trumpism, aka 'New Nazism'.
To be sure, pro-Nazis can fall into a similar mental trap. If the Anti-Nazis argue, "If Nazis hated it, it must be good", the Pro-Nazis argue, "If Nazis were anti-degeneracy, they must have been good." In truth, a movement or system can be anti-degenerate and still turn out to be terrible. Consider Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Theocratic Iran & Saudi Arabia(not to mention the Taliban), and the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone want the US to be ruled by the 700 Club? Besides, the very people who claim to be anti-degenerate could turn out to be closet-degenerates or repressed-degenerates whose neo-puritanical campaigns serve as cover for new forms of degeneracy passing themselves as morality and order. Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, and other Nazi big-wigs were pathological degenerates in their own ways except that they donned kulturkampf armors to conceal their diseased souls. Just like Televangelist charlatans hide behind God & 'family values', pervert-sadists like Beria hide behind Social Justice ideology, and the axis of cretinous Neocon Zionists & Pentagon warmongers hide behind the smokescreen of 'spreading democracy' and 'war on terror', the Nazis too honed their skills in presenting themselves as the cure for the disease when, if anything, too many of them were diseased themselves.
Now, given the nature of human psychology, it could be that all such individuals were sincere in their self-delusions. Whether Beria or Himmler, it's possible he actually believed he was on the right side of History. And it's possible that many in the neo-imperialist Deep State sincerely believe in the crap that they spout to maintain world hegemony. And consider the pathetic case of Matthew Heimbach. The Malt-Right bubble-butt kid made a name for himself by spouting off against the corrupting power of Jewish degeneracy. He promoted a family-friendly version of Neo-Nazism as a cure, but it turned out his private life was akin to antics on the Jerry Springer Show. The fat boy humped the wife of his father-in-law and then beat him up upon being exposed. And there’s Richard Spencer and his crew whose idea of White Nationalism was all-night drinking binges and fantasizing about being 007 Darth Vaderians sticking their laser dongs into anything that moves. And there was the audio-recording by some bi-sexual guy(who goes by the pseudonym Pilleater)that revealed Greg Johnson discussing how it's fun to recruit young men for homosexual trysts at white nationalist conventions. Now, this was mis-characterized as 'grooming' by the gross fatbody Matt Forney-the-Horny, but it wasn't exactly wholesome either. Incidentally, Forney is yet another moralist who is actually a total degenerate unlike his nemesis Jim Goad who is open about and even proud of his degeneracy. It seems the crucial difference between Gavin McInnes & Milo(and Goad) AND Richard Spencer & Greg Johnson(and Forney) is the former’s degeneracy is out in the open whereas the latter is more keen to keep it under wraps from the public(without much success, one might add).
Moralist-as-closet-degenerate. Matt Heimbach with Matt Parrott whose wife Heimbach boffed in Jerry-Springer-fashion.
What is striking about CABARET is its Judeo-centrism. It exemplifies the golden Jewish rule of "Is it good for the Jews?" Power over principles. If Jews can use degeneracy against a power they don't like, they choose to be pro-degeneracy. But if Jews can use anti-degeneracy against a perceived enemy, they can just as easily be anti-degenerate. The very Jews who defended Weimar degeneracy against the Nazis could have been the same ones cheering for neo-puritanical communists against capitalist-imperialist decadence(when it was dominated by gentiles in the West). Plenty of Jews admired the Cuban communists and Vietnamese communists for resisting American Imperialism with its crass materialism, consumerism, and hedonism. New York Times played a key role in bringing Castro to power and did its share in undermining American efforts in Vietnam. Today, we see Jews promoting globo-homo degeneracy against Christian moralists but also defending Muslims and #MeToo Movement against Trump who is portrayed as a vulgarian bigot and pussy-grabbing degenerate. When American Capitalist-Imperialism was once mainly associated with Wasp power and the right-wing military, Jews were more than willing to support neo-puritanical forces against it. There was a time when even a millionaire Jewess like Carole King serenaded none other than Fidel Castro with the song, "You've gotta a friend." But when degeneracy was the weapon against the enemies of Jews, such as the Nazis, it was suddenly a GOOD thing. So, the very Jews who might watch the Soviet film I AM CUBA and cheer on the neo-puritanical revolutionaries against the decadent capitalists of casinos and swanky hotels might, on the next day, cheer for the decadents in CABARET whose acts are hardly distinguishable from the capitalist excesses of pre-Castroite Cuba.



In the 60s, the very Jews and Liberals who championed Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll against Old White Conservative America could, in the same breath, extol the virtue of selfless and spartan Viet Cong who were fighting the South Vietnamese lackeys indulging in capitalist-consumerist excesses imported by American Imperialist Occupiers. In the documentary HEARTS AND MINDS(1974), Americans are shown as corrupting agents by spreading drugs, degeneracy, and prostitution among the Vietnamese. But few years prior, Jews and Liberals cheered for M*A*S*H where libertine Americans use sex and debauchery as anti-authoritarian and antiwar statement, especially at the expense of Robert Duvall’s character who is exposed as a Christian-moralist hypocrite. The very Jews who morally condemn a bunch of white people placing bacon inside mosques lend full support to Pussy Riot degenerates who desecrate Churches in Russia. How can Jews be pro-morality in one case but pro-degeneracy in another? It all boils down to, "Is it good for Jews?"
Granted, there is less contradiction among today's Jews because they now possess the ultimate power. Decades ago, Jews resented the dominant position of Wasps in elite institutions, and they sought EVERY means, decadent or moralistic, to undermine Anglo-American prestige and power. But with the fading of communism, the triumph of Jewish power in the US as the Lone Superpower, and the decline of Third World nationalism, Jews now have a narrower agenda than prior to their seizure of power. If in the past, Jews used moralism against decadence(siding with Castro and Viet Cong contra US capitalists) or decadence against moralism(idolizing Weimar subversives contra Nazi authoritarianism), Jews today are more likely to say Decadence Is Moralism, as with their promotion of Globo-Homo that went from pleading for 'gay rights' to mandatory worship of Gay Rites. Indeed, things are worse now than in the Weimar period because we can’t even tell degeneracy apart from morality. At least with Weimar, you knew degeneracy when you saw it. Even those championing it didn’t pretend it was moral. If anything, they got high on its nihilistic kicks. It’s like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald in THE SUN ALSO RISES and THE GREAT GATSBY weren’t morally endorsing the hedonism they depicted even as they delighted in much of it. Weimarians of the pre-Nazi period were for freedom of perversion as a democratic value; they weren't arguing perversion IS morality. In contrast, so many people today embrace degeneracy as the new hope, the new faith, the new path forward for all mankind. Degeneracy once used to mock religions and faith. Now, globo-homo-mania seeks to take over churches and preach ass-buggery as the stuff of 'rainbow' visions and revelations.
There was a time when degeneracy took pride in being rejected by the Middle and Mainstream. It was so cool in its dangerous ‘subversiveness’ and as an affront to Social-Moral Order. But now, the Power(that is mostly Jewish) pulls out all the fireworks to ensure that Middle America will bend over to Degeneracy as the New Normal. 80% of Americans accept 'gay marriage', and most Americans do NOTHING to lend support to Christian bakers being sued by Jewish law firms at the behest of vicious homos and disgusting trannies. And just consider the spread of tattoos and piercings EVEN AMONG conservatives. If heavily-tattooed Gavin McInnes who kisses Milo(whose bung is filled with Negro dongs) and sticks a dildo up his ass is the face of New Conservatism, it really makes you wonder.
Gavin McInnes the Bung-servative
A scene near the end in CABARET mocks stupid Germans of suspecting a Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy consisting of both financiers and communists. It’s an invitation to "Don’t think beyond A-B-C." The A-B-C logic goes, IF Jews are commies, how could they also be capitalists, or vice versa? Surely, only DUMB people could accuse Jews of both radicalism and greed. But, let's consider the historical facts. While it’d be ludicrous to say Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists were completely without ideological scruples, there were many cases of collective-complementary-symbiotic strategy between the Jewish Left and Jewish Right on the basis of tribal solidarity. The capitalist Armand Hammer had no qualms about doing business with the Soviets. And of course, Zionism was a collective-movement of the Jewish Right and Jewish Left to wrest Palestine from the native Arabs. Also, plenty of capitalist Hollywood Jews gave cover to Jewish communists who sat around swimming pools while penning screenplays about the Proles. In a way, the Jewish Socialists and Jewish Capitalists could be mutually beneficial to one another. Jewish capitalists could wash away the sins of ‘greed’ by association with ‘progressive’ causes, and Jewish socialists could deflect accusations of communism via association with wheeler-dealer Jews. Quite often, Jewish capitalists chose Jewish communists over white capitalists. It was blood over creed. And so many former Jewish communists made the easy Zelig-like transition to capitalism, suggesting their identity ultimately mattered more than their ideology.
But then, Jews are hardly the only people who've acted in this regard. After all, what holds the disparate elements of the GOP together? It is implicit whiteness whether one is Christian Right or Libertarian-Capitalist. Donald Trump is hardly a spiritual figure, but many white Christians voted for him because he is 'one of us'. In India, religious Hindus(who tend to be culturally arch-conservative) are allied with capitalist Hindus(who tend to be worldly) because what they have in common is a powerful sense of Indian identity and nationalism. And when communist Vietnamese persecuted ethnic Chinese in the late 70s, communist China didn’t make common ideological cause with the communist Vietnamese but sided with their capitalist-leaning co-ethnics. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists sometimes saw eye-to-eye on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"

