It would be nice to have centrism, but the only kind of centrism that works is macro-centrism, the Goldilocks Rule. But in an order where Jews control the gods and the money — they have both the sacred cows and piggy banks, the golden calf — , we can only have micro-centrism. But micro-centrism is pretty useless as it's centered on a very narrow Overton Window.
If we could be macro-centrist, we can choose the warm between very hot and very cold. Earth has life because it's positioned ideally from the Sun. It's not too close, it's not too far away. And in most human affairs, the macro-center is usually ideal. It's like we want something between totalitarian tyranny and anarcho-chaos. We don't want ultra-statism, but human nature isn't suited for total freedom either. People want something between slavery and savagery. Slavery ensures order but erases freedom. Savagery allows freedom, but it's law of the jungle. In a sane, sound, free, and rational order, most people will choose the center. They don't want the far right or the far left. They don't want a theocracy that burns heretics at the stake, but they don't want radical atheist tyranny where the religious are persecuted and sent to Gulag either. Most people want an order where people are free to believe or not to believe. Let the atheists not believe, and let the religious worship. Most people say no to both ultra-libertarianism and Leninism. Most people want something between pacifism and militarism. Pacifism is too weak and naive, and militarism is overly aggressive and addicted to war. Most people want national defense and a military that is powerful but also ethical.
For there to be macro-centrism, there must be no sacred cows. The only sacred cow that has proven historical worth is nationalism, but a centrist-nationalism at that, one that is neither imperialist nor isolationist. In an order defined by sacred cows, the range of options is severely limited. For instance, in a theocratic order, all must worship God, and heretics must be purged/persecuted. Thus, there can only be micro-centrism, one between ultra-theocracy and moderate-theocracy. But either way, the system is theocratic and repressive towards atheists and those who worship the 'wrong' gods(or belong to banned sects). This was true of the ideocracy of communism where everything and everyone had to be communist. One couldn't choose between extreme communism and extreme capitalism, thereby arriving at the macro-centrism of something like a social-democracy or mixed-economy. Communism was the law of the land, so only micro-centrism was possible, the one between ultra-communism and moderate-communism. But even moderate-communism, though not as murderous and tyrannical, supported the eradication of private property and enforced statist control over most things. It was like choosing between extreme-hot and very hot than between hot and cold. Or between icy cold and very cold. Micro-centrism is choice within an extreme order. It's the middle between very extreme and pretty extreme.
In regards to Jews, Homos, and Negroes, a macro-centrist position would be best. This would acknowledge Jews as a talented and special people in history but also a problematic one. With this centrist position, Jews would be given their due and allowed to be high-achievers. But especially because they're bound to accumulate more wealth and influence than other groups, they would come under close scrutiny and criticism. It would be a centrist position between demented Antisemitism that sees nothing good about Jews and/or blames Jews for everything AND retarded Philosemitism that sees nothing bad about Jews and/or blames goyim for whatever's wrong with Jews. Such macro-centrist position would reject both pathological Nazism and pathetic Pozzism. Nazism brought about hell-on-earth, but the current 'pozzed' cucky-wuckery is doing irreparable harm as unchecked Jewish Power is growing as cancerous as radical Teutonism unchecked.
But Macro-Centrist position on Jews is impossible in the US because Jews control the gods and made themselves sacred and worthy of worship(and even compulsory to worship). Thus, only a Micro-Centrist position is possible as the perspective on Jews is limited in range from totally gushing mouth-open worship to slightly critical respect & reverence. As Jews are sacred cows, it's heretical to express any view truly critical of Jews as a people, power, or culture. Thus, the range of discussion about Jews is from 110% pro-Jewish to 98% pro-Jewish. Thus, only micro-centrism is possible, which would be 104% pro-Jewish. Perversely enough, the most pro-Jewish voices tend to be from white 'conservatives' whereas the slightly critical voices are from white 'liberals', blacks, and Jews themselves. This seems rather odd considering that Jewish Power is most hostile to American Conservatism, but it makes sense given Jews are like the gods. If Jews are indeed divine and godly, then those disfavored by them must go the extra-mile to prove their worth at the feet of Jews. It's like a slave rebuked by the master will make an extra effort to win back approval. Dogs are the same way. The dog that is punished by the master will try harder to earn affection and prove it's a GOOD dog.
If Jews didn't control gods and weren't sacred cows, White Conservatives would have a sounder approach toward them. Jewish Power would be handled rationally. If Jews are anti-white, then whites shouldn't support Jews or Jewish causes. If Jews want white support, whites would negotiate for Jewish support for white interests. A free man bargains with a free man. Man makes counter-demands on Man: "I scratch your back, you scratch my back." It's give-and-take, not take-and-take. That's how a free and independent man deals with another free and independent man. But, a slave isn't allowed to bargain with his master. The master commands, the slave obeys. The current Jewish-White relations resemble that of master-and-slave than man-and-man. Actually, it's worse. After all, a slave can be soul-free even if body-bound. A soul-free slave serves the master in body but not in spirit. He sees the master for what he is: a tyrant. He obeys but doesn't respect, let alone worship, the master. In contrast, worship is about soul-slavery. Man doesn't merely obey God or gods but worships Him or them. Even when God or gods seem unjust, He or they must be revered because He or they are divine and far above man. When Solzhenitsyn was a slave in the Gulag, he was soul-free. The state controlled his body, but his spirit was his own. And this could be said of many who toiled in Nazi captivity. Body-slaves but not soul-slaves. But what we now have in the US is truly sick and dangerous. Whites are soul-slaves of Jews, and as Jews control the gods and demand that all goyim worship whatever Jews favor, whites have also become soul-slaves of homos and Negroes. Whites now fly 'gay' flags in churches and wash the stinky feet of cackling lip-smacking blacks. When blacks attack whites, whites no longer react with righteous rage but tell themselves that they've been justly punished. Negrovah(or negro-jehovah) has the right to smite thee!
