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

https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/2019/12/2020s-hall/

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

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

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

Kevin Barrett's Reply:

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The US can no longer get what it wants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of Perspective and Angles in the Age of Insta-Pleasure & Insta-Outrage Makes White Nakba so much Easier — White People Need Perspective and Multiple-Angles More than Ever

There is a scene in THE PLANET OF THE APES(1968) where Taylor(Charlton Heston) and Nova(Linda Harrison) are on the run from the apes. When Nova sees food, her immediate response is to go for it. She acts by impulse and is blind to the potential dangers lurking about. In contrast, Taylor acts with caution, fully aware that it could be a trap or a vulnerability. He has a sense of perspective about the matter, something missing from animals, children, and dumb people. (Granted, even though animals lack depth of reason and perspective, they do possess instinctive fear, jumpy anxiety & trepidation. While rats cannot understand the human hand behind the mouse-trap or rat poison, they evolved to feel certain hesitation when face-to-face with something-too-good-to-be-true. Rats evolved to sample food before consuming the whole thing. If, after the initial sampling, they feel sick, they eat no further. But if they feel no negative effects, they eat the whole thing. This is why warfarin was developed as rat poison. As a blood-thinner, its effect shows up only gradually. And so, the rat goes about consuming warfarin-laced food unaware of its long-term lethal effect.) Why do fish get caught all the time? Because they see worm-on-a-hook as merely food. They don’t see the hook, let alone understand the human mind behind hook, line, sinker, and rod. So, humans have been fooling and catching fish for as long as we can remember and will go on doing so indefinitely. The fish just don’t get it. The fish just see the easy food and not the angle of the angler.
Even intelligent mammals fall for traps all the time. So many mammals, big and small, have been snared or crushed in traps. They saw the easy food but didn’t understand the mechanics of the trap or the mind behind it. Even nature has devised in certain organisms the trap mechanism. Consider the Venus Fly Trap, or the Alligator-Snapping-Turtle that has a tongue that mimics a tiny worm, thus attracting unsuspecting fish. Of course, all such attainments were the ‘accidents’ of evolution than consciously thought-out tools created by the organisms themselves. Most likely, only humans have a truly conscious understanding of how to conceive of and use stealth, camouflage, misdirection, deception(& decoys), and snares to gain advantage over their rivals, animal or human. And this applies not only to instruments of warfare and/or violence but to information, ideas, and idols(images/sounds of culture) used to gain a lead or advantage. More often than not, the clever and resourceful feign sincerity and good will while deploying their messages, expressions, and promises as tools of deception to gain an advantage. Even Jesus spoke of being fishermen of men.


This is why TRUST is a dirty word to any sensible person. Always be wary of trusting others, especially outsiders, though, in certain times, outsiders are more trustworthy than insiders. After all, blacks in America and Africa are better off trusting non-blacks than fellow blacks whose idea of life is jiving and acting crazy. If Trust should be a dirty word, why are Trust Societies better than Distrust Societies? Trust is good if and only if those within the trustful community share in the virtues of honesty and codes of honor. Thus, trust can be made sensible, and this is a great advantage to human communities. (And even among animals, those capable of mutual trust and cooperation within the pack or herd, such as wolves, hyenas, lions, elephants, and orcas, gain a formidable advantage.) But it’s a question of what kind of trust and how it was arrived at. Within a genuine trust community, people are raised from cradle to exhibit mutual respect & cooperation and inculcated with shame or sense of dishonor were they to fall short. Thus, trust is cultivated, developed, and maintained.
Furthermore, there’s an understanding of a penalty(more emotional than monetary) for those who violate the trust. Such trust comes with a price but is upheld and sustained by most people because they sense the alternative, a culture of distrust, would be worse. (The problem with nations like Sweden is the people have forgotten the historical cost and ethno-cultural basis for their culture of trust. In other words, Nordic culture of trust is not some universal truth but a particular reality that came about due to a confluence of factors, biological, cultural, geographic, and spiritual. The extreme cold had the effect of narrowing and hardening Nordic temperaments. The racial homogeneity led to stronger sense of unity. Relative geographic isolation led to fewer invasions, especially by non-whites. And Protestantism had a sobering impact on the Nordic soul. Today’s libertine Nordics may choose to believe that their societies became so stable and tolerant because they are oh-so-nice, kindly, and warm, but in fact, the historical roots of Nordic values owe much to ethno-homogeneity, culture of strict discipline & sobriety, even severity, spiritual devotion, and fear of shame. But silly secularized Nordics, especially the Swedes, have forgotten or forsaken their history and roots as ‘patriarchal’ & ‘oppressive’ and conveniently congratulated themselves that their modern success owes purely to liberal attitudes and tolerance. The real issue is less about liberalism and tolerance, both of which have pros as well as cons, than about what-kind-of-national-character-makes-best-use-of-freedom? After all, freedom is only as good as the person using it. If two people are released from prison, the person with resolve to be virtuous can make good use of his freedom and fare better than in prison while the person with ill-intent will likely use his freedom to commit crime, making things worse for himself and others. This is why libertarianism is only half-right. While it’s true that people want to be free, it's no less true that what people will make of their freedom relies mainly on their genetic makeup, moral upbringing, and cultural conditioning. Why is it that some of the most functional modern societies were those with long histories of authoritarianism, cultural as well as political? Even the Anglos, though pioneers of modern liberty, were part of a highly disciplined and hierarchical society steeped in manners and politesse. Surely, a properly reared child and a spoiled brat will grow up to use their freedoms differently. Libertarians assume that market-forces and rule of law are sufficient to maintain social balance, but a society where most people grow up with Las Vegas and Hollywood values will be too vain, narcissistic, infantile, shameless, and irresponsible to use their freedoms sensibly. And due to their lack of introspection and reflection, they will never blame themselves but point their fingers at everyone else. It'll be even worse if they happen to be genetically predisposed to be less inhibited and egocentric. Take blacks for instance, the race that evolved to be loud and loutish? Is it any wonder that blacks in America always blame OTHERS for their problems? Black idea of justice is, "If we steal and if you notice that we steal, you be racist and shit." How can libertarianism work with such people? Libertarianism might work if society were filled with people like Ron Paul, a man of personal self-restraint and family values, but can anyone imagine a functional libertarian society with the likes of Al Sharpton? How long will rule-of-law be honored by such apelike men?)

Trust is good and sound only within a closed system of shared identities, loyalties, and values. Trust among people is valuable precisely because the default position of mankind must be distrust. Indeed, how many people would you trust with your money, property, or secrets? Even family members cannot be trusted sometimes. For safety and security, we all live in a world of distrust. Even in Trust Societies, people lock their doors when they go to sleep. Even among People-of-Trust, it is a matter of degrees. For example, even Nordics and Japanese don’t share their banking information with others. If people through the ages and across the continents needed to be distrustful in order to survive, how precious it's been for certain communities to produce a culture of trust, which is really a culture of honor. After all, why do people go out of their way to appear trustworthy in some societies? It’s because they’ve been raised from childhood that it’s a matter of honor to be trustworthy. Without that sense of gratification tied to honor(or shame from lack thereof), people would be far less invested in being trustworthy.
Trust grew out of a world of distrust, the natural way of things, and that’s why people valued trust as a valuable commodity. They knew that if they lost the trust, things would revert to the ‘natural state' where everyone tries to cheat the other for petty gains(and without shame). (But over time, Trust Societies got so accustomed to the culture/habit of trust all around them that they took it for granted as something that would always be there; they even got to thinking Trust was the natural way of things. Well, Swedes are in for a rude awakening as tons of foreigners arrive without a Trust Culture. It’s like people who grew up rich may take wealth for granted, failing to realize that poverty is the natural state of being.)

The balancing act necessary for a Trust Society isn’t easy to maintain. It calls for the Goldilocks middle among tribal loyalty, national unity, and higher ideals. While some societies are high on distrust all around, some fail to turn into Trust Societies precisely because they are so heavily invested in one kind of trust over another. A society where people are extremely loyal and trustworthy to fellow kinsmen is likely to be less trustworthy overall because everyone, being so loyal and trusting of close-knit folks, fail to see the bigger picture and the higher good. In a way, Michael Corleone's deep loyalty to his family makes him less trustworthy as an American citizen in THE GODFATHER. On the other hand, a people who are overly loyal to higher ideals or universal ethics will destroy trust in another way. By trying to be One with all of humanity, they neglect the particular needs of their own communities and nations. Just look what the cuck-Scandinavian-Americans have wrought in Minnesota by embracing Blacks and Somalis as representatives of All Humanity than by preserving what had been so successful as Nordic-America.


It should be obvious to everyone that we cannot live by focusing on the Moment. We need a sense of perspective and angles. Even unintelligent people know this on the basic level. Even children understand life is a game of deceit and trickery. After all, no one wins a game of chess by moving pieces in accordance to the Moment. If you thoughtlessly take an 'easy' piece, your opponent could be exposing his piece just to draw you into a trap. So, you must broaden the frame of reference before you make a move. You may take a pawn, knight, bishop, or even a rook, but your opponent could be planning devastating counter-moves. He could be baiting you like a fisherman baits a fish with worm-and-hook. Chess thankfully is a cerebral game, and those who play it know they mustn’t make moves on impulse or sensation. One must be cautious.
And yet, look all around at society-at-large, and so many people who seem to understand the concept of perspectives and angles(at least as theory/principle) are sorely lacking in mindfulness and its application to real life. Of late, how did things get so bad? Partly, it’s due to the infantilization of culture that has allowed so many people to act shamelessly. Also, our pop culture has sensationalized the thrill of the Extreme This or Extreme That. In other words, if something jolts you in the Moment with super excitement, pleasure, or blast, just shut up and GO FOR IT! Just consider the obesity epidemic. Fatkins know that they should eat a balanced diet, but they often binge on excess food in the Moment. They are so fixated on MY PLEASURE NOW that they become oblivious to the fact that they will grow fat by over-eating, especially junky stuff. A more dire case involves dangerous drugs such as meth or various kinds of opioids. People who abuse them know of the long-term dangers, but they are so into the Moment that they don’t care about the consequences or the future. Especially as so many Americans since the 1960s grew up with so much comfort, leisure, and plenty — to the point where even many poor Americans are fatter than middle class folks in many parts of the world — , they never developed the essentials of self-discipline and sense-of-shame. Their mode of life is WANTONNESS. Obesity, drug epidemic, porn-addiction(and pornification of even kiddie pop culture via Disney), vulgarity & violence(especially in mindless video-games), online narcissism(especially on Instragram), insane ‘gay pride’ parades, and etc. didn't come by accident. They are all part of a pattern of a culture that has surrendered(rather happily) to Wantonness, Extreme Thrills, and Pleasures of the Moment. One might argue it really took off with Rock n Roll music of the 1950s, and black jungle boogie and Jewish merchant wits had something to do with it.