In a way, it confuses matters to address the politics of degeneracy within a left-right ideological framework. Historically, both the hard left and hard right had problems with degeneracy that became mainly associated with aristocratic privilege and/or capitalist excess. Monarchs and aristocrats were supposed to be noble, but their wealth and privilege often led to self-indulgence and excessive behavior. Emperor Ludwig II was the Michael Jackson of his day. He built lavish useless palaces and made homo advances on his servants. He did good to patronize the genius of Richard Wagner, but it's ironic that the whims of a homo 'emperor' laid the material groundwork for the music that would inspire men like Hitler. Many aristocrats ran out of money because they led lives of dissipation filled with partying and gambling. And then, capitalists made tons of money, and their spoiled children grew up with bohemian tastes and became the patrons of Modern Art. Also, as capitalism is all about the BUCK, it was willing to market ANYTHING for profit. This led to the explosion of vice industries, culminating in national legalization of gambling, pornography, and drugs(and even prostitution in some countries), with the result that, especially since the 1960s(but going back to the Jazz Age as well), decadence & degeneracy became synonymous with the mass 'values' as well in a world where young kids grew up to ‘decanography’ of MTV. In time, the aristocracy vanished and gave way to the capitalists. At the very least with aristocrats, despite their dissipation and decadence, there lingered the ideal of dignity and honor. With capitalists, all such lofty ideals eventually faded(as each successive generation of capitalists were further removed from the aristocratic model to which the first capitalists aspired) and gave way to the culture of shamelessness.
In the pre-capitalist world, the main economy comprised the procurement of food and essential goods, and that meant most people were involved with virtuous industry of agriculture, manufacture, repair, and transport. But as capitalist industrialism greatly expanded the economy and moved people from farms to cities, many more people got involved with occupations that were centered around vanity and vice... or at the end of the day, they turned on the TV and became fixated on vapid celebrity as their cultural mainstay. Then, it is not so surprising that homos became the New Angels of the 21st century. In a world where culture is mostly defined by narcissism, hedonism, and vanity, it only seems fitting that the most froopilaloop group would become the focus of attention for the masses hooked to TV shows and the latest fads and fashions.

At any rate, this is not strictly a left-right issue. It confuses matters to refer to the current politics(and even neo-spirituality) of degeneracy as 'leftist'. If anything, it gives the degenerates & decadents(and their globalist-supremacist patrons) too much credit by lending the impression that the Revolution is still alive. Granted, one could argue that decadence is more leftist than rightist because the left is about constant change whereas the right is about reverence of heritage and tradition. However, tradition can grow decadent, stale, and effete, whereas the culture of health could be embodied by the dynamism of change. During the French Revolution, it was the Left that embodied strength, vitality, and warrior spirit whereas the King and aristocrats with their powdered wigs, fake birthmarks, & snuff boxes were a bunch of hapless dweebs. In THE LAST EMPEROR, we see how traditional Chinese Power came to be consolidated in the hands of weak monarchs and silly eunuchs cloistered within their palace as a kind of Never-Land. And tradition among Chinese women had devolved into the sick practice of foot-binding. And traditionalist Chinese literati were effete men who grew their fingernails long and scribbled poetry while disdaining any use of their muscles as ‘vulgar’ and ‘low’. If anything, it was the Chinese modernizers, among whom communists were prominent, who emphasized the need for a healthy vigorous culture that respects labor and exercise. At the time of Japan's forced opening to the West, the ultra-conservative Tokugawa culture had grown decadent, what with poems being written about the smell of rotting teeth as sexual fetish. Both the ultra-conservative Byzantium and Ottoman court fell into despair of decadence. The Ottoman sultan was more likely to indulge in orgies with his harem than roll up his sleeves and rule an empire. And the elite power-holders of Rome grew decadent and acted like the clowns in Fellini’s SATRYICON. In some ways, the Germanic Barbarian invasions had a cleansing effect on a decayed culture and society.

There is a reason why Hitler shared the communist disdain for the German bourgeoisie. Even though National Socialism chose to ally with the bourgeoisie than overthrow them, Hitler found the conservative elite class too timid, effete, or dull to possess the necessary will to take command of History. And in a way, he proved to be right. The German Business class aided Hitler’s rise in the hope that it could control him, but, as events proved, it lacked the ‘balls’ to restrain Hitler whose balls proved bigger like Tony Montana’s in SCARFACE. National Socialism drew much from the Left — the color of red for example — because, despite fundamental disagreements, men like Hitler admired the leftist fighting spirit and determination to smash the old corrupt order and build a new one. Part of the reason why Wasp Conservatives became almost overnight a bunch of decadent ninnies is their power and privilege spoiled and softened them. Without the toughening effects of struggle, people lose the Will to Power and power of vision. Catholic Church is supposed to be ‘conservative’, but its inner circle now seems to be made up of a bunch of child-molesting degenerates addicted to privilege.

The true leftist struggle is dead and had been so for quite some time. Globalism is both anti-true-right and anti-true-left. No true leftist would have embraced globo-homo or 'gay marriage' or so many things associated with ‘progressivism’ nowadays, like ‘twerking as liberation’ or ‘Bruce Jenner is a woman’. Leftists believed women could do a lot of things that men can do, but they never said Man is Woman or vice versa. What goes by the label of ‘progressivism’ today is really the product of late-stage capitalism and the end-logic of vanity and hedonism as the highest values in the post-virtue age. This isn't even 'Cultural Bolshevism' but Cultural Capitalism. It is what happens when capitalism goes from an economic system to a value system. Now, there are some solid values, even virtues, associated with capitalism: Hard Work, Enterprise, Competition, Risk, and Ability, all of which support Competence, Accountability, and Meritocracy. But as capitalism emphasizes profit uber alles, it is driven to sell anything to maximize influx of cash. So, if billions can be made by selling fast food junk and turn lots of people into fatty-fatsos, capitalism will do so. If billions can be made by expanding gambling into every town and city, so be it. If stuff like Rap can rake in lots of dough, capitalists don't hesitate to fill the airwaves with garbage despite its corrosive effects on society. In time, the profit-centrism of capitalism can effectively rot the core of society. While capitalists themselves must be intelligent and hardworking, they make their money by selling stuff to the masses, most of whom happen to be dumb and vulgar. To maximize profits, capitalists use their smarts to come up with dumber things for the idiocratic masses. Lots of smarts went into the creation and development of video-games, but consider its overall impact on society. Smart geeks make dumb stuff for the masses. Consider the impact of smart-phones on consumers. It’s smart-machines for the high IQ designers & engineers but dumb-machines for their owners who spend inordinate amount of time staring at nonsense on them. And lots of creativity and smarts go into CGI, but the result has mostly been lots of dumb action movie spectacles about superheroes. And estimates show that one-third of all internet traffic goes to pornography. So, when addressing the problem of degeneracy, we need to stop blaming the 'left'. It is the result of neither the left nor the right but of capitalism's fixation on profits based on maximum short-term efficacy. Since the shameless masters-of-hedonism are most adept at concocting stuff that bring in the most profit, they are favored by capitalists to manage and define the culture, and the result is the 'Gay Party', like the one in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, which is like the culmination of the late consumer-capitalist mentality of the X-ers in RISKY BUSINESS, hardly a movie about 'leftists'. (What goes in fraternities are pretty crazy too, and the opening scene of DAS BOOT would suggest German military men were no strangers to acting wild and crazy.)