A sane macro-centrist position is possible for blacks and homos. In regards to blacks, one can choose the middle road between cursing them as wildass savage looney-bin bunners who should be chained and made to pick cotton AND worshiping them as awesome magical black christs who suffered nobly and deserve worship for their prowess with song-and-dong. One can acknowledge the tragic history of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the contributions to America by black labor and creativity. But at the same time, one could argue all of history has been tragic — how many Germanic barbarians were killed by Roman legions, how many Persians perished at the hands of Mongols, how many Poles died in World War II, etc? — and black suffering was hardly unique.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact of racial oppression and discrimination in US history, it must be said the current black problems owe more to evolution than history. Does anyone really believe US would have the same racial problems if it had enslaved South American brown natives or Chinese to pick cotton? Them folks are physically smaller and weaker than whites; they are not naturally aggressive like blacks. In a sane and rational order, a macro-centrist position on blacks would reject both the idea that black savages should be enslaved and the idea that blacks had a uniquely tragic history and are worthy of worship because they can bellow louder, dunk the ball better, and go wild with buns/dongs. (One wonders about the state of American Culture when it proudly promotes 'twerking', a black bun-dong dance, as a signature achievement, and one wonders about the world that readily welcomes such a thing.) Macro-centrism on blacks would place responsibility on both whites and blacks to improve matters. Whites should know the history of slavery & racial discrimination and show some sensitivity in that regard. And blacks would admit that their American experience was as elevating as well as degrading. Sure, they were called 'ni**er' and made to pick cotton, but they also went from savagery in the Dark Continent to considerable cultural advancement under whites. Indeed, even black moral denunciation of white moral failures is premised on Western Morality that concluded slavery to be not only wrong but evil. Blacks bitch about reparations, but compare blacks in America to blacks who remained in Africa. Even if blacks got less than whites in America, they got much more than blacks in Africa got on their own.
Also, if whites must try to be fair with blacks, blacks must also realize that non-blacks have good reasons to fear blacks. Indeed, their reasons aren't much different from black reasons for fearing other blacks. Blacks know fellow blacks commit the most crime and cause the most trouble. So, if blacks feel this way about other blacks, why wouldn't non-blacks feel the same way(especially as they're physically weaker than blacks)?
But such macro-centrism isn't forbidden because blacks are sacred cows. Thus, the only range of discussion regarding blacks is between Magic Negro Worship(whereby even a lowlife moron like George Floyd is consecrated as a saint) and "We Conservatives LOVE blacks, and Democrats are the real racists." So, even as blacks, with the encouragement of Democrats, were burning down cities and wreaking havoc, there was the pathetic Donald Trump singing paeans to George Floyd the black angel. Or, Conservatism Inc. was pretending that the main instigators of violence were Antifa or Communists. And when BLM riots got too crazy even for Democrats, there was talk that, gee, maybe it was Russia that was fueling the violence. With Negroes as sacred-cows, only micro-centrism is allowed, i.e. seeking a middle path between seeing blacks as awesome dudes and seeing blacks as just the most wonderful folks. It's between blacks-as-gods and blacks-as-angels. So, what about the reality of blacks acting like thugs, louts, and lunatics? As blacks must be regarded as gods or angels, their violence must either be ignored('teens' or 'youths' did it) or morally justified as righteous punishment upon a 'systemically racist' and 'white supremacist' nation. Man argues with Man, and Man negotiates with Man, but Man cannot argue or negotiate with God or gods. Before the gods, man must grovel, plead, and make offerings of appeasement. There aren't enough blacks in America to conquer-and-bonquer White America, so why are whites acting this way? It's because they've been made into soul-slaves of blacks under Jewish Rule. Jews control the gods, and they used the media/academia to sanctify blacks into angels/gods. The result is so many whites sucking up to blacks. MLK is now bigger than god and jesus. It's like the only choice is between extremely hot and very hot. There is no warm middle between the hot and cold views of blacks. Imagine someone who insists we must judge him as anything between awesome and great. With 'awesome' and 'great' as the two opposites, what would be the middle, the (micro)centrist position? Very great or Almost awesome. What about him being bad, dirty, lowdown, lousy, and vile? Forget about it!