But one thing for sure, the Rise of Wantonness has robbed so many people of their sense of perspective and angles, especially if it offers them shameless jolts of pleasure. Even the so-called SJW or Woke phenomenon is really part of the Wantonness. After all, it seems so many Wokers are into politics for the euphoric highs of extreme self-righteousness by vaping on hatred toward Pure Evil. While it may feel good to believe one’s on the right side of history, it feels super-greater to believe one’s side is totally noble while the other side is PURE EVIL. Jewish Power has gone from vilifying Nazis as pure-evil to defaming white patriots as the New Nazis. Thus, hating white people is like a super-moral-drug for the proggies and people-of-color. (And as homos have been elevated to angel-status, celebrating them has taken on orgasmic proportions.) But, Conservatives shouldn’t be so easy to pat themselves on the back for being more sober-minded. After all, they couldn’t vape enough of that Neocon narrative of a New World War where the Gung Ho American Good Guys are at war with the New Nazis made up of ‘Islamo-fascist’ terrorists.

Anyway, a culture that prioritizes the Moment will weaken and eventually paralyze the sense of perspective & angles even among those who do get it, at least cerebrally. Just like the sensation of rapture in a church can make people abandon their conscious will(or the hysteria of mass politics can make even generally sober-minded people become swept away by someone like Hitler or MLK), the emphasis on the Moment will increasingly make people overlook the deeper meaning, the obligations, and the consequences. One reason why globo-homo-mania spread so fast even among the intelligent and educated is due to the ecstatic pageantry with all those ‘rainbow’ colors. Just like Oprah fans got swept away with her cult-of-personality, even smart people get swept away with Momentary Sensations of ‘Gay’ Celebrations. They are like Hansel and Gretel who lose sight of things because they got busy with cookies and candies. Or they are like Pinocchio and young boys who are lured to Pleasure Island to be turned into donkey-slaves(like the girls on Jeffery Epstein's island). Then, it is no surprise that even so many adults today are more like Nova than Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES. Whenever some new morsel of pleasure, delight, thrill, or high is dangled before their eyes, they must have it and be on Pleasure Island. This is as true of politics as anything else. Ever notice that for many progs(and also cuckservatives), what matters most is the rapturous FEELING of being holier-than-thou and high-and-mighty about being on the ‘right side of history’ without ever contemplating the long-term effects of mass-immigration-invasion, spread of globo-homo decadence, and mindless idolatrous worship of Nasty Negroes and Jealous Jews. We went from Bill of Rights to Feels of Righteousness.

It is precisely because so many whites now define truth and meaning in terms of Momentary Feels that they’ve become blind to the real dangers of White Nakba(whereby whites in Europe and North America will be replaced by Diversity much like Palestinians were replaced by Jewish immigrant-invaders). Consider all those silly Europeans holding up signs welcoming ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ without thinking about (1) Jew-run America’s role in smashing the Middle East and North Africa, thereby displacing millions of Arabs/Muslims and (2) the long-term cost of all those non-white newcomers and consequences for the demographic integrity of Europe. How could they be bothered by such details when they got so HIGH on virtue-vaping of the Moment? Of course, the Moment is always more exciting than History, just like someone who visits a brothel is focused on sex/orgasm than the moral/social reverberations.



Paradoxically, Current Jews are at the center of both the Culture of Memory and Culture of Moment. One might ask, how did a people so steeped in memory, morality, and meaning become so involved in the vices of the moment, especially in urging them unto goyim? Given Jewish history, one might say Jews have been more ants than grasshoppers. A people with a serious and sober sense of who they are and what they must do to maintain their community and morality. A people who pondered God and His meaning for Jews and mankind. One would think such a people would be filled with piousness and solemnity. After all, it’s difficult to be both serious/responsible and wild/crazy. It’s hard to be both ant and grasshopper.
And yet, Jews became like 'ant-hoppers', and not least because what started as a Day of Rest turned into days of revelry. Being more intelligent, Jews need expend less of their energies toward work and could indulge in more fun. If a none-too-bright person has to focus a lot(like an ant) to get his work done, a bright person could likely do the work in half the time or even less. That means he has more time for revelry, and this is what we see in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Even though Jordan Belfort was a crook, he was also very hard-at-work in his crookery. He was a hardworking crook. And yet, he was a crazy party animal too. How could a man do so much yet still have so much time left over for self-indulgence? He was very smart. But then, how did Jews get to be so smart? It was because of their mindful piety that pondered God and rewarded the most brilliant religious scholars with better opportunity for marriage and family formation, often with daughters of successful Jewish merchants who also proved their superior intelligence. So, oddly enough, Jewish debauchery has roots in Jewish piety and Jewish work ethic. A community that stressed higher intelligence & brilliance in God-think and making money led to evolutionary factors favoring Jews with higher IQ. Being smarter, Jews realized in the modern world that they could make more money with less time than it takes for goyim, and that meant more leisure time for acting like Jordan Belfort or Jeffrey Epstein.


White Goyim must regain their sense of perspective. They must realize that they are locked in a deadly game of chess with the Jew. First, white goyim must realize that the Jew is the opponent, the enemy. Not because it’s right to be knee-jerk anti-Jewish but because Jews most certainly see white goyim as their rival to destroy and own. When Jews play chess by regarding white goyim as the opponent/enemy, it is utterly foolish and retarded for whites to see Jews as their partner and even advisor. Such lack of perspective! There’s the Jew playing the game to checkmate your king, and you act like he’s on your side and trying to help you out. And because you see the Jew as friend, you try to help him win and lose sight of your own purpose of checkmating his king & his purpose of trying to checkmate your king. It’s like what Deke Thorton says in THE WILD BUNCH: "You think Pike and old Sykes haven't been watchin' us. They know what this is all about - and what do I have? Nothin' but you egg-suckin', chicken stealing gutter trash with not even sixty rounds between you. We're after men - and I wish to God I was with them." (Granted, there is an element of irony because Pike is confused in his own ways.) Consider THE GODFATHER PART 2. Both Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth try to put the other at ease as a partner, friend, and ally, but deep down inside, they know they’re rivals, even mortal enemies, and each knows that the other knows what he knows. At the mildest, Jews see white goyim like Michael Corleone sees Senator Geary: Someone to own and control.
If whites can’t win against the Jew with a checkmate, they must at least play to a stalemate. But idiot whites are under the illusion that Jews are their best friends and coaches in life. Because whites are so retarded at the moment, they don’t even understand the Jewish gambit. When Jews offer whites an easy piece from the table, whites take it with both eagerness(as it seems SO EASY) and guilt-ridden gratitude as the Jew seems so self-sacrificing in offering one of his pieces to the goy. The white goy doesn’t realize that the Jew is setting him up to take the BETTER PIECES. Consider how Jews advised Conservatism Inc to support Mass Immigration because immigrants are ‘natural conservatives’ and especially because most of those coming from South of the Border are Christian Catholics. So, one might have thought Jewish ‘liberals’ and Neocons were doing a favor for American Conservatism and Christianity. Immigration = More Conservatives and More Christians. And so much of Conservatism Inc fell for this gambit without realizing that Jews knew that more immigration would favor their own power. How and Why? (1) The #1 animus of those from Latin America is inferiority complex and resentment toward gringo, and as long as GOP is seen as the Gringo Party, the beaner-folks will vote Democratic. (2) While browns and non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, the policy & agenda are determined at the top by Jews. Non-whites take up the oars while Jews control the steering. Jews play political chess with a sense of perspective, angles, and context. Whites play political chess for the Moment. They go for easy pickings, especially in total trust and gratitude vis-a-vis the Jewish opponent-in-friend's-clothing, and lose sight of the big picture of what the game is really about. But then, even those who do know dare not say anything as the Truth will get them censured or censored, purged or pulverized in the current system where the rules have been totally rigged by Jewish gangster-lawyers and shyster-judges.
Of course, in the Current Year, it is perfectly okay for Jews to play the game as though whites are the enemy, the baddies, the villains, and even the New Nazis. Jewish attitude toward whites can be as hostile, vicious, vitriolic, and demented as they like. So, Jews can play political chess with whites as the opponent who must be destroyed. But whites better not play political chess in kind. The whitey must look upon the Jewish opponent across the table as his dearest buddy, helpful adviser, noble guru, and the most wonderful person on earth. This is a road to serfdom, and Jews keep winning and winning because they play to beat the opponent who sees the Jews as 'muh best pal'. And the reason why Jews want to keep whites in the mode of the Moment, either in orgasm or outrage, is because they sense that white goyim shaken free of the programming may start to think soberly about the perspective and angles of what the Jews are REALLY up to; then, whites will start playing a very different kind of political chess. Jews see whites as children, and we know adults feel free to lie to kids who are deemed unworthy and unprepared of the truth. Jews see themselves as the superior adult-race and see rest of mankind as children-race, and that’s why goyim mustn't expect honest talk from Jews. When Jews talk to you, just remember that they see themselves as adult and you as child. To their credit, they are not without reason for being so arrogant. The fact that so many goyim have been duped by Jews, just like kids fooled by adults, says volumes about how stupid or dumb goy-kind can be. Time to wake up and grow up. Put away childish things.