Had the German communists come to power in 1933, they would have done away with Weimar decadence just the same IF NOT MORE SO. Indeed, even under Nazi Rule, Germany was far less repressive than communist nations where culture was concerned. Jazz was disapproved but not banned. Swanky clubs continued to exist though without the excess of degeneracy seen in CABARET. For several years, Nazi Germany was less censorious of Hollywood movies than the Soviet Union was. Indeed, most of Nazi movie production aped Hollywood genres far more than the Soviet movie industry did. It’s no wonder that the ‘gay’ character(William Hurt) in THE KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN loves to watch Nazi-era movies because they are filled with glamour and fantasy. If anything, the neo-puritan leftist prisoner(Raul Ruiz) despises Hurt-character’s frivolity... though their eventual love-and-alliance perhaps prophesied the new politics whereupon leftism went ‘gay’ and ‘gayness’ became political. The film THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING shows how communist authorities didn't care for 'decadence'(associated with capitalism) either.




Also, the humanist cinema of the 40s and 50s(that generally leaned heavily to the Left) was often disapproving of the 'capitalist' culture of vanity and pleasure. Keep in mind that classic Marxists argued that Fascism was the final culmination of capitalism — maybe there is something to that given the current state of US as a gangster-fascist fiefdom of Jews and their globo-homo henchmen. In Roberto Rossellini's OPEN CITY, the Nazis come across as rather decadent, and there is a lesbian Nazi bitch to boot. In Vittorio De Sica's UMBERTO D, the least likable character is the wanna-be-rich landlady who evicts the old protagonist and invites affluent bohemian types to her social gatherings. In Frank Capra's movies — Capra was a conservative Republican but worked on scripts by leftists, even crpyto-communists — , the Good Common Folks embody simplicity whereas capitalists live it up. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the vision of hell is Pottersville where raw capitalism runs like sewage; Violet isn't merely a floozy but an all-out whore, and Martini's joint is Nick's with a big-ass cigar-chomping Negro banging blues rhythms on the piano. Also, even though Sam Wainwright the uber-capitalist turns out to be an A-Okay guy, it's the social-communitarian George Bailey who is the real hero, and he's all about Family and Community. He stuck with the Savings and Loans out of loyalty to his father, and he finds most meaning with wife and kids in his hometown. (This is why today's globo-homo urban decadents hoot-and-holler throughout the movie, especially in the scene where George encounters Mary-as-old-maid-librarian.)


In Akira Kurosawa's movies like STRAY DOG, IKIRU, and HIGH AND LOW, the urban capitalist culture is presented as corrupting, degrading, and alienating. Federico Fellini's LA DOLCE VITA and Michelangelo Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA were hailed at the time for what many took to be a commentary on the soulless materialism of post-war Europe where everything revolves around the ME. Even up to the 70s and 80s, it wasn't rare for Leftist or Liberal artists to depict villainy in the form of homosexuals(even when the artists themselves were tootkins). In Visconti's THE DAMNED, one of the arch-villains is a transvestite who goes over to the Nazis like Annakin Skywalker to the Dark Side. In THE CONFORMIST, it's implied the main character settled for fascist conformism as the result of childhood trauma of having been molested by a homo. In Z by Costa Gavras, one of the right-wing thugs is a nasty homo. Even as late as 1987, the arch-villain in NO WAY OUT was William Patton’s brilliant portrayal of a homo social-climber and henchman whose blushy face gives the impression that he just walked out of the washroom after sucking someone’s cock.
Also, back when society disdained homosexuality(or found it ridiculous, as in Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS with "Springtime for Hitler" number), it was commonplace to associate the Nazis and Fascists with the culture of perversity. In that regard, CABARET somewhat stood apart from anti-fascist films such as Pasolini’s SALO(where fascists bugger kids), NIGHT PORTER(where fascists indulge in S&M), and Szabo’s MEPHISTO(where the Nazis are eager to recruit a bohemian artist as a culture warrior). In Bernardo Bertolucci's 1900, the Fascists come across as the craziest bunch of party dudes who even hang a cat on the wall and bash its guts out. Donald Sutherland plays a Fascist who makes Alex of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE look like Mr. Rogers. He's a total pervert and degenerate. In contrast, the communists represent simplicity and virtue. Fellini's AMARCORD is supposed to be about how everyone was so idiotic under Fascism, but everyone just comes across as lovable and funny, even the Fascists.

A kind of Saul-Alinsky's RULES-FOR-RADICALS outlook shaped the cultural strategy of the 70s, especially as the 60s flamed out by alienating Middle America or the Silent Majority. Alinsky argued that radicalism has to be presented as mainstream, normal, and respectable. But, if radicalism was to become the New Normal, then the Old Normal had to be made the New Perverse. It appears Alinsky was a genuine leftist and socialist, but his lessons were adopted by others as well, though they likely arrived at the same conclusion on their own. If cultural perverts were to gain power in a society that was still socially conservative — where even many liberals found homosexuality to be weird or sick, pornography to be offensive or demeaning, and drugs to be corrupting to the young — , then the biggest symbols of Political Order, the Nazis and Fascists, had to be presented as the Real Perverts. Then, it is not surprising that so many Fascinating-Fascist Cinema of the late 60s and 70s featured Nazis or Fascists not so much as Men of Order but the Real Men of Degeneracy, with Pasolini's SALO really taking the cake. (In contrast, globo-homo came to associate ‘gays’ with middle-class values, white picket fences & green lawns, clean-cut white collar jobs, and even ‘marriage’. It was like HOMO KNOWS BEST or LEAVE IT TO HOMO. PHILADELPHIA presented a homo as upstanding middle class professional, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN had homos as American icons: Cowboys as rump-humpers. Homos were made out to be more-normal-than-normal, and in time, even churches were festooned with ‘gay’ colors. The fact that the children of John McCain and George W. Bush all so easily become globo-homo shows how vapid and shallow the values of the ‘conservative’ elites are. They have no core convictions beyond hankering for status & approval by the latest fads and fashions.) Why did homos and other perverts feel a need to invert symbols and values in this way? It was their way of hoodwinking the larger society that was still culturally conservative in many respects. When we survey some of the biggest or most significant films of the 1970s, what really strikes us is how 'conservative' they are despite the fact that most were written and/or directed by 'liberals' or Jews. There was PATTON, DIRTY HARRY, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, THE GODFATHER I & II, DEATH WISH, THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST(if not conservative, then libertarian against liberalism), FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, TAXI DRIVER, JAWS, ROCKY, and THE DEER HUNTER. The problems of urban crime made DIRTY HARRY, FRENCH CONNECTION, and DEATH WISH relevant. THE GODFATHER and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF focused on the Family as the only worthy attachment in a world of chaos, corruption, greed, and/or hypocrisy. THE EXORCIST portrayed men of the church doing battle with the Devil who turn a young girl into proto-Miley-Cyrus. CARRIE mocked the ultra-religious mother, but its top villains were the soulless materialist school girls who torment good-hearted Carrie. And Woody Allen's early comedies, though certainly not right-wing, tended to be more negating of the Left because of their cynical anti-utopianism that remained skeptical of the program. It was Allen’s way of saying "We Won’t Get Fooled Again". Given the norms of the time, it would have been rather risky to make an anti-Nazi statement by promoting degeneracy as the cure. It made more sense to associate Nazism or Fascism itself with degeneracy and decadence. Besides, the early 70s dealt with the hangover of the late 60s with its hippie freakouts, Manson murders, Altamont disaster, endless riots, and social protests. In that context, CABARET's unapologetic celebration of Weimar degeneracy wasn't characteristic of the period. Despite Nazism's anti-homosexual policy, it wasn’t rare in arts & culture to associate Nazism with homo perversion, not least because of emergence of S&M homo subculture with fetishes for Nazi regalia(like in CRUISING with Al Pacino who, as undercover cop, gets in too deep with the bung-busters). Granted, times were changing fast. ALL IN THE FAMILY featured Divine as a sympathetic transvestite character. And the sitcom SOAP featured Billy Crystal as a nice 'gay' character. Still, the overwhelming attitude about homos remained negative throughout the 70s. At most, homos could hope to turn homosexuality from a butt of kicks to butt of jokes. Better to have people laugh at homos than insult or attack them. Make people see homosexuality as humorous than hostile, like in the SANFORD AND SON episode: at 16:10