Same goes for Homos. The macro-centrist view of homo is surely ideal. It would be between seeing homos as a bunch of totally dangerous & demented degenerates who should be stoned to death like the Good Book says AND celebrating & revering them as angels-on-earth radiating with holiness & wisdom(because, of course, sodomy, aka homo-fecal-penetration, is oh-so-wonderful and tranny-penis-cutting-and-vagina-mutilation is so very edifying). In truth, homosexuality exists in nature. Some people are born that way, and it's not a matter of mental illness that can be 'cured'. So, the sensible thing is to let homos be homo and do their own thing. But, at the same time, let's not pretend 'homosexuality' has EQUAL worth with real sexuality. A dong up the bung is not real sex and never created a single life. Also, if homos are so sure their form of 'sexuality' has equal value, then let them create their own children via homo-fecal-penetration or lesbian-poon-grinding. (But then, we are way past pretending homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. We must pretend it is higher and superior, even holy and 'spiritually' uplifting. Your average proglodyte is more likely to find personal 'meaning' in praising the homo than by praying to God.) Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon but a natural abnormality, like dwarfism and Mongoloidism(aka Down's Syndrome). Nature, like everything else, is often defective. It's like some kids are born deaf or blind. But we don't celebrate such things. So, why did we end up celebrating homosexuality? One reason is the obsession with power and success. Homos have certain traits that drive them to achieve more on average, especially in fingerish fields such as fashion and nimble creativity. Homos also tend to be more vain, and this fuels their ambition and drive. The other reason is Jewish Power that has decided to use the World Gayry as agents of World Jewry. (Homo advantages are understandable. Deficiencies in nature often lead to advantages in other areas. Blind people develop more acute sense of hearing and smell.)
Now, we can give homosexuality its due as many of the great artists and achievers in history have been homo. There's no reason to go around shouting 'God Hates F*gs'. But whatever advantages homos may possess and whatever civilization may owe to homosexuality, there's no getting around the fact that homosexuality, especially among the man, is gross and sickly. A male reproductive organ up the fecal organ? Dong meets Dung? And it makes no biological sense, especially considering sexuality is about reproduction? Homos may have an edge in creativity, but it's not the same thing as creation. It's like no painting of a flower or sunset, however well done, can match the real thing, which was created by the cosmos or by God(for those who believe).
So, we can arrive at a sensible macro-centrist position on homosexuality. But under Jewish Rule, homos are holy, another bunch of sacred cows. It's gotten so that we can't even blame the AIDS disaster on homo behavior. (How can we when we are told everything associated with homos is so wonderful? Out-of-control homo behavior lead to disease and death? What are you, a 'homophobe'?) In the past, especially prior to the boomer takeover of power, the US had a sane position on homosexuality. Most Americans came to accept the real science on homos. They were no longer seen as Sodomites fit for stoning or mentally-ill people scarred by childhood trauma(based on Freudian theory) but as people who just happen to be born tooty-ish with weird 'sexual' leanings. Most Americans came to accept this and were willing to let homos be homos, and leave it at that. But as Jewish Power became ascendant in the US, Jews pushed for political rhyming between Jewish Power and Homo Power. Filled with megalomania, Jews weren't satisfied with Macro-Centrism that saw Jews as humans than as devils or gods. Jews insisted on being seen as gods, and to buttress the conceit of the special-minority-elite as sacred cows, they chose homos as their partners-in-crime. So, just as it became increasingly difficult to speak frankly about Jews and their power, the same happened with homos. We could no longer regard homos as a people(with flaws) between the extremes of 'sodomites'(fit for stoning) and heavenly angels shimmering with 'rainbow' colors. No, homos had to be seen only as the latter. So, instead of a middle position between mindless anti-homo nuttery and mindless pro-homo nuttery, the permitted range of discussion became Democratic Party's ecstatic celebration of all-things-homo and GOP's craven & sullen silence & utter lack of opposition to the homo agenda. In time, the homo-thing became such a sacred cow in America that even the GOP began to jump on the bandwagon and argue 'gay marriage' is a 'conservative value' or a creature like 'Lady Maga' is glorious to behold. Today, the micro-centrism on homo-and-tranny matters is between 'homos are godly' and 'homos are great'. Even feminists are so cowed by the transcendental trannies that, at most, they plead rather pathetically, "Pretty please, no trannies in women's sports." They don't dare to argue that trannies are NOT women.
It would be nice if everyone can come down to ground and be human again in America. That way, Americans-as-humans, whites-as-humans, and conservatives-as-humans can argue, negotiate, and compromise with Jews-as-humans, blacks-as-humans, and homos-as-humans. But Jews, blacks, and homos insist on being gods, thereby not to be judged like other groups. In truth, man is half-devil, half-saint. He is half-animal, half-angel. He is good and bad. This is true of all groups, though racial variances manifest their goodness and badness in different ways.
If Jews, blacks, and homos were regarded as human like the rest of us, they'd have the angelic side but also the demonic side. They can be good, they can be evil. It is extreme to see them as all-evil or all-good. So, the sane position is to see them as capable of both good and evil, as are all peoples. Germans and Aztecs could commit mass-murder, but then so could Jews and blacks(like the Zulus and Hutus). Seeing a people as all-evil is dangerous and can lead to attempted mass-murder of them. But seeing a people as all-good is also dangerous as one would naively lower one's guard against their potential evil. Why are dogs so defenseless when their masters decide to eat them in Asia? To the very end, dogs look up to humans as good decent rightful masters, just like Winston Smith died in 1984 loving Big Brother. Dogs emotionally trust humans as wise and good. White people in the US are now like dogs. Jews openly celebrate the Great Replacement of white people, but white people are also told in no uncertain terms that it is 'antisemitic', 'paranoid', and evil to suspect Jews are capable of such a thing. And most whites just go along like good little doggies. It's like a Chinese man loudly preparing to make dog soup while the dog looks up at him with love and trust.
How did Jewish Power become so evil? Because macro-centrist view of them has been forbidden. We can't consider or see the evil side of Jews. We must only see the good side. It'd be like seeing only the good side of Germans and never regarding their dark side. Such fuels megalomania, an ethnic diva mentality.