Cinema 2010's: The Notable Works, a Preliminary Report of the Best Movies of the Decade(2010 to 2019)

Game Changers:

Mother!
The Blackcoat's Daughter
Damsels in Distress
Tron Legacy
The World's End
Hail, Caesar!
Silence
The Hunt(Danish)
Dunkirk

At the peak are the films above. These works stand out from the rest of the field for their originality, depth, vision, mastery, brilliance and/or perfection. They have something more than excellence or even greatness. Each is singular and extraordinary, truly one of a kind in power or subtlety. They have a sublime quality rare even in great works. Films of this kind are becoming rarer by the day for the simple reason that cinema has been an established art form for some time, meaning originality is ever harder to come by. Indeed, even of the films listed above, it's arguable that only MOTHER! by Darren Aronofsky is truly original, a work that somehow managed to break through the sight-and-sound barrier into a new dimension in cinema. Still, there is something to be said for TRON: LEGACY, one of the most inventive uses of computer technology. Though ANT-MAN, the new ROBOCOP, and ENDER'S GAME are contenders in top-notch special effects, they are rather thin on ideas. In contrast, TRON: LEGACY, with its exploration of the gateway between creativity and spirituality, is ultimately more than a visual roller-coaster ride. INCEPTION, certainly not lacking for ingenuity, could have been part of this elite list, but its literal-minded conception of the dream world, Michael-Bay-style action scenes, and bloated monumentalism held it down from soaring above the clouds. Of the honored films, six or seven qualify as works of genre, but they also transcend, redefine, and/or annihilate restrictions intrinsic to the form. Thus, MOTHER! and THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER are much more than what we would expect from Horror. And DAMSELS IN DISTRESS and HAIL, CAESAR! offer food for thought along with laughs, of which there are many. THE WORLD'S END is the most 'frivolous' film on the list, and one may ask why it's ranked so highly. Because breakneck wit and brilliance at such level is truly a wonder to behold. At every turn, it outpaces expectation. Furthermore, unlike other Edgar Wright movies that are big on laughter but thin on character, THE WORLD'S END is surprisingly affecting as a story of friendship and memory. TRON: LEGACY is clearly sci-fi, but like the best works in the genre, its question is essentially spiritual, about the realization of a deeper truth unknown to the conscious realm of reason and logic. Martin Scorsese's SILENCE, Thomas Vinterberg's THE HUNT, and Chris Nolan's DUNKIRK are what one might call 'art films', though one could place Nolan's film in the 'War Movie' category. But then, there are war movies and then there films about war, and DUNKIRK belongs in the latter category. It's like GOODFELLAS is more a film about gangsters than a movie in the gangster genre(like SCARFACE and LITTLE CAESAR). SILENCE continues in the excellent vein of KUNDUN and goes even further in its rumination on the paradoxical nature of Christianity. It also exorcises what went so wrong with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, a work with all the elements of greatness but stumbled embarrassingly with judgement calls, not least in casting. THE HUNT is one of the most agonizing films in a long time, but its pain is earned honestly. It is also an improvement over Vinterberg's earlier Dogma-films that favored crudity and sensationalism over precision and meaning. It's difficult to think of another film with focus as intense as in THE HUNT, and it is the real thing, unlike the expensive exploitation movie PRISONERS that looks great but is utterly sick. On the surface, THE HUNT may seem like a run-of-the-mill sullen European 'art film' with a depressive view of life, but the narrative mines the impossible nature of truth. Because we the viewer are close to the main character, we know of the injustice of what he goes through, but there are no villains here, and even the 'hero' could easily be on the other side if someone else had come under the suspicion. In avoiding the cheap shots of moralism — even many so-called 'art films' are hardly more complex on moral issues than Stephen King stories — , THE HUNT is all the more dark and tragic. The theme is bigger than the difficulty of justice; it's about the impossibility of truth. This isn't to say truth is relative or subjective as it's more than obvious in many cases that someone really is guilty of something — if anyone still believes Jussie Smollett's story, he is either retarded or hopeless. Rather, there are cases where the only truth we have is the accusation and the denial, and so much of reality falls into that dark hole. If RASHOMON is about the egoism of truth, THE HUNT is about the solitude of truth. And yet, we can't blame the people of the town for trusting the child who made the accusation, and we can't blame the child for conforming to neo-puritanism of the times in search for new witches in a world hungry for moral justification. Speaking of Art Cinema, one could argue MOTHER! is more an Art Film than a work of horror. Indeed, if it is genre, it would be the first such in Aronofsky's body of work, though, to be sure, all of his films have genre touches. In a way, Aronofsky has been one of the most personal directors, and all of his films qualify as Art Cinema on par with the works of Ingmar Bergman, Shohei Imamura, and Jean-Luc Godard. And yet, his penchant for sensationalism and endless references to pop culture(rivaling David Lynch) has suggested more a hipster-hustler-prophet(like the grotesque James Toback) than a dedicated artist, and this accounts for why all his films prior to MOTHER! have been intermittently successful as art, though when his punches land, they are as formidable as any moment in cinema — consider the final scene in THE WRESTLER, one of the greatest ever. But with MOTHER!, Aronofsky made it to that special place, the Olympus(or Hades as the case may be) of achievement rarely approached by even the greatest. Bergman and Fellini made it once each, respectively with PERSONA and 8 1/2. Bunuel, Tarkovsky, and Lynch twice each, respectively with UN CHIEN ANDALOU & LOS OLVIDADOS, ANDREI RUBLEV & STALKER and ERASERHEAD & MULHOLLAND DR. To find oneself in this company, one needs something more than conscious creativity, experience, knowledge, and craft. One needs contact with the Muse of Mystery, a power that the Jeff Bridges character came to channel in TRON: LEGACY. In terms of meaning and message, MOTHER! continues in the vein of his earlier works. What sets it apart is the intensity running ahead of conscious control. If ever there was a case of creative nuclear melt-down, this is it. It is the Chernobyl of cinema, and it is amazing how Aronofsky managed to mold something so crystalline out of this radioactive chaos. He pulled a diamond out of the coals of hell. The nucleus of the idea got amplified by neural leaps and bounds by a man who wrote/directed as if possessed. Though the film is about chaos, doom, and world gone mad, Aronofsky never lost control of the material(as Nolan sometimes did in INCEPTION and as Gilliam invariably does). It is tour-de-force, all the more powerful because the inspiration sprung from deep within. After all, plenty of directors have given us mad visions. Think of Alan Parker with PINK FLOYD THE WALL and ANGEL HEART. Or, Joel Schumacher with FLATLINERS and Adrian Lyne with JACOB'S LADDER. Lyne's movie is very good, and Schumacher's has its moments. Parker is mostly obnoxious(and Terry Gilliam is among the worst of the madcappers). But with a few exceptional moments in JACOB'S LADDER, most of the craziness is on the surface, the stuff of visual trickery and stylistic flourish(borrowed generously from earlier masters, especially Lang, Murnau, and Welles). In contrast, MOTHER! cuts and probes deep, touching sensitive nerves — like an extended version of the squirming-brain scene in PI — associated with spiritual and existential anxiety. It's the difference between "Gimme Shelter" by the Stones and all those heavy-duty loud-as-hell Heavy Metal songs. The Rolling Stones' song emerged like a maelstrom from a dark and disturbed place and had a genuine element of the Faustian. In contrast, most of heavy metal rock is superficial posturing as 'bad boys'. It's almost as if Aronofsky made a psycho-spatial version of BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN that involves everything from the smallest atoms to the biggest stars, all of them embodied in the madness that engulfs a single home. If Charlie Kaufman connects dots in mental-scape and if David Lynch lurks in the sewage of the mind, Aronofsky went all out and blew out the entire neural fuse-box. It's been said that all of a man's life passes before his eyes at the moment of death, and MOTHER! is like all of history passing by before our collective eyes as the West faces doom, what Douglas Murray politely refers to as the 'strange death of Europe'. Aronofsky, being a crazy Jew, probably delights in the fall of the white race, but MOTHER! is as much a subconscious as a conscious work, and what it reveals is that even the proggy cosmo-Jewish mind is deeply anxious about a world in hyper-acceleration mode spiraling out of control of what had long been the gravitational orbit. One wonders where Aronofsky will go from here. A truly great work is as much a curse as well as a blessing. After one climbs the Everest, what else is there? Only a handful of artists managed to make works comparable to their first peak. Consider Kubrick with BARRY LYNDON and SHINING after 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. If Aronosfky can conceive of another work as powerful as MOTHER!