The problem with CABARET(and movies like ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW) is their weirdness is too easy and mostly phony. Weirdness, strangeness, and even freakiness are a part of life and may be fascinating as such but not when misguided souls(who are not even genuinely weird) go out of their way to be ‘different’. Perhaps, the cult of modernism spread weirdness as some kind of 'cool' model, thereby encouraging even non-weirdos to go out on a limb to appear eccentric or odd in some way. "Hey look, I’m special." (Today, so many people get tattoos and piercings to make a ‘statement’. Especially as Political Correctness doesn’t allow for controversy or differences of views, people hope to be a fresh face in the crowd with token signifiers, a conceit that gets lamer by the day as tattoos, piercings, and pink/green hair dyes have become the New Conformism among idiot Millennials, the dumbest generation of all time surely.) It’s like some people are genuinely schizo and, as such, their condition can be an interesting and worthy subject of study, but it makes no sense for non-schizos to act schizo. It'd be a mockery, at best a parody, and why? Non-weird pretending to be weird is like non-talented pretending to be talented. The Arts & Culture community has an excess of both. Too many nice middle-class kids raised on cult of modernism & post-modernism trying desperately to be the next weirdo artist. As much as I detest Robert Crumb, at least he is a genuine weirdo with real talent. But everything in CABARET is fake, a farce. The players are just insipid no-talents pretending to be edgy bohemians and free spirits when they're about as engaging as the no-can-dance extras in ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW.
The utterly worthless ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW where weirdness is just a big put-on.
Generally speaking, the most striking forms of creativity, especially in the modern era, tend to be either strange or the product of strange sensibilities. Normality doesn’t breed much in the way of inspiration. Even when someone like Brian Wilson wrote pop songs for mainstream America, he dreamed his private dreams to access the muse. It is the Strange Factor, as muse or expression, that distinguishes notable works from others. This strangeness could be overt(as in the paintings of Salvador Dali) or subtle(as in the stories of Katherine Anne Porter), but it throws people off balance and lends privy to new perceptions. In modernism, mere mastery or expertise isn't enough, though, to be sure, even the greatest pre-modern works of art had something strange about them. The X-factor of vision or style that distinguished it from the rest.
This Strange Factor is always a bit disturbing but also fascinating and provocative. Even beauty is most potent with an element of strangeness. Any number of decent artists can paint a beautiful scenery with trees, lakes, and sunsets, but it is the special artist who conveys something more than niceness. The real question is whether the strangeness is genuine, the stuff of inspiration/conflict, OR just a big put-on. For the naturally normal or non-talented who seek fame(or even notoriety) in the arts, strange-posturing is all-too-often a shortcut to being ‘special’. It’s like avant-garde-ism is dime-a-dozen across Art Schools with their new gremlin-batches of artistes who’d be the new Basquiat or worse. It’s all just a put-on with the freaks on display in CABARET. Worse, it’s a put-on without any discernible talent. (Bob Fosse has been widely praised as a choreographer, but what was his contribution to dance other than having women roll their hips and thighs like chunks of ham on a stick?) Now, a put-on artist or poseur can have talent, which was certainly the case with David Byrne as part of Talking Heads. Unlike David Bowie, Byrne wasn't a real weirdo but a clever showman(like Peter Gabriel) but with some genuine musical flair. But apart from playfulness, Byrne was nothing more than College Rock music. In contrast, Bowie had a genuinely strange musical sensibility, though his stage persona as Ziggy or some such freak was just plain dumb. Musically however, he was like one-man time-machine bridging nostalgia and futurism, primitivism and sophistication. Most people will outgrow Talking Heads but will be haunted by some Bowie songs for a long time.
The problem with Nazi conception of Art was the lack of appreciation of strangeness. Nazi cultural theorists appreciated the outer-manifestations of genius(at least that which was devoted to beauty or grandeur) but were reluctant to ponder the inner turmoil that made such art possible. It’s like the limitations of someone looking at a beautiful child and thinking that beautiful life can be created beautifully. But in fact, life is created through exchange of fluids in animal-sex, the burden of childbearing, and the gross agony of child-birth. Beauty is born of pain and ugliness. Flowers don’t create flowers. Flowers bloom from stems that grow from the soil that absorb nutrients from decay of dirt. Honey isn’t made by honey but by bees through a complex and arduous process. Fixating on beauty as the end-all of art is like regarding the honey without considering the processes involved in creating it.
When it came to biology, the Nazis understood the dark side of life. Aryan beauty was the product of ruthless evolutionary processes of struggle and brutality. Every life-form, no matter how beautiful, is the product of violent struggles over millions of years. Yet, when it came to Arts & Culture, the Nazis were almost timidly and tidily bourgeois in their near-phobia for the strange and dark. Though Goebbels initially argued in favor of German Expressionism, he fell in line with the Hitlerian dogma that art must mandate beauty and be borne of beauty. Think beautiful images and make beautiful art. But even visions of beauty must emanate from a darker place, just like light of the Sun draws from turbulence deep beneath the surface. True art can only be created by genius individuals, and they must be free to seek their own path. The state cannot dictate or ordain creativity. It can only support it if it exists in the first place on the individual level.