Worse, if Jews must be seen as only good, it leads to the tendency to look upon certain others as only bad, and this is happening with 'whiteness'. It is taboo in America to see the dark, evil, and wicked side of Jewishness but then equally taboo to see the good, noble, and decent side of whiteness. The very act of praising or admiring whiteness is now deeply suspect in America and the West. FBI is called to investigate signs that say "It's Okay to be White." If Jews are god than man, then whites must be the devil than man. In truth, both Jews and whites are Man, with both devilish and divine natures. But with Jews choosing to hog all the goodness, they must push all the badness onto whites. Thus, even Jewish evil becomes labeled as 'white'. So, never mind all the power, wealth, and privilege that Jews got. That ain't 'Jewish Privilege' but 'WHITE Privilege'. And the same logic applies to black badness. When blacks act vile and do terrible things, just blame it on whites. No matter how badly blacks act, just pretend whiteness somehow made them do it. Blacks loot and burn a city? History of 'white supremacism' drove blacks to desperation(to steal high-priced gym shoes). Blacks attacking people in the streets? Don't blame blacks as they're holy. Blame whiteness instead. So, when blacks attack Asians in the US, what do Asians do? They march against 'white nationalism'. But then, what do whites do when Jews defame and demean them? They blame China because Asians, unlike Jews-blacks-and-homos, are still in the category of Man, and that means they can be bad as well as good... though there is a tendency among Conservatives to vilify China and Iran as the source of all evil because, having been made into the White Devil by the Jewish gods, they seek to regain their humanity by demonizing another people. Of course, they can't do a tit-for-tat with Jews — Jews demonize whites, whites demonize Jews — because they've accepted the premise that Jews are gods. So, when robbed of their humanity by Jewish gods, they seek to regain their humanity(and approval of the Jewish gods) by pointing their fingers at the 'real enemy'. After all, if China or Iran is the Real Satan, then maybe whites aren't so bad after all and even qualify as human than remain the devil. It's all so pathetic.
As long as Jews control the gods, nothing good can come of America.
P.S.
Democratic Party is an openly anti-white party, and white people in it are expected to join in on the anti-white rhetoric and policies. Only whites who attack whites are welcomed into the party. Democratic Party is totally controlled by Jews.
If those are the terms by which one major party operates in the US, then the other major party should do likewise but against Jews. It must be openly anti-Jewish, and Jews in it should be expected to join in on the anti-Jewish rhetoric and policies. Only Jews who attack Jews should be welcomed into the party.
Then, things would be more fair. Anti-White party with self-loathing whites versus Anti-Jewish party with self-critical Jews.
But currently, there is the Jewish-controlled Democratic Party that demonizes whites and there is the Republican Party that never defends whites but praises Jews to high heaven.
Furthermore, would most Republican voters support a GOP that is openly anti-Jewish in the way that most Democratic voters support a Democratic Party is openly anti-white? No, because most Republican voters are also under the spell of Jews who control the gods that say Jews are holy and whites are unholy. Jews fixed it so that, in minds of both progs and conzos, Jews are divine whereas whites are demonic. So, even the GOP praises Jews and feels reluctant to even half-way defend whites.
Two great sins in current America are OFFENDING JEWS and DEFENDING WHITES. Offending Jews is akin to offending the gods, and Defending Whites is akin to defending the devils. Jews fixed it so that Whiteness = Nazism.
Wherever goyim turns, it's about relying on Jews for prophetic power.
Still, direct Jewish control is worse than self-control with Jewish-derived ideas. After all, despite its origin, the goyim fashioned Christianity in their own way. Same with communism. Even though key Marxists were Jewish, it became bigger than Jewish Power. But then, both Christianity and Marxism were conceived to be universalist despite their ethno-Jewish origins. In that, they were different from Judaism.
Holocaustianity is a hybrid creature. It is at once totally tribalist — "We Jews suffered more than any other people" and "We Jews must never forget" — and totally universalist — "All the world must recognize Jews suffered the most" and "All the world must repent for not having prevented the Holocaust". If Judaism is Jewish-centered, Holocaustianity is Judeo-centric. Judaism is indifference to goyim, whereas Holocaustianity is goy deference to Jews. Judaism is about Jews reminding themselves of what they are; Holocaustianity is about Jews reminding goyim of what they must be: Servants and dogs to Jewish masters as the new christs.
Even though white goyim have long relied on Jewish-originated ideas, there is a huge difference between appropriating foreign ways & ideas and succumbing to direct foreign domination. After all, white goyim found ways to use Christianity against Jewish Power. And many peoples used communism as a tool of national independence against foreign imperialism. Jews are no strangers to adopting foreign ideas and ways. Jews have adopted lots of goy ideas from various non-Jewish Semitic tribes, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Northern Europeans, and etc. But Jews used those ideas in their own way for their self-aggrandizement. Jews made the foreign 'Jewish'.
Because Christianity and Communism were designed to be universalist at the core, goyim could use them in their own way, not least against Jews. Christians could look upon Jews as Christ-Killers. Communists could denounce Jews as capitalists or Zionists. But, advantage for goyim is impossible with Holocaustianity as its core theme is Jewish sanctity and goy complicity in the murder of Jews-as-the-divine-race. It's no wonder Jews push Holocaustianity as the top god around the world. No wonder the Holocaust Movie has become a genre. Given how movies shape people's sense of history and morality, many people are now introduced to the histories of various European nations through Holocaust narratives: The French collaborated with the Nazis, Hungarians joined with the Nazis, Poles didn't do enough to save Jews, etc.