(his THE WILD BUNCH), he will enter the pantheon. Or he may end up like Lina Wertmuller who, after her masterpiece SEVEN BEAUTIES, never came close(and even ended up at times with self-parody). And personally, I don't think Cassavetes did anything truly worthy after his greatest work HUSBANDS. As different as Whit Stillman's DAMSELS IN DISTRESS is from MOTHER!, they have one thing in common. Both are perfectionist culminations of artists who reshaped their earlier ideas & fixations with greater mastery and inspiration. As such, neither film has any fat or off-moment. Granted, the lack of 'perfection' is part of the charm of films like METROPOLITAN, THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, THE WRESTLER, and NOAH, but there is something to be said for a film that's cut like a perfect diamond. DAMSELS IN DISTRESS is a true gem, each gleam of which radiates with goofy charm and oddball humor. But it's not only one of the funniest things I've ever seen but a wistful musing on the role of love and romance in the arc of history and lifeline of civilization. That Stillman artfully touched on grand themes with such good humor and brevity of narrative is a testament to how things can go right with the right story, right cast, and right mood. But, as with Aronofsky and MOTHER!, I worry about Stillman. Where can he go from here? While he can go on making good movies, will he reach such heights again? Francois Truffaut for one never reached the greatness of JULES AND JIM despite his many good subsequent films. Coen Brothers HAIL, CAESAR! is a movie I dreaded seeing. Were they doing Mel Brooks? Actually, the remarkable movie has more in common with DR. STRANGELOVE. If Kubrick's masterpiece had the audacity to treat Mass Death by nuclear holocaust as satire, Coens' comedy is about the birth of the Western Template via synthesis of Jewish Prophecy and Roman Imperialism. The approach is both cynical & mocking and sincere & moving, not least because it's about a Hollywood production of a Biblical epic involving insipid movie stars, resentful ideologues(mostly writers who get crumbs), bullying executives, and nosy gossip columnists. Neo-Imperial Hollywood with its Money and Myth-making serves as a metaphor for Western Civilization(much like NASHVILLE by Altman stood for America) since the arrival of Jesus, the figure who paradoxically did most to divide Jews and Gentiles by bringing Gentiles over to Jewish myths. European Christians who came to worship a Jew as the Son of God also came to regard Jews as the killer of their Lord. And yet, it was in America that somehow Jews came to inherit and take over the Holy Roman Template. HAIL, CAESAR! can be enjoyed as straightforward comedy about what happens on movie sets, or it can be approached as a grand game theory of history. The main character in the movie is given a chance to work in the Death Industry of nuclear arms, the weapons that blow up the world in DR. STRANGELOVE, but he sticks to serving the Hollywood Myth Machine as the true church of America, and one controlled by 'wise' and mysterious Jewish moguls. A truly multi-faceted work that can be enjoyed on several levels. As for DUNKIRK, it's something of a surprise to myself that it ranks so high. On the surface, it seems like just another good war film, and it's hard to think of a scene that stands out as particularly special or different from what other war films have done. It's not a work of intensely great moments like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It's not a high-concept work like THIN RED LINE. It lacks the epic scope of Kobayashi's HUMAN CONDITION or the intimacy of Rossellini's PAISAN. It lacks the edginess of FIRES ON THE PLAIN or audacity of FULL METAL JACKET. And yet, cumulatively all the moments add up to something ennobling and beautiful. In a way, DUNKIRK is a COUNTER-WAR-MOVIE, which is different from Anti-War Films. DUNKIRK is most notable not for what it teaches us about war or WWII in particular but its approach to the subject of war. Thus, what Nolan was working against was the claims or cliches inherent in the genre. After WWII, war movies became a genre unto themselves and one-after-another was knocked out by Hollywood with regularity approaching Westerns. Since the post-Vietnam-War Era, serious film-makers have generally made what came to be known as Anti-War films that showed in grisly and grim details the horrors of war and its psychological toll. Oliver Stone became most famous with PLATOON. As the bad memory of Vietnam faded and the Jew-run US asserted itself as the Lone Superpower empire, a certain nostalgia developed for the Greatest Generation, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was meant as a tribute to them(and for future wars targeting New Hitlers). Though opposites, what PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN have in common is a sense of self-importance, also true of THE DEER HUNTER and APOCALYPSE NOW. PLATOON is an intense statement about America's sins, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a grand tribute to America as a redeemer-nation. Because of the extreme nature of war(and as war movies aren't routinely cranked out like after WWII), makers of war movies tend to go for grandiosity in statement and/or production, the object of mockery in TROPIC THUNDER. The message tends to be either patriotic, a paean to noble patriotic soldiers(like Mel Gibson's WE WERE SOLDIERS), or 'radical', an indictment of the meaninglessness of war where pawns are used to serve the vanities of those in power. DUNKIRK, though obviously made in honor of the WWII generation of Britain, is rather muted and mannered. And it refrains from grand statements and makes no claims to be the Mother of all War Movies upping the ante. Rather, with efficiency and grace, Nolan shows war as the culmination of all the little moments, by soldiers and civilians, those fleeing and those rushing to help the fleeing. Despite all the violence and terror, there are no earth-shaking BIG MOMENTS as in PLATOON or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. As such, every moment is on the human scale and as important or no less important than any other, and we never forget that war, despite its awesome scale, is experienced by each participant on the human level. Some of the most memorable scenes are the quietest, as when the father of one of the rescue boats cues his son not to press upon a traumatized soldier whose panic led to the death of his friend. It is this human quality and the element of grace in pacing, duration, and details that ultimately leave a deeper and richer impression. PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN have intense moments that overpower us with emotions(and guts-and-glory or guts-and-gory), but once the film is over and we leave the theater, we feel a bit embarrassed for having been put through the wringer. With DUNKIRK,there is no hangover as Nolan's objective wasn't to overwhelm us with the Moment or the Meaning. As such, the film not only show the Brits at war but embodies the very spirit of hardy stoicism and civic spirit, something that eroded with the rise of Rock Star egotism in the 60s. Of all the films listed below, THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER is the one I care about most, one I wouldn't mind watching over and over. It is the darkest film by far. If MOTHER! is about the failure of Heaven on Earth, THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER is about love in hell. The young woman in the film ends up killing two very sweet ladies who've devoted their life to serving girls on campus. She also murders a man and wife coping with the worst kind of tragedy. And yet, she feels no remorse because she is in love with the Devil. In THE EXORCIST, the girl is saved when the Devil is lifted from her body. In THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER, the love for the Devil lingers long after the exorcism. Also, the young woman isn't merely a hapless victim but a participant in the seduction and corruption. It is one of the strangest and most provocative films about the power of Evil. At the end of THE THIRD MAN, despite the woman knowing that Harry Lime was a monster and even meant to betray her, she is still in love with him and completely blind(and even contemptuous) of the man who did the right thing. There have been many stories about Evil and horror, but I don't believe I've quite seen a film that delves so subtly into the area of the soul that can fall in love with the unspeakable. THE WITCH treads similar grounds but, good as it is, is a comic strip compared to THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER.