Because of the crucial Strange Factor in creativity, it makes little sense to discuss art in terms of disease vs cure, foul vs wholesome, sick vs noble. The real question is whether it is true in vision, meaning, and talent. A work can be 'noble', 'wholesome', and/or 'healthy' but still lack value as just a bundle of trite cliches executed without talent or skill. Granted, a work can be 'diseased', 'foul', & 'sick' and without artistic value, which would be WORSE than a bad work with 'positive' or 'healthy' qualities. And in this sense, I agree with Trevor Lynch that the volkish song by the young blond lad at a beer garden is preferable to what goes at the Cabaret. It may not be much, but at least it's positive and healthy. In contrast, not only are the Cabaret acts demented but lousy to boot. Worse, it’s like a freakshow with pretend-freaks, like watching Lar Von Trier’s IDIOTS where non-idiots act like idiots just to annoy everyone. (That said, there's the appeal of the Cabaret in its looseness of body and motion whereas the volkish anthem by the blonde Nazi lad is about rigid unity and bound commitment. Cabaret music is about song-and-dance whereas the Nazi song is about song-and-march. Upright stiffness is necessary to uphold civilization and social order, but there's a natural desire to cut loose in lateral motion. It's like dogs are eager to learn tricks and obey orders to please their masters, but they also want freedom to stretch out and run wild. The Claire Denis film BEAU TRAVAIL makes this very point in the final scene where the hitherto overbearing sergeant goes footloose and feels liberated from social and psychological regimentation. Yukio Mishima also embodied both natures. He was both a militarist-traditionalist of sacred order and a bohemian-decadent of spontaneity. On the other hand, anyone who's observed black societies should know that unfettered wildness is not the path to meaningful liberation. It can just as easily be a surrender to tyranny of animal savagery. Just look at black communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, Detroit, and London where people's idea of culture is bumping-and-grinding like shameless apes. Animals may live in 'freedom', but they are also trapped in a state of brutality and constant fear. When the West was nearly all-white and well-ordered, the appeal of the primitive to Modern Man was understandable. Too much order, complexity, artificiality, and abstraction can repress or deny something that is natural and vital. In such context, the new primitivism offered spice and flavor, something fresh and reinvigorating; indeed, the German obsession with nature and the Romantic fascination with ancient barbarian myths had something to do with dissatisfaction with ultra-modernity. But when neo-savagery, especially that of blacks, becomes the main mode of culture all across the West -- made worse by heavy influxes of black African migrant-invaders -- , it is no longer a dream but a nightmare. There's a difference between having nature around where you live AND surrendering to the full-blown forces of nature. In the Modern West, we now have the sick phenomenon of the the most advanced technology in electronics and communications using their vast reach and networks to amplify & disseminate Afro-jungle-savagery far and wide. Instead of a desire for a taste of nature separate from modernity, we have modernity itself in overdrive to saturate civilization with the hyper-savagery of the Negro-Gone-Wild.)

As for Liza Minnelli’s character, Sally Bowles doesn't come across as a true free spirit(like Louise Brooks’ silent movie personas or Jeanne Moreau’s Catherine in JULES AND JIM) but merely someone aping the type. To be sure, the film at one point has Michael York's character blurt out that her femme-fatale act is a pathetic sham, but then, why are we made to fixate on her miserable life as some kind of meaningful middle-finger against bourgeois mores and the Nazis?
Everything in CABARET is fake because it's about people going out of their way to be WILLFULLY weird. Willfully wallowing in decadence is the flip-side of willfully straining to worship beauty, which is what made the Nazis dreary. Ironically, the Weimar decadents and the Nazis in CABARET have more in common than they realize. Both are dogmatically committed to the notion that Culture MUST BE one thing or another instead of naturally flowing from genius, hopes, and dreams to make us see the world anew.
At least Holly Golightly of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S was a 'real phony' and was played by the lovely and charming Audrey Hepburn. In contrast, Liza Minnelli is about as captivating as a sack of moldy potatoes. Her face resembles a blobfish. And her Louise-Brooks hairdo is all the more irritating for evoking the fabulous silent star to whom Minnelli can't hold a candle. As for Joel Grey, he seems to be imitating the magician in Fellini's 8 ½, possibly Fosse's favorite film as his semi-autobiographical ALL THAT JAZZ draws so much from it.
Liza Minnelli or a Blobfish
The difference between SEVEN BEAUTIES and CABARET is the former understands Nazism/Fascism as a pathology within the larger sickness of the human condition. In other words, fascism or no fascism, the human species has always been a one big fuc*-up since the time of cavemen to the age of Romans to the modern present. So, while Nazism was a more pronounced form of lunacy, the roots of human sickness go much deeper and its seeds will continue to sprout around the world. In contrast, CABARET's stunted moral vision would have us believe that since the Nazis were the bad guys, the good guys must have been the degenerates denounced by the Nazis even though the movie clearly shows the Cabaret world as tawdry and sordid. There’s a ridiculous stage act(hardly worse than the numbers in CABARET) in SEVEN BEAUTIES, but Wertmuller didn’t pretend it had moral significance against Fascism.

Lina Wertmuller could see the problems of humanity BEYOND Nazism/Fascism. The makers of CABARET apparently couldn't. One gets the impression from CABARET that, "If not for the Nazis, all would be well with everyone having a grand time." It’s like the crazy notion within PC that evil could be purged from the world by eradicating ‘Anti-Semites’, ‘racists’, and ‘homophobes’, most of whom happen to be white. But such logic is self-defeating because the moral value of the Cabaret world depends on Nazis as the villainous foil. Without the Nazis, the obvious degenerates of CABARET wouldn't be able to say, "At least I'm not a Nazi."
Michael York's character’s only purpose is serve as the alter ego to the average moviegoer. Though a homo, he's the most normal person in the story, the one that the average moviegoer will want to identify with. He is meant to act, talk, and think for us. Since he turns pro-degenerate and anti-Nazi, the average moviegoer is expected to nod along. His role is much like that of the southern boy in SOPHIE'S CHOICE who befriends a very messed-up couple — a Jewish neurotic and a Polish knucklehead — who are meant to represent the tragic burden of art, romance, and history. Though deeply flawed, a much more interesting movie about Weimar period is Ingmar Bergman's THE SERPENT'S EGG that at least tries to understand why things fell apart to make way for the New Order in Germany.

In medicine, one cannot understand health without the study of disease, and the German medical community played a key role in the rise of Nazism as physical & psychological health were seen as analogous to social, cultural, and national health. In a way, an artist is like a doctor who puts his stethoscope to matters of soul & society to listen for signs of health or sickness. An artist who only wants to deal with pleasant, beautiful, or nice subjects is like a doctor who insists on seeing only healthy patients. If Nazis were like illness-phobic doctors, Weimar degenerates were like quacks selling snake-oil to spread disease. A true doctor must possess genuine curiosity to understand the nature of disease, just like a true artist must have the courage to delve into life’s realities to gain deeper understanding.
Of course, doctors must ultimately treat diseases, but they must also regard them with fascination and even respect. After all, there is a certain Relativity Principle to diseases and organisms. We regard many bacteria as parasitic carriers of disease, but plenty of organisms would say the same of humanity if they could think and speak. Humans have parasitically used land and water to their own benefit at the expense of other organisms. Humans leech milk from cows. Humans empty lakes and seas of fish. All organisms are parasitic in some way. But then, even as they harm other species, they also provide opportunities for others. Humans have been bad for wolves and bears but great for dogs, cats, rats, and pigeons. Also, the decaying agency of micro-organisms performs a cleaning service. Dead animals rot in nature, but it’s also a process of cleansing and renewal. People find maggots gross, but they feed on carrion and waste material. To the extent that other organisms may regard humans as a disease, we need to respect all organisms on some level because life is a competition among parasites. Like humans, all organisms do what they can to survive and gain dominance. In many cases, one organism seeks to devour other organisms, but organisms also arrive at symbiotic relationships where they not only co-exist but become co-dependent. Humans couldn’t survive without certain kinds of bacteria in their guts. Therefore, the Nazi medical ideology, like its cultural ideology, was limited in its strict distinctions of healthy and sick, noble and ignoble. For deeper understanding, some degree of empathy is required to understand why the Other acts as it does and how We may appear to Them from their own sets of values and priorities. Art, at its best, is about exploring and understanding than preaching dogma and pushing the same idols over and over. This aspect of culture was completely missing in Hitler who was so sure of everything, but then, this trait was evident from his childhood. Germans and Jews had developed a symbiotic relationship over the centuries. They were parasites on the other and yet also mutually beneficial. Germany kings and princes gained much from Jewish financial expertise. In that sense, they were leeching off Jewish intelligence and know-how. But, Jews used their financial wizardly to leech off Germans as well. They were both feeding and taking from one another. Same could be said of their cultural relations. Gentiles often regarded Jews as cultural parasites who stole and exploited white culture. But Jews could say of Europeans that they stole the Jewish God as their own God. Also, white Europeans stole the Biblical Narrative as their own. Furthermore, even as Jews took from German culture, they also made key contributions from which Germans drew inspiration. So, the Aryan-Semitic relationship through the years was both troublesome and constructive, with rights and wrongs on both sides. Alexander Solzhenitsyn felt much the same way about Russian-Jewish relations over the centuries. But Hitler refused to consider the Jewish side of the equation and simply denounced Jewishness as all-bad. Today, we see the same pathology among Jews who insist on the narrative/dogma that they were entirely good and innocent while white goyim were entirely to blame for all frictions between Jews and Gentiles. Just like Hitler’s arrogance led to the madness of WWII, the current Jewish madness — an unwillingness and inability to consider the goy side of the equation — is pushing the world over the brink with Jewish Power demanding that everything go its way or the highway. Notice how Jewish media monopolies in the US have refused to publish Solzhentisyn’s book that call for reconciliation by both sides confessing their historical wrongs. Just like Hitler, today’s Jews feel that their kind was always totally correct while all others exist only to lick Jewish boot.