Jewish takeover of the US has been the biggest event in the last 50 yrs, indeed bigger than the end of the Cold War and fall of the USSR. American Empire went from Anglo-American rule to Jewish-globalist rule. That is one of the biggest revolutions in world history, but it was silently pulled off, like euthanasia, and so few noticed. And as white figureheads are propped up as puppets, many still believe that the US is ruled by whites, even characterized by 'white supremacism'. But white leaders today are hardly different from Puyi, the puppet emperor of Manchuria whose strings were pulled by the Japanese. White Power is in the 'last emperor' stage in the US, unless white folks begin to produce their own Sun Yat-Sen and Mao Zedong. White politicians today might as well be called 'puyis'. A suitable metaphor for the current bunch of white puppets and their eunuch cucks.
But things have gotten far worse as the US is the metropole for all the world. Goy cuckery isn't limited to whites in the West. When Anglo-America ruled, despite all its lies and betrayals, the main political theme was Self-Determination. Even America's first overseas imperialist forays against the Spanish Empire was premised on the notion of liberating peoples from imperialist hegemony: Freedom-loving Americans liberating the Cubans and Filipinos from Spanish Tyranny.
Of course, US had its own imperial designs(made more palatable with its 'democratic' ideals and material largesse). With Woodrow Wilson following World War I, the American Ideal of Self-Determination became minted for all the world. In a way, it made sense as the US came into being by fighting for independence from the British Empire. For the first one hundred years of its existence, the main theme of America was to develop independent of foreign interference and meddling. It was to determine its own history and destiny. And yet, the US also had imperial ambitions(ironically modeled on British Imperialism, though minus the open racial arrogance and class snobbery). Thus, the ideal of Self-Determination was a double-edged sword. It was an ideal for all the world inspired by America's own independent course of development, but it was also a rationale to invade and meddle in other parts of the world: Empire of freedom vs Empire of tyranny. US used the rhetoric against European & Japanese Imperialisms and then against Soviet Imperialism.
Still, the ideal of Self-Determination under Anglo-American rule meant that the US recognized the right of any nation to preserve its borders, heritage, culture, people, and history. US under Anglo-American rule didn't demand that Europe merge with the Middle East and Africa. US under Anglo-American rule didn't say Japan should welcome 'diversity'. After WWII, Germany still had blood-based citizenship, and Anglo-America didn't object.
Things began to change drastically in the American Way as Jewish Power took over. Jews not only took over key institutions and industries but colonized the weaker minds of whites who became cucky-wucked to Jewish biases and demands.
Thus, the American Way went from the Principle of Self-Determination to the Prognosis of Self-Extermination. And because the US sets the template for the world, any people/culture that comes under the Neo-Americanist(or Judeo-Americanist) umbrellas also insanely ends up adopting Self-Extermination as panacea and salvation.
Now, why is Self-Extermination so effective a tool for Jewish Power? Because of the element of 'self'. It's easier to bring about suicide or euthanasia than homicide/murder. Whatever one thinks of suicide or assisted-euthanasia, it's about one's own free will. It's not forced onto the person. In contrast, homicide is about use of force to destroy a life. Even a suicidal person will resist homicide. Even in his depression, he doesn't want to be murdered and will fight back a murderer. Even if he wants to die, it is by his own free will, his own decision.
Jewish Hegemonism understood this aspect of political psychology. Old Imperialism was like assault or murder. A foreign power with superiority in arms & technology invaded and killed a lot of people. It maintained order through threat of ruthless violence: "If you disobey and resist our authority, we will wipe out the whole lot of you." Or maybe the imperialists will kill your people just for the hell of it. For fun. So, naturally, native folks resisted this kind of imperialism. Resistance was about self-defense and self-determination. (To be sure, it was more complicated, especially with Western Imperialism, as the invading or colonizing power could bring many benefits that made life easier and even boosted the native population. Still, old imperialism meant brutal domination by foreign power and lack of native sovereignty.)
Generally speaking, if the invading/imperialist forces try to exterminate the native folks(or at least terminate native independence and sovereignty), they will be met with with resistance fueled by fear, resentment, and hatred. And this is why Old Imperialism came to an end in all parts of the world. There was too much hostility and resistance to it.
Then, how do you take over other peoples? How do you exterminate them as a people or, at the very least, terminate their national independence & sovereignty? You push for SELF-extermination or at least SELF-termination. Since the natives will resist and fight back against military invasion and outward displays of force, they must be mentally colonized and manipulated into adopting ideas and values that lead to national demise, termination of sovereignty, and even extermination of the race. But, the zinger is the natives will accept such fate because they believe it's a matter of self-made decision, i.e. foreign powers didn't force it on them but they freely chose it on their own.
But did they really? Could it be that their elites were trained by suicidal whites who'd fallen under the spell of Jewish Power? Jews urge whites to commit racial-national suicide(and drink the Kool-Aid like the kooks at the Jim Jones Cult Ranch), and whites proselytize their self-extinction as the template for the rest of the goy world. But neither whites nor other goyim remain clueless as to what's really happening. They think it's fine and well since they are FREELY CHOOSING such a path as not only politically & economically expedient but morally necessary. The 'woke' coding embedded in their minds convince them that they are free 'democratic' peoples making their own decisions and choosing their own fates when, in truth, they're under the spell of Jewish Hegemonists who seek to subvert, weaken, and undermine any Goy Domain so that Jews can gain greater control over it. The formula for goyim is D.I.E, or diversity-inclusion-equity, but of course, it never applies to Israel and Jewish Power. Israel can have replenishment immigration as opposed to replacement immigration that Jews push on goy nations. And there can never be TOO MANY JEWS or anything called JEWISH PRIVILEGE as Jews are deserving of all their wealth and power in industries and institutions. 'Equity' is for little people, especially in deference to blacks as favored allies of Jews.