Masterworks:

Life of Pi
Inception
True Grit

The Irishman
The Adventures of Tintin
Before Midnight
Blue Jasmine
Gravity
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Kings of Summer
The Wolf of Wall Street
Before I Disappear
August Osage County
The Counselor (Scott)
Slow West
Turin Horse
American Animals
Tomorrowland
Unknown Soldier(Finland)
Elena (Russia)
Twin Peaks the Return
Maps to the Stars
Ash Is Purest White
Poetry (Lee)
Snow White and the Huntsman
Sunset Song
Journey's End

These films in the 'Masterwork' category fall a bit short due to artistic compromise, thematic limitation, conventionality, incompleteness, and/or lack of sufficient depth/imagination. LIFE OF PI is full of wonderment and heartbreak in its blend of fairy tale and tragedy, but the self-help vibes render it a bit pat, even smug. Still, it's one of the rare works with artistic use of special effects. INCEPTION could have been an all-time great movie, but Nolan overloaded it with blockbuster elements. Perhaps, that was the only way he could have gotten it made, but it is seriously compromised. It's too bad because Nolan came up with ingenious complications from a deceptively simple idea, much like Asimov with the three laws of robots. Even more inspired was the delving into how the personal underlies the 'political' or 'business' side of life, something the hero wrestlers with even as he goes about tampering with the psyche of his target. The concept merges cold calculation of business, keen logic of psychology, and poetic poignancy, with implications dark and profound. It envisions a world where the most intimate and private space can be hacked and altered. But then, in a way, such mind-control techniques have always existed via the power of arts, drama, and music whose effects seep into our psyche and fundamentally alter our way of seeing ourselves and the world. In our time, Jews use these means of media to hypnotize and manipulate us at the deep level as so much of arts & entertainment appeal to us emotionally and subliminally, altering our perceptions from within. So many people have been 'incepted' trance-like without their ever knowing who manipulated them and how. TRUE GRIT by the Coens is a movie I disliked rather intensely because the female character is so repulsive in looks and behavior, but upon second viewing, she is exactly as the Coens intended. We can't fault the movie for having an unlikable character as unlikable-ness is a fact of life, and something that art/entertainment exist to reflect. Besides, its her very unlikable-ness that drives the narrative. She has the tenacity of a bulldog. Jeff Bridges' performance teeters into caricature at times, and everyone knows the basic story from the John Wayne original. Still, it's a solid work all around and with some truly inspired moments that rival any in cinema. One thing for sure, the Coens have certainly graduated into Movie Mastery in the new century. There are no surprises in Steven Spielberg's rendition of THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN except that it's superbly done, much more so than most movies of the kind. You just have to appreciate the expertise and ingenuity of everyone involved in the project. Richard Linklater's BEFORE SUNSET is the Goldilocks middle between the overly cute and coy BEFORE SUNRISE and the tiresomely sour and bitter BEFORE MIDNIGHT. BEFORE SUNSET retraces the romanticism of the first while foreboding the weariness of the third. It's a perfect little film, and maybe it should have ended there, just like BOYHOOD would have done better to end at its halfway mark. BLUE JASMINE is Woody Allen's best in a long time. Though more tragedy than drama, it is amusing throughout. It's a story about a woman who deserves all her woes but still wins our sympathy because the audience can see themselves in her vanity, (self)deceptions, and desperation. She feels the perennial victim without any regard for all those wronged by the ill-gotten loot that had once propped up her lifestyle. The one time she acted against financial security was out of egotism and vanity, to get even with her cheating husband. As such, it is a damning indictment of the coastal elite class and its attitudes. It's about emotional as well as material selfishness, but then, the latter often follows from the former. The problem isn't merely too-much-money but the very mindset of entitlement. Just like the girl in THE BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER is still with the Devil despite having been exorcised, Jasmine still thinks and talks 'rich' though fallen flat on the ground. It's been compared to STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE but also reminds us of HOUSE OF MIRTH. Privilege isn't merely a status but a state-of-mind, and there are few sadder things than a person still stuck in one mindset while having been pushed into another social setting. The mind fails to adapt to the changed reality, thus goes mad. GRAVITY isn't much in terms of concept or theme but what awesome use of technology. It is surely one of the few times when 3D was justified in cinema. Like most sci-fi movies heavy on effects but weak on themes, GRAVITY's reputation will surely diminish in time, but what an experience it was on the big screen. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS seems a bit unsatisfying though the reasons may be intrinsic to its strengths as well. The Coens created a full-fleshed character with a lively personality, but he isn't given much to do and is flattened into the bleak and dreary landscape between NY and Chicago. Davis is a folk-singer without contact with the folks. He's a creature of big cities. Also, he wants to be famous, a star, but works in the folk idiom that is supposed to be humble. Davis is aware that many in the folk scene are poseurs, fakes, & hipsters, and strives to be different, a real artist. At a club, he mocks the one woman who is truly of folk background and gets punched by her husband in a scene reminiscent of George Bailey getting knocked out by the angry husband in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. It is a thoughtful work about the price of freedom and also a worthy tribute to all the contemporaries of Dylan who failed to become him(and oddly enough, it is better than most movies about or with Dylan, the exception of course being PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID). It also has one of the most remarkable uses of animals in movies. KINGS OF SUMMER is one of the best youth movies in a long time. The quality of youth/teen movies have improved in the 2000s. One merely needs to think of the 80s when most coming-of-age movies were either John Hughes' silly teen comedies(though some are endearing) and all those trashy sex comedies. THE SURE THING was one of the few good ones from the decade, and the 90s weren't much better. In more recent yrs, even youth movies I don't like(and even detest) tend to be made with more intelligence and personal style, and KINGS OF SUMMER is the clear winner. Even its sitcom-like parts are done to perfection. It captures the immaturity, excitement, romanticism, and naivete of youth. Also, the characters are eccentric to the point of amusement without becoming freaks or caricatures. Youth is the sun-packed noon of life, and KINGS OF SUMMER glows with radiance. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET features Martin Scorsese firing on all cylinders. But its de-emphasis of the Jewish angle robs it of meaning. Consider THE GODFATHER and GOODFELLAS where very little is made of the fact that they're about Italian-Americans. As such, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET becomes a rather generic travelogue about greed and debauchery. Without grounding in some specific social or cultural milieu, all the lunacy turns into boisterous ANIMAL-HOUSE-like revelry, even celebration, of white collar 'gangsta' life. As such, its ultimate meaning is hardly different from that of OLD SCHOOL. True, there is something about how Belfort's life falls apart, he loses his wife & family, and has to do time behind bars. But the good times are presented with such pizzazz that the moral reminders become just a footnote. Still, there are some scenes in the movie(esp those with Jonah Hill) that are as good as anything Scorsese has done. BEFORE I DISAPPEAR, written, directed, and acted by Shawn Christensen is a truly audacious film on all levels, worthy of comparison to Bunuel. It deftly interweaves several plot-lines and, more remarkably, contrasting emotional strains to create a bewildering picture of life as a state of constant collision of social forces and inner turmoil. Most movies fit like easy puzzles, but BEFORE I DISAPPEAR is one where the pieces fall in place in unexpected ways. Depressing but also exhilarating in a way. AUGUST OSAGE COUNTY has unpleasant people bickering and making fools of themselves, but it's finely directed, excellently acted all around, and true to life. THE COUNSELOR in the hands of Ridley Scott is bit too slick for a dark and damning film about the dynamics of globalist-capitalism where first world neo-imperialism merges with third world tribal-gangsterism. In that regard, it is less satisfying and entertaining than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Still, if the Coens pared(and diminished) their material to a harrowing bare-bones action flick, THE COUNSELOR sticks closer to the central theme of the world on edge as the result of melting borders(more dangerous than melting ice caps) and fading authority. Best of all, it has ruthless courage about the price of the New World Order. Play with fire, and just know there may be no way out. And of course, there will be collateral damage for the innocents, but then, who is innocent in a world where everyone is on the same grid? SLOW WEST is the one film on this list that could have made it on the higher category of 'Game Changers'. A special kind of Western, there is really nothing else like it. As concept and in tone, it is closer in spirit to HAROLD AND MAUDE and DAMSELS IN DISTRESS. It is less a Western with quirky elements than a quirky romantic story situated in the West. Indeed, the story begins not in the American West but some place in Scotland. Thus, it's less about the people of the American West than a Scottish dreamer who ventures even as afar as the Wild West to find his true love. Not surprisingly, it didn't do much at the box office but deserves to be a genuine Cult Film. AMERICAN ANIMALS deftly retraces the ill-conceived heist of rare Audubon books by college students who channel the old pioneer/outlaw energies in the current America that no longer has use for such. The irony, of course, is that in a way the young men have more in common with the spirit of Audubon the adventurer-artist than the official institution that keeps everything under lock and key. In this respect, AMERICAN ANIMALS has something in common with INTO THE WILD, KINGS OF SUMMER, and CAPTAIN FANTASTIC, all of which are about people dropping out of society to reconnect with the primal, authentic, and personal. Still, AMERICAN ANIMALS is under no illusion that the crime could be justified on any grounds. It is also a lesson on how tricks of psychology and influence of pop culture myths can make even people from respectable and law-abiding backgrounds to lose sight of the barrier between reality and fantasy. TOMORROWLAND was considered a failure, and perhaps that explains why Disney prefers to stick with the tried-and-tested Marvel and STAR WARS 'franchises'. After all, TOMORROWLAND, though owing its inspiration to earlier works, was created from scratch as an original idea. And it is fantastic in imagination and brilliant in execution. It is also genuinely oddball and a bit twisted, and those factors may have perplexed parents and children alike. It's too bad that when Disney actually did something amazingly original, the public said no. ELENA is a stark tale of class and privilege. Moreover, it's a cautionary tale of how mere privilege can lose out to blood loyalty. TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN is a TV series, so why here? Because Lynch is a major figure in American Cinema. While TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN is overlong and goes off in too many tangents, it has many great passages and arrives at a truly horrifying 'closure', scarred by the most frightening scream in cinema. Possibly Lynch's last major work, it is reminder that no matter how much we try to escape from or resolve our issues and problems via the form of art and entertainment, there is no way out. In that, it shares with THE COUNSELOR a truly tragic view of life. MAPS TO THE STARS by David Cronenberg isn't easy viewing as just about everyone is about the least likable character one can imagine. Selfish, stupid, vain, nasty, vicious, vengeful, etc. Still, far more than the sometimes hokey COSMOPOLIS, it is a cold indictment of the soulless modernity of celebrity & idolatry. ASH IS THE PUREST WHITE by Zhangke Jia is another none-too-enjoyable film but it's convincing as a story of life. Like him or not, Jia is interested in what-is than what-we-want, and as such, is a true artist. What makes cinema entertaining is the meeting of the minds between us and the characters and between the characters. We want to see attractive people as our alter egos, and most movies feature attractive or appealing actors. Also, for dreams to come true, there must be a meeting of the minds between the principal characters so that, though once divided, they are one for all and all for one. But life rarely works that way, and Jia's ASH IS PUREST WHITE is about the impossibility of love among impossible individuals. Just when one gazes into the heart of another, the latter's heart is resolutely and stone-cold elsewhere. As Jia accepts it as reality, there is no sentimentality or melodramatic pathos. Just the painful realization that life is as is. Jia's works may be hard to take — and I've never been a fan — because his films suggest at genre formula but stolidly remain in the mode of realism. Because ASH IS THE PUREST WHITE involves gangsters and a moll, we approach it with certain expectations, but what's missing is the process that filters out the roughness and churns out a smooth familiar narrative. Most movies are processed meat, but Jia gives us raw meat. Not easy to chew on but the blood and fiber taste real. POETRY by Lee Chang-Dong uses the onset of Alzheimer's Disease as metaphor for social amnesia that makes people blind and forgetful of what really matters in terms of truth and justice. It is perhaps overly elaborate as story-telling but has an always welcome message that appearances can deceive. SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN may be derivative and overly reliant on action/spectacle/special effects, but it's the best of its kind. Along with LIFE OF PI, TRON LEGACY, GRAVITY, and few others, it totally justifies CGI as art-form in its own right. It is also edited to perfection with zero fat. JOURNEY'S END is war tragedy done to perfection. SUNSET SONG is heartfelt elegy made with equal measure of grit and grace. TURIN HORSE, like anything by Bela Tarr, isn't easy to take but worthy of respect. Tarr is for real, and his meditation on life flows from within as harbingers of dark times. If Ingmar Bergman operated with surgical precision, Tarr's heavy blows fall with blunt density to bruise our modern complacence. UNKNOWN SOLDIER is a remarkable film that features soldiers simply as men than as heroes, martyrs, victims or villains, which sounds simple enough but isn't easy to pull off in the extreme framework of something so politicized, sensationalized, moralized, and mythologized as war. It is what Sam Peckinpah's CROSS OF IRON should have been. Perhaps, I should rank it even higher. Just when you think War Movies have nothing more to add comes this masterpiece from Finland.

First-Rate:

The Master
A Separation
The Conspirator
Shutter Island
Touch of Sin
The Way Back
Blade Runner 2049
Footnote
Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
The Neon Demon
Ender's Game
The Great Beauty
Robocop
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Noah
American Sniper
Risen
Amour
Carnage
Bridge of Spies
Queen and Country
The German Doctor
Ant-Man
C.O.G
Hereditary
The Day
The Mule
Carlos
Moonrise Kingdom
Rush
All Is Lost
Coming Home (Yimou)
Room
Upstream Color
American Pastoral
Life Father Like Son
Senna
A Prophet (2009, released in US in 2010)
Rules Don't Apply
Joe (Nicholas Cage)
Act of Killing
Of Gods and Men
Cave of Forgotten Dreams
The Witch
Silent Souls
War Horse
Everybody Wants Some
This Must Be the Place
11 Flowers
Boardwalk Empire Episodes 1,2

Worthy Efforts:

Despicable Me
The American
The Devil
In a World

Uncut Gems
Elite Squad: The Enemy Within
Thor
Revenant
The Grey
Phil Specter (Mamet)
Drive