The problem with Nazi medical ideology was it overlooked the sickness within Nazism itself. Though Hitler and his cohorts presented themselves as political healers of Germany and provided certain much-needed cures, they also spread the disease of racial arrogance, aggression, and contempt. National Socialism didn’t so much counter Weimar decadence with morality as replace it with its own brand of nihilism giving Aryans the license to do as they pleased, which would have terrible consequences in the East once war broke out.
Besides, it’s one thing to suppress excessive degeneracy but quite another to render the culture sterile with too strong a dosage of antisepticism. And given the psychological profiles of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and others, it should have been clear to the German medical community that the Nazi cure could just as easily turn out to be as bad as the disease. Likewise, when a pathological nut Jim Jones got to play spiritual arbiter at Guyana, the result was worse than secular sin. And communists, in their war on capitalist exploitation, ended up creating an even more tyrannical society. Louis Farrakhan offers some good insights and proposals, but he is fundamentally a diabolical figure, a demagogue like Hitler with boundless megalomania. If a man like that could come to power, the Million Man March could easily turn into Million Man Murder.

One thing for sure, the medical community is never fully independent of ideology and politics. While all doctors will readily identify certain conditions as diseases — it’s difficult to imagine a day when doctors will defend cancer as a sign of health — , the fact is the medical community also bends to the winds of power politics. Once upon a time, the medical community recognized homosexuality as a pathology, but today, it’s classified as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. HIV was seen as a grave threat to society, but due to the ‘gay’ lobby, much stigma has been removed from the disease, and there’s even been push for legislation that would NOT criminalize those who knowingly spread HIV to ‘sexual’ partners. Also, part of the reason why HIV causes less panic now is due to the enormous amounts of funding that went into developing medicines to suppress its symptoms and its spread. The reason why HIV treatment got preferential funding owed to the powerful Jewish and homo lobbies that did everything to ensure that their demands were prioritized. Who/whom matters in medicine. If there were a disease that mainly kills Jews and a disease that mainly kills American Indians, you bet more funds will be spent on a cure for the former. Due to Jewish promotion of themselves and homos, America values Jewish and homo lives over all others. In foreign policy, Jewish lives matter more than Palestinian lives. And in medical funding, homo lives are prioritized over the lives of others. Notice how the medical community and the media paid scant attention to all the white working class folks dying as the result of the opioid crisis. The overall attitude among the elites has been, "Let the white trash choke on their own vomit and die", which is hardly distinguishable to Jewish attitude about Russian misery and deaths in the 1990s.
For quite some time, the medical community has allowed and even encouraged the mutilation of genitals in ‘sex-change operations’ so as to allow men to become ‘women’ and women to become ‘men’. This is now performed even on young children with full endorsement of medicine. There are doctors who dare not tell their patients to lose weight because lawyers on behalf of fatso clients will sue doctors who regard obesity as a medical problem. Things were no different in Nazi Germany where the medical community caved to the prevailing ideology in identifying health or sickness. Psychopaths like Hitler got to dictate to the medical community what was sick or healthy, just like, in our time, the Jewish globo-homo elites get to decide what the medical community may deem as diseased or not. A medical researcher today who writes an article debunking much of tranny gender theory could face severe ostracization and even be fired & blacklisted from further research. So, while there is a core consensus on health among all societies — broken bones are broken bones, and cancer is cancer — , the meaning of ‘health’ at the margins has often been ‘fluid’ in accordance to the vagaries of shifting ideological winds.
Like those in the medical profession, most people perceive good vs bad on the instructions of the prevailing ideology. If the media/academia tell us that ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ are the biggest problems, a lot of white people are likely to look for them under every rock like dogs ordered to track down rabbits will obsessively chase after rabbits. Having their scents directed at specific targets, they will overlook all the social problems caused by blacks and homos. Notice how Jewish Supremacism is the real power that controls America, but too many Americans are fixated on exposing ‘white supremacism’ because the Jewish-controlled media/academia fill impressionable people’s minds with nonstop panics about ‘Nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’(as diversion from the truth of Jewish Supremacist Power). Sometimes, a kind of 'automania' takes hold of human behavior. Just like a dog trained to dig for rabbits will keep digging at everything even when there are no more rabbits to catch, thereby causing damage to floor and furniture, social crusaders trained to hunt down ‘evil’ will keep on the hunt despite the ‘evil’ having been suppressed or expelled.

Now, the analogy of doctor and artist doesn't entirely work, especially in the Performing Arts, because the doctor's role is cerebral and rational, whereas the artist deals with sensations and passion. Whereas the doctor’s role is always about making the patient healthier(in the objective sense), the artist/entertainer is often about making the audience FEEL good, which doesn’t necessarily comport with becoming a Better Person. In that sense, an artist/entertainer is as much a drug dealer as a pharmacist. An artist/entertainer may offer his product as medicine with moral content, but he knows the audience wants something more than a soul-manual. The audience wants excitement and thrills, a bit of sensationalism. After all, the selling point of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT isn’t merely its Christian message but elements of violence and suspense. Also, if doctors must take care to not become diseased themselves even as they treat diseases, artists often embody the dark, impassioned, or irrational moods of their material.
It's no wonder many notable artists have been manic-depressives, like Jean Sibelius for example who was most creative when clawing out from pits of gloom. In a way, an artist is like a patient trying to infect others with his mad fever. Van Gogh’s paintings were made richer by his ‘sickness’. Beethoven’s manic-obsessiveness is all over his music. Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page cast their crazy nets of sounds far and wide to ensnare their audiences. There is an element of sorcery and witchcraft in the arts. In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, the Medical State is the castrator of all that is alive and virile. It tries to tame man’s nature that must retain spontaneity to be real. Similar message is delivered in John Boorman’s ZARDOZ where repressed nature wreaks vengeance on an ultra-elitist society of absolute order and harmony.
In a way, Hitler’s confusion owed to contradictions between his sorcerer-nature and doctor-tendencies. He might have actually done less harm if he’d just embraced his craziness instead of trying to make the world right with moral instruction, but he couldn’t let himself go due to certain personality traits and/or social upbringing that stressed reputation, seriousness, and respectability. According to the semi-interesting movie MAX about Hitler as young artist befriending a Jewish art-dealer, the ex-corporal has technical talent and strangeness but is unable to connect the two. He couldn't come face to face with this 'crippled' and 'wounded' side of himself(as artists like Edvard Munch and Ingmar Bergman could), which remained repressed to spin his self-made myth as a divine man of history.