From an Anglo-American-controlled US that once preached Self-Determination to all nations to a Jewish-American-controlled US that proposes Self-Extermination to the goy world. And people are blind to what's going on because it's packaged as a matter of SELF-decision. Jews manipulate goyim like adults with children. Adults know that kids will cry and throw tantrums if forced to do something they don't like. So, smart adults use the passive/aggressive approach. They approach the children with smiling faces and play on their emotions and then apply pressure to do as suggested. Children, having bonded with the adults and even made to feel sorry for them, tend to go along. How could they dare to disappoint the adults who came to them with such smiley faces and gentle pleading? Thus, adults are able to make the kids believe they themselves freely want what the adults want of them. It's the difference between forcing them to eat spinach and making them think they want to eat spinach, not least to please the smiley-faced adults who would be so boo-hoo-hoo sad if the children didn't go along. At least spinach is good for kids. What the Jewish 'adults' are pushing on goy 'children' is like cyanide. It's like the scene in DOWNFALL where Josef Goebbels' wife convinces the kids to drink 'medicine' which is really poison.
When will goyim wake up? When a people welcome 'self-extermination', is it really matter of selfhood? What kind of free people with sense would welcome such a thing? And if Jews push such on UK, France, Germany, Japan, and etc. and believe it's such a good thing, why don't they push it on Israel? True self-hood is about self-preservation, not self-extinction. A people whose idea of self-determination leads to self-extermination aren't truly self-determined because no people with true identity, culture, and heritage would invite such a thing. Their minds have been colonized by foreign toxins that fool them into believing that suicide is hope.
Director Tony Kaye’s anti-skinhead morality tale American History X (1998) is proof that propaganda is far from an exact science. Just as Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket caused a surge in Marine recruitment, American History X actually increases audience sympathies with neo-Nazi skinheads, despite its best efforts to present them as hateful hypocrites and losers.
Art or entertainment takes on a life of its own. Especially in cinema, the visceral elements often override the cautionary tale. This is no less true of art as of propaganda. Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS is a work of art, so revealing about the world of Italian-American hoodlums, but the riveting style and wall-to-wall music make it a thrilling experience. Tommy(Joe Pesci), though clearly a loathsome psychopath, is colorful and entertaining. Even as we reject Henry Hill's worldview about 'wiseguys' who live it up and the suckers who work 9 to 5, we can't help reveling in the sheer audacity of the criminal world. John Boorman critiqued this aspect of the film and made a corrective with b/w THE GENERAL that features relatively dour Irish goons. Art can make the 'bad guys' sympathetic or even 'cool'. Entertainment even more so. Audiences LOVED to hate the Terminator(a 'bad boy' as a well as a bad guy), who was made into the 'good guy' in the sequel. Hannibal Lecter the sociopathic killer is admired for his taste & class(unlike the crude and gross 'Buffalo Bill') and superhuman brilliance(which makes him to humans what humans are to sheep).
DOWNFALL is a work of art, and it features the Nazis facing doom as all-too-human characters not without qualities of honor and courage.
The audience has a dual attitude toward the Bad Guys. On the one hand, the audience roots for the Good against the Bad. The Good represent the viewers' superego. And yet, they are fascinated by the Bad because it represents their Id, their repressed darker nature. So, fiction narratives serve as a kind of psycho-therapy where the audience is allowed to indulge in their dark fantasies(via the bad guys) but have them snuffed out by the forces of light(the good guys). Have the cake and eat it too. Alfred Hitchcock understood this aspect of art/entertainment, especially in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the villain is detestable but also irresistible in his unrestrained egotism. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants.
It poses a question as to the true nature of the Good. Is it an innate glow within every soul allowed to radiate or simply a matter of repressing the darkness in every heart? Some believe men are innately good but corrupted by society, whereas others believe men are innately bad(or beastly or animal) and, therefore, what we call 'goodness' is really a matter of repressing and regulating the worse devils of our nature — keeping the birds in the cage because, otherwise, the scenario in Hitchcock's THE BIRDS. Judaism and Christianity say man is tainted with the Original Sin, and goodness is a constant struggle in devotion to the Torah(Judaism) or acceptance of Jesus as the final arbiter and savior.
At any rate, it's misguided to see AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda. It's better to see it as failed art. If Tony Kaye simply wanted to make a piece of propaganda, he could have gone the route of Alan Parker with MISSISSIPPI BURNING or made something like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES where blacks are aglow with sanctity whereas Southern Whites are mostly semi-neanderthal rednecks. So easy to do. Or, consider all those anti-Muslim movies where Arabs are little more than screaming terrorists who blow things up along with themselves. Making a propaganda about the evils of skinheads would have been the easiest project, especially as even most members of the White Right consider skinheads to be demented morons. (Are skinheads even around any more?) Tony Kaye certainly fancied himself as something more than an entertainer or propagandist. He wanted to rise above the business of advertising(that made his name) and be renowned as an ARTIST, and art has to seek and reveal the truth. Art is simply more demanding than entertainment or propaganda.