El Camino
Sully

Give Me Liberty
The Disaster Artist
The Ward
A Dangerous Method
Apollo 11
Manchester by the Sea
Farewell
J. Edgar
Cold in July
Cold War
After the Storm
Shoplifters
Oslo August 31
John Carter
Chloe
Damsel
Devil's Knot
Third Murder
Hugo
Florida Project
The Hunger Games
Looper
Oblivion
The Fighter
Mother (Bong - 2009, released in US in 2010)
Captain Fantastic
Byzantium
The Bling Ring
Nebraska
American Hustle
White Material (2009, released in US in 2010)
Where Is Kyra?
Lone Survivor
Boyhood
Hunt for Wilderpeople
Lego Movie
Hacksaw Ridge
Love and Mercy
Black Sea
End of the Tour
Mistress America
Wolf Totem
Cafe Society
The Captive
Snowden
Moana
Paterson
Split
The Glass Castle
American Made
Ready Player One
Hot Summer Nights
First Man
Visit (Shyamalan)
Glass
Goodbye First Love
Three (Johnny To)
I Wish
Our Little Sister
Arrival
Only Lovers Left Alive
Baby Driver
Samsara
Winter's Bone
Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World
Force Majeure
First Reformed
Toni Erdmann
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt 1

Not without Merit:

Aquaman
Star Wars: Rogue One

Roma
Only God Forgives
Jeepers Creepers 3
Please Give
300: Rise of an Empire
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Resident Evil: Retribution
Resident Evil: Final Chapter
Edge of Tomorrow
Prisoners

The Lighthouse
Short Term 12
Rebel in the Rye
Whiplash
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Conjuring
127 Hours
Wind Rises
Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Frances Ha
Blue Valentine
World of Kanako
Savages (Stone)
Babadook
Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt 2

Lauded Movies I Detest(or Protest):

Black Swan
Joker
The Social Network
Gone Girl
Tree of Life
Before Midnight
Her
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Zero Dark Thirty
Perks of Being a Wall Flower
Big Short
Ad Astra
Remember (Egoyan)
La La Land
Dark Knight Rises
Dragged Across Concrete
Never Let Me Go
The Martian
Argo
Rise of Planet of the Apes
Ex Machina
Me and Earl and the Dying Girl
Hell or High Water
Steve Jobs
Killer Joe
Dogtooth
The Place Beyond the Pines
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping
The Guest
It Follows
Safety Not Guaranteed
Blindspotting
Scott Pilgrim and the World
Sicario
The Artist
The Most Dangerous Year
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Mad Max: Fury Road
Take Shelter
Rabbit Hole
Margin Call
Madeline's Madeline
Under the Skin
Killing Them Softly
Knight of Cups
Locke
Interstellar
John Wick
Melancholia
Stories We Tell
Elle
Eighth Grade
Let the Sunshine In
Star Wars: Force Awakens
Frozen

Yet to Watch(or Need to Re-Watch for Fuller Assessment)

Foxtrot
Life of Riley
You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet
An Elephant Sitting Still
12 Years a Slave
Carol
Two Days, One Night
Lincoln
Certified Copy
Guardians of the Galaxy
Birdman
Captain Philips
Moonlight
I Saw the Devil
Lady Bird
Inherent Vice
Phantom Thread
Embrace of the Serpent
Anomalisa
Four Lions
Mountains May Depart
I, Daniel Blake
Submarine
What We Do in the Shadows
Love and Friendship
(500) Days of Summer
Leviathan
Son of Saul
Hard to be a God
Tepenin Ardi
Beguiled

Jay Leno’s Jokes about Asians-Eating-Dogs and the Asian-American Advocacy Group Says Shut Him Down — Who Is Right?

A certain Asian-American Advocacy group called MANAA is up in arms about Jay Leno’s repeated jokes about Koreans eating and mistreating dogs. It is applying pressure on NBC to cut ties with Leno for perceived slights against the Asian-American community. The logic of MANAA goes as follows:

Leno has "been an unrepentant repeat offender and still has a bizarre fixation with Asians eating dogs." "Many Americans are unable to distinguish between persons of Korean heritage living in North Korea, South Korea or the U.S., or between Asians and Asian Americans generally," Aoki had written in 2012. "Therefore, when Mr. Leno jokes about North Koreans and the consumption of dogs and cats, he perpetuates a persistent belief held by many Americans that Asian Americans and Korean Americans are perpetual foreigners who bring their objectionable dining habits to the U.S. We are not accepted as real Americans; rather, we are subjected to ridicule, disdain and abuse, which has resulted in a rise in racial profiling and hate crimes against Asians, Asian Americans and immigrants."

At face value, this complaint sounds like yet another case of PC stupidity, and in the most basic sense, it is. Comedy is, by nature, irreverent and mocking, and humor is impossible in a society of thin skins. (Given that the intellectual class and elites are growing ever more censorious, one might say they have think-skins, just a brainier version of thin skins.) Humor also serves as satire, and one effective way to subvert, mock, oppose, and even destroy something is by poking fun at it. And one could argue that mocking Asians for mistreating and eating animals such as dogs and cats is a good way to voice moral concerns on an international scale. It’s certainly saner than waging wars and invading other nations to stop the barbaric practice. And in this light, we should laud Jay Leno for having the courage(and perhaps conscience) shed light on the cruelty that is all too common across Asia in the mistreatment of dogs and cats. One might hope that such mockery may shame and pressure Asians to clean up their act if they’re to fully join in the civilized world. After all, progress isn’t merely about high-rises and faster/better machines but development of conscience and advancement of morality.

Animal cruelty used to be quite commonplace in Europe, especially in ancient times when Romans slaughtered thousands of animals in gladiatorial bloodbaths. And in the Middle Ages, there was widespread torture and killing of cats deemed companions of witches. Kings and queens throughout Europe enjoyed blood sports such as bear-baiting and bull-baiting. And even today, there are vocal opposition to bullfighting and fox-hunting(which should be called fox-lynching). Progress comes by both sincere crusade and witty mockery. True, satire is often highly insensitive, but why should those who are insensitive to humanity be treated with much respect? So, on that note, mocking and ridiculing Asians for mistreatment and consumption of cats, dogs, and other animals(such as bears that are horribly harvested for bile fluids) are fair game and morally justified.

And yet, context provides additional meaning to any issue, and neither Jay Leno or Guy Aoki(spokesman for MANAA) comes off well within wider contexts. But then, all of American society comes off pretty badly given the madness of Political Correctness and Moral Hypocrisy. First, MANAA is trying to have it both ways, but then, such is to be expected under the current regimen of Diversity. According to Multi-Culturalism, there is no single ‘American Culture’, ‘American Way’, or set of ‘American Values’. One school of Multi-Cultism says that non-whites of various colors and backgrounds should cling to their identities, cultures, and traditions and NOT assimilate to the ‘bland and generic white bread’ America. In other ways, non-white groups should go out of their way to assert their differences and show pride in them. Following this logic, the argument that Aoki should put forward is that America(and the West in general) should allow Asians-in-America to practice dog-eating and cat-eating. After all, if it’s wrong for the US to discriminate against any culture and impose its Eurocentric values on others, then Asians-in-America have good cause to argue for dog-eating and cat-eating. They could also point to the HOGOCAUST and decry the hypocrisy of Americans, white or otherwise, who profess such compassion for dogs and cats but feel NOTHING for hogs that are just as intelligent and emotionally complex as dogs and cats... if not more so. (Of course, from an ‘objective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of pigs is no more justifiable than the killing/eating of dogs and cats. If the rule is, "highly intelligent animals must be spared", then pigs more than qualify. Yet, from a ‘subjective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of dogs and cats is worse because it is undeniable that dogs and cats are cuter, cuddlier, and more accessible to humans than pigs could ever be. A person who doesn’t respond emotionally to a pig could be said to be ignorant of its intelligence and complexity, but a person who doesn’t respond to a dog or cat has to be downright heartless. Something about dogs and cats is so aesthetically, emotionally, and ‘socially’ appealing that a culture that goes out of its way to deny this truth and coldly slaughters them for meat is lacking in basic humanness.)

Anyway, if Aoki is really into Asian pride as an Asian-American, he should feel no shame in the fact that Asians eat dogs. He should defend it as an essential part of Asian culinary tradition. If anything, he should be pushing for the US to legalize the killing/eating of dogs and cats as the prohibition of such practice would mean unfair and unjust imposition of ‘Eurocentric’ norms. After all, American Indians also ate dogs. Native Hawaiians still eat dogs. So do Australian Aborigines, and dogs are eaten in certain parts of Africa. If the US is really into multi-cultural mode and rejects Eurocentrism, then there is no reason why dog-eating and cat-eating should be banned. If Americans oppose the legalization on the basis of ‘animal rights’ or humane-treatment, it can be exposed as hypocrisy as Americans have no problem with the slaughter of millions of pigs(and cows and sheep) every year. One could even argue that America’s favoring of dogs and cats is ‘racist’ in that those species are favored over other species of animals, even pigs that are as intelligent or even more so than dogs(and certainly cats). Indeed, even all the brouhaha over killing of whales is hypocritical as one could argue that pigs are more-or-less small land-whales and whales are massive sea-pigs. Why should whales be spared while pigs are slaughtered? Because whales are bigger? But again, aesthetics matter(at least subjectively) because there is something majestic about whales to the human eye. And whale songs are among the most haunting sounds of nature whereas pigs go oink-oink and grunt-grunt.

If MANAA is for Asian identity and pride, it should defend Asian culture and practices. Though not all Asian nations eat dogs and/or cats — Japan notably doesn’t even though it’s been blasted by the West for mistreatment of dolphins and whales, though not so much in recent years — , it’s a common practice in Vietnam, China, and Korea. Also, it’s not mainly out of hunger. Starving North Koreans might eat dogs and cats out of desperation, but there are hardly any dogs and cats as most people aren't allowed to keep pets. Granted, even in nations where dog-eating and/or cat-eating are common, there is a divide, often impassioned, about whether the practice should be allowed to continue. And in some nations, it is officially illegal but more-or-less tolerated. However, as each new generation is less willing to indulge in dog-or-cat-eating, it’s likely to fade away in most Asian nations in years to come. (Granted, one wonders if Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, what with their shockingly low birthrates, will survive as ethno-civilizations.)