At any rate, if we are going to have strangeness, weirdness, and even perversity, we want the Real thing, not a put-on or farce. The difference between ERASERHEAD and ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW -- among the biggest cult movies ever -- is David Lynch's work is the product of genuinely weird rumination that experiences the world, inner and outer, in a singular way. Maybe it’s demented and even depraved, but it’s one of a kind. One could argue ERASERHEAD and MULHOLLAND DR.(and BLUE VELVET that I like less) are 'degenerate', but their visionary power cannot be denied. In contrast, ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW is a silly pile of nonsense made by gimps who were desperate to be ‘subversive’. The fakery and strain show in every shot. Granted, even faux-weirdness can be amusing if done with humor minus the pretension. Tim Burton and Paul Reubens had a blast with PEE WEE HERMAN'S BIG ADVENTURE.

Of course, mere strangeness isn't sufficient for art, a lesson lost among art students/critics at some juncture in Modernism. Art is strangeness + talent. There are those with inner vision without the finesse for outer expression. Even among artists, most tend to be limited to mastery in one form of expression. William Blake was a far greater poet than illustrator though he immersed himself in both. Norman Mailer could burn a stack of paper with his fever dreams but was cold with celluloid. Imagine if Van Gogh possessed strangeness but lacked talent; his visions would have remained in his head. If some people have strangeness but lack talent, others have talent but lack strangeness, the singular vision thing fueled by some mysterious source within. It is the rare artist that has both, like Stanley Kubrick or Sam Peckinpah. David Lean had mastery of technique, a way with actors, and a great eye but lacked soulful depth and that strange maverick quality to truly own a work in the way Kubrick or Kurosawa did. Essentially, he provided efficient drama and pretty pictures in grand spectacles that mostly stuck to formula(albeit with more intelligence and taste).

Art needs balance like everything else in life.
If the subject is 'degenerate' or contemptible — and why not since so much of the world is indeed degenerate or contemptible? — , the artist should seek to explore and interpret than wallow and indulge: Be a surgeon than a butcher. IN COLD BLOOD and MIDNIGHT COWBOY are dark but also illuminating. Same goes for Martin Scorsese’s GOODFELLAS that, even as it guides us through the world of psychopaths and criminals, maintains what might be called a Silent Morality, one that isn’t pronounced enough to blur the clarity of the world at hand but nevertheless insists on a distance and awareness that we are in a kind of hell. (Scorsese’s film of THE SILENCE makes more sense in this regard. In a way, Scorsese the artist has had to maintain his silence as a spiritualist-moralist in order to work in Sin City on projects mostly about shameless characters immersed in filth, excess, and debauchery. A moralist can walk away from such a world or barge in to condemn it. But if the moralist is also an empathetic artist who wants burrow inside evil and see what makes it tick, he needs to be like a spy and maintain his silence(like the kid in HUGO who works on clocks while avoiding authorities; likewise, Scorsese had to find a niche in the machinery of Hollywood to pursue his ultimate dream). In the ensuing intimacy, he is in too deep to pass judgement but also too mindful to surrender to temptation. Without this Christo-Zen detachment-within-closeness, the result could be like the utterly degenerate MAN BITES DOG and Quentin Tarantino’s demented movies following RESERVOIR DOGS, his best film and the only one with any sign of moral health, perversely ironic as it may be.

In contrast, if the subject is positive, inspiring, and 'healthy', the artist needs to look beyond the ‘ennobling’ elements and dig deeper for the dirt of life. Jan Troell’s EMIGRANTS and NEW LAND are about good, simple, hardworking folks, but they offer much more, the very stuff of art. We get the fullness of life with failings and follies as well as strength and sacrifice. We see the characters in both their noble and petty moments. From the prosaic growth of details there gradually emerges something like poetry of patience, like syrup slowly flowing out of maple trees. There are no pat truths or easy comforts. As such, it isn’t trite and familiar like PLACES IN THE HEART, a decent enough movie that doesn't show us anything more than what we’ve come to expect from Oscar-hungry American Cinema.

It's oft been said that Nazi Germany was a low-point of Western Civilization in the 20th century(or maybe of all time). According to Ian Buruma, communists made better art/culture because the underlying humanism of their ideology accepted man-as-man. In contrast, the myth-driven ideology of Nazism couldn't tolerate the small and intimate, the stuff that makes life and art rich and interesting. Also, master-race ideology is less inspiring for artists than the dream of the brotherhood of man. But in fact, most German movies during the Nazi period weren't all that much different from Hollywood kitsch, and one of Hitler’s favorite German movie was rather humanist in tone. Also, Soviets remained in power for 70 yrs whereas Nazism lasted only 12 yrs, with the last six years devoted mainly to war. If Nazism had lasted 70 yrs, it may have produced more interesting artists.
Still, it's worth pondering why the less repressive Nazi Germany was culturally less productive than the Stalinist Soviet Union that produced its share of great films and literature(and allowed Shostakovich and Prokofiev to compose their masterpieces). More than the policy of repression, the bigger problem was probably self-exile by talented people who simply weren't as inspired by Nazism as by Marxism. (To be sure, Nazi Germany was far more likely than the Soviet Union to allow people to just pick up and leave, thereby bleeding more of its talented individuals.) For starters, as murderous as Stalin's system was, Marxism was about the embrace of mankind as fellow brethren whereas the ideology of Nazism was about racial arrogance. Even the British who were steeped in racial-supremacist sentiments were offended by the Nazis who made their views so brazen and blatant. Brits found it coarse and in bad form.
As for artists, actors, and writers, they tend to be vain and are anxious to be seen with the 'right kind of people'. Given the low reputation of the radical right in many cultural circles, even those who weren’t inclined toward leftism preferred not to be associated with Nazis or Fascists. It’s also worth noting that, while most artists, actors, and writers are a bunch of narcissistic jerks and stupid pigs, they love the cachet of ‘leftism’ to impress the public that they’re about 'justice' than Just Me.
Artists and entertainers are very nervous about whom they associate with. Today, we see this phenomenon with people in Western arts & entertainment steering clear of Putin’s Russia(and Donald Trump). Though current Russia is hardly tyrannical or crazy — Jewish-run US is now closer to Nazi madness — , it was given bad repute by Jews who dominate arts & entertainment, and so, all those who seek to be on good terms in the culture sphere would rather be caught dead than be regarded as chummy with Russians, at least those who aren’t Jewish or globo-homo. Nazis and Fascists quietly agonized over this deficiency in the arts & culture and what they could to court artists and entertainers but had little more success than the GOP in attracting stars and celebrities. Same could be said of Franco's Spain that actually went out of its way to court artistic talent, such as that of Picasso. But most artists remained on the Left, not because they wanted to live under communism but because leftism made them feel better as an ideology of the brotherhood of man whereas radical rightism of Nazism struck them as too contemptible of much of humanity. Themes do matter. Just like universalist Christianity and Islam spread far and wide whereas Judaism was appealing only to Jews, the universalism of leftism naturally won more converts and enthusiasts than the narrow racial ideology of the Nazis. In a similar way, it is precisely because Zionism has limited appeal around the world that Jews have justified the Wars for Israel on themes such as ‘War on Terror’ or ‘spreading democracy’. It is why they’ve tried to use Globo-Homo as neo-universalist or mino-universalist(universalism of minority privilege) proxy to captivate and control the entire world. The fact that the degeneracy of globo-homoctopus has extended its tentacles so far and wide is proof that something about humanity is made of total shit.