Entertainment is usually about sticking to the tried-and-true formula that pleases the audience. Propaganda is about pushing a certain dogma, agenda, or worldview regardless of truth. It's more about faith or interests. Catholic Church pushes pro-Catholic propaganda, corporations push advertising(commercial propaganda) to make profits(though, of late, the PC 'woke' types use ads to push the idolatry of globo-homo and ideology of diversity regardless of their commercial value). In contrast, art calls for an inner struggle. It's like there are two meanings to Jihad. One is a physical war against the infidel. It is Islam as war propaganda. But there is another meaning, a wrestling with one's own soul and conscience to arrive at the higher/deeper truth. A writer or filmmaker working as propagandist merely needs to push his favored agenda/ideology or that of his employer. He's either an activist or hired hand. His main objective is to win the game than to know the truth.
So, if Tony Kaye merely wanted to make a piece of anti-white propaganda, it would have been easy. But Kaye most certainly wanted to work in the mode of an artist, and this pushed him to probe deeper and look further; he chose to consider angles he could easily have avoided as a mere propagandist. It's like Oliver Stone's egotism as an artist has fueled some remarkable works or, at least, remarkable moments. He was never an admirer of Richard Nixon, but he produced an empathetic portrait of the man that only an artist could have delivered. Stone has pro-black sympathies but was artist enough to show the ugly side of black behavior in PLATOON and especially in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY where the VA hospital run by blacks is a hell hole. He came to sympathize with the communists in the Vietnam War, but he showed how the Viet Cong could also be brutal and atrocious in HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Oliver Stone is perfectly capable of being a propagandist, as with the insane JFK, a work so over-the-top and contradictory — a paranoid fantasy made with Capraesque earnestness — that it amounted to little more than tabloid-cinema. Sometimes, Stone couldn't make up his mind whether he was an entertainer/sensationalist or artist/investigator. This was especially true of WALL STREET, supposedly a condemnation of Greed but, to any honest observer, a celebration of unfettered egotism. Who cares about Martin Sheen's wooden symbol of the Honest Working Man when Gordon Gekko steals the show from beginning to end? A work about financial fraud that comes closer to art is Scorsese's THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, though its over-the-top comical tone results in something closer to Animal House + Stock Market. Unlike GOODFELLAS that perfectly set the knob between the alluring and the appalling, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET mostly works as an amusement park for vice. (Also, it is dishonest in de-emphasizing the Jewish aspect of the gang of thieves, indeed far more egregious than the pimp not being black in TAXI DRIVER. It just goes to show, even those committed to art must tiptoe around certain matters in any given order with its sacred cows and taboos. It's been said many artistic-inclined Chinese film-makers chose to make works about the hinterland or non-Han ethnicities due to fewer taboos associated with such subjects. HORSE THIEF is a prime example.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is another film where the sheer visceral elements overwhelm the theme. For many viewers, Alex was more like a rock star than lowlife punk, and not surprisingly, Mick Jagger was considered for the role.
Now, the cult of the artist spans from conviction to conceit. Because the artist gets more respect than there mere entertainer or propagandist, many in the business strive to be one, if only for vanity-sake. There's more money in entertainment, but your average film-maker would rather be a Kubrick(or even a Tarantino) than a Michael Bay. Ambition says, it's all about the 'motherfuc*ing money', but vanity says it's about respect, and artists(or at least 'auteurs' like Hitchcock) own the veneration.
No wonder Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg aspired to make 'serious' works as well. Allen wanted to be more than a clown or comic. And for all his movie-making magic as entertainer, Spielberg wanted to be the next David Lean(though some would question Lean's credentials as an artist). But then, is the desire to be an artist a matter of virtue or a matter of vanity? Art comes naturally to some people. Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni were no fakers. Scorsese was born to be an artist. Even as a young man devoted to Catholicism, he wanted more than the official dogma. He had to find his own truth and meaning about God and goodness through through the Mean Streets of life. In contrast, Spielberg was a born entertainer. From a young age, he loved fantasy and escapism, and this accounts as to why even his serious works go only so far. Even when Spielberg dons adult glasses, his heart beats with the rhythms of a child. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are artful in their brutal depiction of history but almost childlike in their moralism and sentimentality. It's like watching MR. SCHINDLER GOES TO WASHINGTON and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS FIGHT THE NAZIS. The violence in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is powerfully authentic and infinitely more brutal than anything featured in the works of John Ford or Sam Fuller, but the emotions are from Norman Rockwell and the Muppet Movie.
There are some people with genuine artistic souls but have an allergy to honesty, or openness. David Mamet is such an artist. He is obsessed with Jewishness but worried about giving the game away with too candid an approach. David Cronenberg is in equal parts natural entertainer and natural artist, but his artistic side shares the same neurosis as Mamet's. He too is obsessively Jewish-centrist but worried that goyim might get the 'wrong idea' if he shows too much. And yet, they turned this limitation into an advantage. They ply their art as games in which the audience must actively participate. Thus, their films are more engaging and provocative. Also, there is plausible deniability as the truth is pieced together by the audience. Mamet and Cronenberg can say the audience came to such-and-such conclusion on their own. In a way, Mamet and Cronenberg are less dishonest than cryptic. Instead of telling lies, they play hide-and-seek, also true to a lesser extent with Stanley Kubrick, especially with THE SHINING. Indeed, one might argue that it is this very hide-and-seek game of clues-about-Jews that make their works more rewarding.