At any rate, what is MANAA’s priority? To shore up Asian identity, culture, and pride? Or is it about anxiety about how Asian-Americans might be perceived in the US? But if Asians-in-America are so sensitive about how OTHERS feel about them, aren’t they lacking in sufficient pride of identity? And this seems to apply more East Asians than Asian-Indians. After all, there have been plenty of jokes about how the dotkins not only don't eat beef but go out of their way to ‘worship’ cows. And yet, dotters generally don’t go around pleading with Americans to stop joking about cows and curry... though, to be sure, there is a segment of the Hindu population in the West that is hyper-sensitive about everything.

Icky Aoki

Even as Aoki condemn’s Jay Leno’s "bizarre fixation" with Asians eating dogs, he says nothing about the practice itself. But firstly, why is it ‘bizarre’ for a comedian to make jokes about what would seem outrageous and outlandish to most Americans? Comedies are often about man-bites-dog than dog-bites-man, and for many Americans, Asia seems like one giant man-bites-dog story. Shockingly to Americans(and Westerners in general), Asians seem heartless and raise dogs like chicken and eat them without any consideration of their nature and worth. Understandably, many Americans are appalled by such widespread practices in Asia. Many don’t crack jokes but feel contempt and even hatred. As Jay Leno is a comedian, he condemns the practice through the use of humor. And from a moral standpoint, it’s about time Asians realized that the killing of dogs/cats for food is untenable. No, not because the Non-West should slavishly and mindlessly follow and imitate the West(as there are plenty of sick things in the Occident as well), but it should be pretty obvious to any normal person with eyes, ears, and heart that dogs(and cats) are truly special, intelligent, warm, and affectionate animals(at least in relation to mankind because rabbits and rodents will disagree). Though the notion of universal values is problematic because the cause of ‘human rights’ has been more often about imposing one culture’s values on the rest of humanity, there are facts and feelings that can be attained universally with, respectively, objective tools of science and honest assessment of one’s senses and emotions. Anyone in any part of the world, upon dealing with dogs and cats for a day, should be able to realize that these two species evolved to be companions and ‘friends’ of mankind. Therefore, this is far less a cultural than a moral issue. Also, cultures do change and evolve. After all, if Asians should stick to their ‘Asian culture’ no matter what, then Chinese should have stuck with foot-binding, and Japanese should have stuck with their various means of ritual suicide(and with women shaving off their eyebrows and painting their teeth black); and Hindus should bring back the ritual of suttee or sati, whereby the widow throws herself into the funeral pyre of her husband. While all cultures are rich and interesting in their own ways, they can go against what is natural and healthy when a community comes under a cult-domination of a certain sect or faction. We now see this in the West with the Jewish and Homo takeover of media and academia. So many normal people have been brain-warped into worshiping globo-homo and gushing about trannies. And so many American fathers think it is only right to raise their girls to emulate the likes of Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham.

Aoki says jokes about Asians-eating-dogs can lead to violence against Asians-in-America who are perceived as the eternal outsider. But his logic would suggest that we condemn sincere condemnations of Asian-dog-eating as well. If anything, aren’t jokes less likely to stir up contempt for Asians than a campaign of sincere moral outrage? While humor is effective as satire or mockery, it also makes people laugh. People who listen to Leno aren’t likely to go out and kill. There’s a reason why PETA has been involved in violence, and one reason is it's an entirely humorless organization. At any rate, anyone in the West should have every right to denounce what he/she deems to be an act of barbarism or savagery in any part of the world. Condemning Asian-dog-eating should be as much a part of free speech as BDS, or justice for Palestinians. If not free speech, we have slave-speech, and who wants that as the New American Values? Apparently, MANAA that is pressuring NBC to cut ties with Leno is for slave speech than free speech. (Well, at least MANAA has one thing in common with AIPAC that is silencing the free speech of BDS and enforcing the slave speech of cucking to Zionism and Jewish Supremacy.) America wouldn't be what it is without free speech. After all, Americans have plenty of criticism for Europeans, and vice versa. And besides, it's not as if only white guys like Leno unload on other peoples and cultures. People in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East use their freedom to denounce what they deem to be crazy or evil in the West. It goes both ways.

Also, given that California is now minority-white and rife with anti-white rhetoric from all sides(as the only way to maintain the Democratic Diversity Coalition is to scapegoat whites for just about everything), couldn’t one argue Aoki’s hyper-sensitivity might stir up hostility against white Americans? Stirring up paranoid fantasies about how Americans(presumably white ones mostly) will go on 'hate crime' sprees against Asians on account of Leno's jokes is actually closer to hate-mongering. Actually, the overwhelming fact of Americans of all stripes is that they don't care one way or another about most of what's happening around the world, which would be okay IF American Power was NOT an empire that meddles in all parts of the world, but it most certainly is.

Aoki complains that the perception of Asians as the exotic-barbaric-other, the kind that dines on cats/dogs, may breed the impression that Asians are the Eternal Outsider. But then, isn’t that the eventual fate in America for every group given the rise of PC and Diversity Cult? We’ve been told that White Americans who ‘discovered’, conquered, settled, and built this nation are no more American than recent non-whites who just got off the boat. 75% of Asian-Americans voted for Democratic Party that now says Illegals should be called ‘dreamers’ and furthermore represent the essence of America. So, there is no traditional America, no core America. This means White Americans must be cut off from their roots, history, and culture. They must become 'white bread' and generic in their 'inclusion' of all. Or, they are to be excoriated as an Eternally ‘evil’, ‘racist’, and blah-blah people whose deserving fate is to be replaced by endless hordes from the Third World. Well, if that is the designated future for the white race as far as people like Aoki are concerned, then welcome to the club. If Core Americans are no more American than non-white newcomers fresh off the boat, then why should Asians feel any more American or any more welcome? White America used to be the majority-glue that defined and held the nation together, but now that America is defined mainly as 'diverse' and 'inclusive', what are core American values?

Besides, who’s kidding whom? Most of anti-Asian violence comes from blacks, Jews, and from within. Much of anti-Asian violence and crime in urban areas is by blacks. Has Aoki spoken out about this problem? Has he spoken the fact that blacks target Asians due to racial differences of size and strength, i.e. bigger, stronger, and more aggressive blacks see dorks like Aoki as easy victims, like a cougar sees a rabbit? Of course not. He’s just another yellow dog toady of PC who dares not speak any ‘controversial’ truth.
When it comes to media violence against Asians, Jews are most responsible. All those China-Fears stories in magazines and on TV are by Jews. Even as Jewish globalists have worked with China to gut the American working class and reap tons in profits, they’ve also pushed Yellow Peril(along with anti-Muslim and anti-Russian)fears to distract goy Americans from the fact that it’s the Jews who control the commanding towers of power. If Aoki and his ilk are truly courageous, they would name the Jew in their criticism of the media that usually feature Asians, Russians, and Muslims as The Enemy. Just as Nazi Germany made the notorious film JEW SUSS(by Veit Harlan), Jewish Hollywood made tons of movies featuring Odious Orientals, Terrible Teutons, Murderous Muslims, and Ruffian Russkies. At least Jay Leno made people laugh. Shouldn’t Aoki be more worried about neo-fumanchu types one comes across in TV shows... though, of late, Russkies, along with patriotic White Americans, are featured as Enemy #1 by the Tribe? Indeed, the new WATCHMEN TV series, along with movies like GET OUT, seem downright genocidal against whites.

The third kind of violence is found within the Asian-American community. There seems to be precious little unity among Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Hindus, and etc. in America. In many parts of Asia, the Asian-on-Asian violence is pretty intense. We know Hindus and Muslims can get pretty tense in India. And the traitor-cuck Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be pretty anti-China. It’s been reported that in Australia and Europe, the various Arab and Muslim migrant-groups carry on with their internecine conflicts. And there doesn’t seem to be much unity between Asian men and Asian women as so many of the latter(and even considerable segment of the former) mate outside the race. Could such massive-rejection of members of one’s own race be seen as a form of violence? But that is the result of free choice among Asians.

But Aoki and the clowns at MANAA are unwilling to address any of these issues. Instead, they just pile on some late night comedian and try to have him fired because his jokes are culturally insensitive. If Aoki and other Asians are truly serious about morality, they should join with voices condemning the barbaric practices of dog/cat eating in Asia. That is the best way for Asians-in-America to demonstrate that they are fully on-board with American values when it comes to humane treatment of dogs and cats. (Of course, it’s all relative. Even in dog-loving USA, so many dogs end up in anti-cruelty centers and are killed. Worse off are homeless dogs that roam the streets. Black trash, white trash, and brown trash go for dog-fighting, and such people are no better than savages. And even though there are so many dogs that wait to be adopted in Anti-Cruelty Societies, vain people buy expensive dogs bred by people who treat dogs as mere commodity.) But then, again, the notion of ‘American values’ becomes vaguer and weaker by the day. When so many Americans embrace illegal invaders from some Third World ‘shithole’ as the new-and-ready dreamers who should be celebrated, what is an ‘American’ and what are ‘American values’? Also, if America is all about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, why shouldn’t someone argue that dog-eating should be celebrated as part of diversity and ‘included’ in the American Cookbook?