Another reason for communism’s advantage over Nazism in the world of arts & letters had to do with its intellectual pedigree. As tyrannical and capricious as Stalin could be, communism was bigger than any single leader. It was underpinned by elaborate intellectual theory that supposedly unified all of material science, philosophy, ethics, and neo-spiritual longing. Marx, not Muhammad, was the last great prophet in the eyes of communists. As Marx was regarded as a great thinker, no communist leader, however powerful, could be bigger than Marxism and communism. Communist leaders could only be servants of history. This accounts as to why Stalin, despite his cult of personality and iron rule, stuck with the rather modest title of ‘secretary general’ and professed to be a humble servant of Marx & Engels(and Lenin).
In contrast, most people understood Fascism and Nazism as nothing if not for the cult of personality. Fascism was about Mussolini cult, and Nazism was about Hitler cult, with its tome being Hitler’s autobiography MEIN KAMPF. Now, some may disagree and contend that Fascism and Nazism were not without big ideas with deep roots in Western Civilization, but because neither Fascism nor Nazism came up with a unified theory of everything(as Marxism did), most people came to regard them as cults of charisma. For the intellectual-minded and sophisticates, it seemed childish and simple-minded, a blindman’s game of 'follow the leader'. Another reason why communism appealed more to intellectuals and writers in the West was they faced the real danger of living under Fascism/Nazism but felt no such imminent fear of communist tyranny. So, communism could remain an idealized abstraction than a looming threat. Indeed, even Eastern European nations would have faced greater threat of fascist than communist rule but for the fact that Hitler invaded Russia and lost the war. Of course, Eastern Europeans who lived under the Iron Curtain after World War II came to see the true side of radical leftism and developed immunity to its temptations, something Western Europe failed to realize as no nation there turned communist.

Now, it's possible that a great right-wing intellectual movement could have risen in the West. Despite the leftist advantage, the right was not with its big guns in arts & letters in the early part of the 20th century. Besides, 19th century Romanticism had been as rightist as leftist. Also, the horrors of the Soviet experiment made many thinkers in the West recoil in horror, much like the reaction against the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, both Fascism and Nazism were fueled by these intellectual and cultural ferments on the Right. And, prior to WWII and revelations about the Holocaust, there was no great taboo with which to silence the Right. If anything, even Winston Churchill named the Jew as a crucial component in the Bolshevik Revolution. And plenty of politicians in Europe had more to gain than lose by baiting the Jew.
In a way, the worst thing for the Intellectual Right was the triumph of Italian Fascism, Franco's win in Spain, and National Socialism. Victory often makes people lazy and rest on their laurels. The most interesting right-wing ideas emerged prior to radical right’s seizure of power. Also, once the radical right took power, it decided which right-wing ideas were correct or incorrect. Thus, the intellectual right became straitjacketed by its own ideological victory. Same happened where communists came to power. Almost all the best Marxist thinkers did their most important work in capitalist democracies. Where communism came to power, one bunch of radical leftists soon purged their rivals(much like Catholics used to attack Protestants and vice versa), and the result was the Iron Boot of Stalinism as the new dogma. Revolutions do tend to devour their children all around.

As for Nazi Art, only Leni Riefenstahl's two monumental propaganda-documentaries, Albert Speer's architecture, and a handful of paintings & sculptures have lasting value(though most haven't survived the war and its aftermath). The state cannot decree or dictate creativity. The state can patronize real talent — like the Soviet Union with Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Shostakovich, and Tarkovsky — , but it cannot turn non-artists into artists, no more than the Chinese government can turn Chinese basketball players into Gold medalists in the Olympics. Most artists favored by the Nazis were second-raters or third-raters, and no amount of state support could turn them into great artists. Granted, second-raters, through experience and practice, can become pretty decent. Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood became pretty good directors over time. But as the Nazis sought greatness in art, they weren't going to achieve much with the kind of human material that were willing to do the Party’s bidding. Nazi artistry relied too much on grand themes than personal inspiration. So, artists were commissioned to create work extolling noble themes, but individuality of talent simply wasn't there to bring it to life. Most self-respecting artists didn’t want to make art according to program, and so, the Nazi Party ended up hiring a bunch of hacks to produce state propaganda masquerading as timeless art.

There's been much talk of how the Weimar period, despite or because of the crisis and turbulence, was a time of great cultural ferment. And there is truth in this inasmuch as it was a time of new freedoms and possibilities. There was a dizzying spirit of novelty and experimentation in the air. Also, defeat in WWI led to intensive soul-searching in some quarters — think of the great anti-war novels like ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, later banned by the Nazis — and Faustian flirtations with nihilism that, despite the dangers, opened up new venues of thought and behavior. Even the German Right was most interesting in this period because it had to do a lot of soul-searching and had unprecedented freedoms to do so. Times of crisis can drive people over the cliff with madness but also bring them to new revelations and insights. Crisis moments turn everything into a question and compel people to re-evaluate everything. Nothing could be taken for granted, and in a way, the Nietzschean moment had finally arrived.

Weimar period was also interesting for its intense balance of power between the left and the right. While Jews and Social-Democrats wielded great power in government and media, many universities were right-dominated. So was the court system that let the Nazis off the hook time and time again, much like how Antifa is slapped on the wrist by the current system. Also, there were many powerful conservative German oligarchs who bankrolled men like Hitler as a bulwark against the communists. So, Weimar Germany wasn't all about left over right or right over left. Both sides had their key advantages. Likewise, the US was especially interesting from 1950s to 1980s because of the balance of powers among the right and left, among Jews, Wasps, Catholics, the Christian Right, and etc. However, just like the Nazi seizure of power broke the balance in Germany, the Jewish-Zionist seizure of power in the US(finalized in the 1990s) led to what is essentially a post-democratic America where all political elites are little more than tools of the Jewish globo-homo overlords. And in the current US, not only the media and the state but the courts, academia, and just about everything that matters are controlled by Jews and overseen by their goonish cuck-collaborators. There’s one difference however: If the Nazi revolution happened out in the open, the Jewish-Zionist takeover has been invisible, executed behind the veil of the 'democratic process'. As such, most Americans still think they’re living in a liberal democracy when they are the colonized subjects of the Empire of Judea.

Though Weimar Germany was artistically and culturally a fertile period, one that produced lots of flowers and trees as well as weeds and fungi, it had already run out of steam by the time Nazis came to power. But then, nothing lasts forever. It's like the British Invasion and the French New Wave had their moments of glory but soon faded. People say Rock is dead, and Western Culture has been exhausted to the point where no one cares about anything anymore. Notre Dame burns down, but what do we get from experts? Insipid proposals about turning the Cathedral into a greenhouse or maybe a disco. And in pop culture, people say the music sounds the same year in and year out, and Hollywood keeps recycling shopworn formulas whose only appeal is Better Special Effects. So, maybe the Nazis had a point. While democracies can guarantee more freedom for the creative pursuits, an excess of creative fuel can burn out fast, resulting in a jaded culture whereby increased dosages of jolts and thrills are required to elicit any reaction. Culture often acts like a drug. Like a junkie develops tolerance and needs heavier amounts to get the same high, Western Culture has reached ridiculous levels of tolerance whereby excess has become the New Normal because people can’t feel anything without overdosing on thrills and sex. Chris Hedges calls this the Empire of Illusion.
It’s as if most people have become comfortably numb with too muchness and inured to ever-shifting distractions of violent video games, porny pop songs, and movies that are more about explosions than expressions. Japan had a great run in cinema and literature in the aftermath of WWII, what with all the soul-searching by the generation that had undergone so many crises; but when the dust finally settled and Japan became a stable & affluent nation, the culture degenerated into infantile TV shows, trashy literature, comic books, pornography, and video games. Japanese became at once more mechanical & animal and less human & soulful. The lesson here is that a society doesn’t need ‘fascist’ or communist tyranny to run into a cultural deadend. This happened in so-called liberal-democratic Japan. Incidentally, it’s quite a challenge to think of any significant cultural product from France or UK in the last 20 yrs, something that was truly seminal and made a real difference. Some might say HARRY POTTER, but if that's the best the UK could do, what a joke. As for the world of Fine Arts, vapid junk by the likes of Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst is making even the worst of Nazi and Commie Art seem not-so-bad by comparison. Maybe there was something to the culture of eternal truth and meaning sought by the National Socialists. That said, they weren't going to find it under the leadership of Hitler whose blindspots, moral and historical, were legion.