Now, on the subject of Jay Leno. I hardly watched his programs and might have seen less than ten of his shows. Late Night TV shows were never my thing, not even in the heyday of Johnny Carson and David Letterman. At face value, there’s nothing wrong with an American comedian cracking jokes, cute or cutting, about just about anything. And if Leno joked about dog-eating-Koreans for easy laughter and to score moral points, where is the problem in that?
But context matters, and given the context, Leno doesn’t come across well either. He seems less a courageous-conscientious comedian than a craven coward who goes for jokes that target a less vocal, assertive, or powerful group. After all, if Leno prides himself as a satirist who uses humor to score moral or political points, would he have the courage to mock Jews for their barbaric practice of kosher-butchering? Would he dare point out the hypocrisy of Americans who wail about whale-hunting and bark about dog-eating but have no problem butchering and consuming millions of pigs? Would Leno crack jokes about cannibalism in Africa, the murder of Albinos, or the practice of eating apes such as chimps and gorillas? (Man-eating-ape is close to cannibalism.) Has Leno ever made a joke about how the Wars for Israel have led to the deaths of 100,000, even millions, of Arabs and Muslims? And if indeed North Koreans are reduced to hunting for dogs and cats to eat, does he know about US sanctions regimen that have targeted nations like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia that won’t get on with the agenda of the Jew World Order? If South Koreans eat dogs out of vanity, North Koreans are eating them(if they can find any) to survive. Surely, it makes little sense to mock a people for eating dogs out of hunger. Even white people were reduced to cannibalism in extreme crises such as the Great Famine in Ukraine(or the Donner Party that sort of became a Dinner Party). Has Leno ever used jokes to remind Americans of ongoing Occupation of Palestine by Zionists? Has he cracked a joke in the past 30 yrs about how out-of-control fecal penetration among homos led to the horrible AIDS crisis in the ‘gay’ community, killing off so many fruiters? Of course not. Now, if he’d done all that and then made jokes about Asians-eating-dogs, he would deserve praise as a truly edgy and courageous comedian. But he’s been a corporate clown for most of his career, and he’s never uttered a word that defied the powers-that-be that control Hollywood, TV, and mass media, the Jews of course. So, coming from Leno, the jokes about Asians-eating-dogs do seem craven and cowardly than courageous and conscientious. Unable and unwilling to throw stones at those who hurl back bigger stones, he goes for easy targets as the Asian community in the US is, as yet, too mute and meek to raise much of a fuss... though things may be changing, especially in California where every group now competes for victim-sweepstakes.


Personally, I want to hear jokes about ALL groups. One of the great things about Free Speech is the means to use humor in a sardonic and mocking way to subvert the power or expose the lunacy. Granted, comedians can get high on their own supply and become crazy themselves, i.e. wallowing in the culture of ridicule for its own sake. So many comedians have burned out, destroyed themselves, and even died indulging in mockery for mockery’s sake, a comedy turned into mindless sado-masochism. Consider John Belushi and Sam Kinison. Both were funny but ended up like pigs eating their own shit. David Chappelle faces the same danger. He is more courageous than most, especially in calling out on the BS of Jussie Smollett, but so much of his antics are grotesqueries, the only purpose of which is outrage.

Sadly, far more free speech in the West has been wasted on obscenity, outrage, infantilism, and ‘extreme’ expression than on sharp and pointed critique of the Real Power. The sheer volume of outrageous-ness has created the impression of lively culture of free speech, but the opposite is true. If someone is oppressing you, and you dare not call him out and instead say outrageous things about private parts or sexual perversion, sure, it might seem as though you’re a free spirit and acting exactly as you wish. But would such hyperbolic behavior really be a sign of freedom-as-health or freedom-as-fraud? Could it be you’re indulging in aimless libertine-ism precisely because you’re afraid to use your freedom to speak truth to the power over you? In a way, it’d be no better than a man who is meek before his boss at the office but then goes home to act wild, get drunk, kick the dog, and beat up the kids. He acts so desperately free at home because he dares not use his freedom to confront his problematic boss. So much freedom in the West is of the same degree. Jews tolerate and even encourage Outrageous Behavior to create the impression of unfettered freedom. Jews don’t mind idiot goyim imitating the antics of Adam Sandler or indulging in porny behavior. Such apparent permissiveness makes the populace feel that they’re free to do just about anything. Same goes for current Japan. Though it’s had a sham-one-party-democracy since its inception following the defeat in World War II, there is the impression of 'liberal' freedom because Japan is the land of lunatic pop culture and pornography. But if the Japanese had used their freedom in a truly intelligent and pointed manner, they could be living under a system that is something more than a whore-geisha of the US empire. But as long as Japanese carry on with their combo of anime and pornography, so many will go on being fooled, inside and outside Japan, that the Japanese must be one of the freest people on earth since they got animated tentacle-porn.

For Jewish Power, humor is a useful instrument to make people forget the world and lose themselves in stupid laughter. And indeed, Late Night Comedy shows have served that very purpose for the American Masses who were lulled into la-la-land of stupid jokes and laughter before sleep. That was pretty much what Johnny Carson served up to the American people, and much the same goes for most TV shows around the world. David Letterman, being more cynical and edgy, leaned more towards satire and on occasion even touched base with certain underground elements of American life, but his show too was mostly about glibness and attitude. Obviously, most Americans wanted escapism, and the corporate entities weren’t going to hire someone to be truly bold and daring. If of late, certain Late Night comedians have been more engaged politically, it has less to do with individual conscience than corporate interest as the likes of Jimmy Kimmel and the Jewish executives of media companies are on the same page when it comes to their class or tribal prerogatives. After all, if a Late Night comedy host decided to condemn Neocons, Wars for Israel, Zionist Occupation of West Bank, black crime, and etc., how much longer would his career last? Kimmel and the rest of them are allowed to spew their bile against Donald Trump and the Americans who voted for him precisely because they are carrying water for the Globo-Homo-Shlomo elites. As such, they are court-clowns than satirists or moral critics. When Obama was destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, why were these court-comics so silent? A true satirist and truth-teller will always be criticizing wherever he sees wrong; it won’t be a matter of "our side always good, other side always bad." A true satirist like George Orwell saw the fault in the Left as well as in the Right because, more often than not, he sought truth than merely an agenda.

Jimmy Kimmel who used Guillermo as a Mexican Steppin' Fetchit as the Moral Conscience of America. ROTFL.

Though Jews use comedy to shroud us in the fog of escapism, they also know it can turn against them because, after all, ANYTHING and ANYONE can be lampooned, mocked, subverted, and exposed through comedy. What Charlie Chaplin did to Adolf Hitler can be done to anyone. This is why Sam Hyde had to be canned by the Jew-run media. He was irreverent toward things that matter to Jewish supremacism. Some will say he was ridiculing the Holocaust, but his target was clearly the Schmolocaust, the shameless exploitation of the historical tragedy by Jews to use as moral cover for all the dirty things they do.

And the case of Sacha Baron Cohen should tell us all we need to know about the true nature of the Jew. Cohen has been a scummy Jew who used mockery and biting humor to expose all the nasty things about goyim, but when he realized that there are plenty of voices willing to mock powerful Jews and Jewish myths, he ran to the ADL and made common cause to shut down voices that dare to be irreverent toward Zionists and Jewish Supremacists. Such Jews want to monopolize satire like they do with nationalism. According to Jews, only their own Tribe is deserving of identity, territoriality, and national consciousness whereas all other peoples, lands, and cultures must be opened up for Diversity-mongering. And only Jews should be allowed to use humor to mock, ridicule, and deride other groups but other groups better just shut up and never retaliate with counter-humor against the Jews. If goyim are to laugh, it must only be with the approval of Jewish Hollywood and Jewish media. Censchwarzship in other words. So, ye goyim, rent out all those Sacha Baron Cohen movies and laugh like a retard at approved targets, but DO NOT dare to go the Sam Hyde way and mock that which is sacrosanct to the perpetuation of Jewish supremacist power.

Ideally, we need more comedians and satirists directing their wit, intelligence, and focus on things that really need to be exposed, mocked, and ridiculed. Given the sheer arrogance, paranoia, megalomania, hysteria, and near-psychosis of Jewish Power, I can’t think of a more worthy target of ridicule than JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. And indeed, the Alt Right was most effective in comic mode, that is before humorless Richard Spencer and others took over and turned it into a grubby neo-Nazi fest. Mike Enoch is an interesting figure in this regard. As the host of THE DAILY SHOAH, he seemed to be going from strength to strength, but then dropped his comic edge and very unironically went into Sieg Heil mode, making a fool of himself and the whole movement. A more disciplined and savvy Alt Right could have mounted a satirical campaign to ridicule and deconstruct Jewish Power, but that wasn’t in the cards once Spencer, the humorless Faustian-Pact-Man, settled for a revolution with a bunch of Daily-Stormers. Granted, DAILY STORMER is big on laughter but then even bigger on retardation as it undercuts its attack on Jewish Evil by defending the evil of Nazism.

At any rate, we can’t rely on court comedians on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or Late Night TV shows to use humor to expose the evil, madness, and hypocrisies of Jewish Supremacist Power. As all of mass media are controlled by Jews and hire only Jews, cucks, and opportunists, they will continue to dish out the kind of comedy valued by the Deep State and Jewish Power. No stinging satire against Jewish power, globo-homo, and black-on-white violence. And as long as the Jew-run West must meddle in the Middle East, it mustn’t give the impression that the West is anti-Islam or anti-Arab. So, there aren’t many jokes about Muslims anymore either, if only to give the impression OVER THERE that the West isn’t officially anti-Islam or anti-Arab even though its policies continue to spread more havoc in the region, all for the imperium of Zion. The unspoken rule is "Don’t punch down on Arabs/Muslims with comedy so that we can punch down on them literally."
On the matter of punching up or down, it’s generally a good rule to punch up than down with comedy. However, satire isn’t only about targeting the powerful but also exposing horror or injustice, and that can be found in any part of society. Is it less worthy of moral criticism if bears are tortured by poor Vietnamese or if dogs are forced to maul each in dog-fights other by poor ‘black trash’ or ‘white trash’? Should we not talk about people abusing their wives or children simply because they happen to be poor? No, while the Power should be the main focus of criticism/satire, evil can be found in all corners of the world and at all levels of society, and there is nothing wrong with calling out on evil.
One thing for sure, while people like Guy Aoki want to narrow the range of discourse(serious or comic), people like myself want to broaden it. Instead of creating 'more protected groups', we want more scrutiny for all groups, especially for those who are currently protected: Jews, blacks, and homos. That said, I can see where MANAA is coming from. If current PC is all about gaining special protection and special privileges based on victim-hood, and if Jews, blacks, and homos have gained so much power, authority, and/or influence on those very grounds, then why shouldn't other groups join in as well? Of course, if Asians and Muslims also gain protected-group-status, it will become more difficult for Jews to use Yellow Peril as distraction and Muslim-as-Terrorist-trope to keep the majority of Americans siding with Jews and Israel against the 'muzzies' and 'raggers'. It's all turning into a Fine Mess.