Then, there are fakers posing as artists, and Aaron Sorkin really takes the cake. He has talent, a knack for elevated hackwork. But Sorkin's 'art' is all surface and no substance. His talent is for dressing up propaganda with the look of 'truth', rather like those people who turn plastic into items on the menu. It looks like food but is for the eyes, not the stomach. SOCIAL NETWORK has the look of a serious work about Mark Zuckerberg but is nothing but an apologia for Jewish Power. MARGIN CALL and THE BIG SHORT are similarly phony baloney, 'serious' works for unserious people. Upon closer inspection, they are essentially Jews blaming everyone else for the mess in which they played a prominent role.
On the evidence of AMERICAN HISTORY X, Kaye doesn't seem the out-and-out faker like the Sorkins of the world. Sorkin is actually worse than a honest propagandist who, at the very least, doesn't hide what he's doing. Sorkin, a tribal propagandist in artist's clothing, is a real slimeball who doesn't even have the conceit of an artist. Sorkin operates like Neil Simon in pretense of being another Mamet. He's just a con-man. In contrast, Kaye, though clearly lacking the true conviction of an artist(like Scorsese, Shohei Imamura, Jan Troell, Emir Kusturica, etc.), at the minimum exhibited the conceit of an artist, and that conceit drags him to uncomfortable truths in AMERICAN HISTORY X. Glorifying himself as an artist than mere entertainer or propagandist, Kaye didn't want to fall back on tired PC cliches about 'racism' and skinheads. (Also, it was clever as self-promotion because an overly simplistic movie would have been less controversial, thus less a topic of discussion.) Kaye wanted to show that he at least tried to understand, even empathize. As an artist, he felt an obligation to see the world through eyes of those he loathes. After all, there is good in everyone, and the world isn't made up of angels and demons.
Furthermore, he might have felt that the film would be more convincing and moving if it showed a character struggling to break out of his comfort zone. After all, it's natural for a man in a desert to look for water. He wants to find an oasis. Derek(Edward Norton) feels at home with his skinhead neo-nazi crew. There is a sense of place, a sense of belonging. In a way, they are more his family than his mother is. And yet, Derek must rise above that to attain a higher grace. It's like the final segment of THE LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST. Jesus on the cross is in a hell of pain and suffering. An 'angel' arrives and offers him respite and relief. Jesus doesn't have to suffer and sacrifice himself for mankind that taunts and jeers at him. He can be a normal Jew with wife and family with a sense of belonging. And yet, at the end, Jesus rejects all that and seeks pain on the cross.
Likewise, for AMERICAN HISTORY X to make sense, one must consider its neo-spiritual element. It is a quasi-christian tale told by a Jew. Derek becomes like a christ-figure who must rise above family and race to stand for the higher truth. Now, why would a Jew do that? Was Kaye the Jew encouraging the deracinating aspect of Christianity on whites? Or, is there a hidden/repressed element within the Jew who dreams for the messiah that can bring an end to the tribal conflicts that have marked Jewish existence from the beginning.
In a way, the white vs black tensions in the L.A. of the film could be a reflection of the Jewish vs Arab/Palestinian conflicts in the Middle East. Many Jews, like neo-nazi skinheads, are totally tribal and territorial. They are Jewzis, and they see the world in terms of us-versus-them and take pride in that. But there is also a side of Jewishness that is deeply troubled by this seemingly never-ending conflict stemming from Jewishness's us-vs-them worldview. Despite all their wealth and power, Jews are outnumbered, and for how long can they carry on with these tribal wars and dirty tricks? On the one hand, Jews hate Jesus as the great traitor. But on the other hand, Jews can't help feeling that they missed the one great opportunity where Jews and Gentiles could have become one people through salvation offered by Jesus. (The second opportunity was with communism that sought to erase distinctions between Jews and gentiles, as among the classes, but in the end, capitalism won out, and rich Jews chose Zionism uber alles.) In a way, the neo-nazi skinheads in the movie represent the worst nightmare of the Jews, but in another way, they could be metaphors for Jews, the much vilified and hated minority. Indeed, Derek sounds more like a white Zionist than a white nazi at times.
Another thing. AMERICAN HISTORY X offered a convenient way for Jews to express their own angers and doubts about blacks. Because of the political/symbolic alliance between Jews and blacks, most Jews toned down their real feelings about black problems. But many Jews have known all along about the blacks. Howard Stern, the Id of the Jewish Community, spoke of how black thugs attacked Jews. From the 1960s to the early 90s, many Jews were victimized by black crime or just plain loutish behavior. Crown Heights mayhem was fresh in the memory of Jews when the movie was made. And the L.A. riots dampened the mood of the new decade. In the 90s, Al Sharpton was still strutting around and howling about 'diamond merchants', and Louis Farrakhan had his Million Man March. Also, many Jews felt blacks were ingrates, and of course, many blacks felt exploited by rich Jews.
But because of the political alliance, Jews couldn't express their anger about blacks as Jews. So, why not make a movie like AMERICAN HISTORY X that offers a no-holds-barred depiction of blacks as the thugs, louts, hoodlums, and punks that they be? But as the movie is about white skinheads vs blacks, these possibly 'racist' views would be white than Jewish even though Jews shared many of the same fears and loathing about blacks. It's like how Jews used Archie Bunker on ALL IN THE FAMLILY. On the one hand, Bunker was a simple-minded bigot, but then, he also said what was on the minds of older Jews in regards to the boomer generation and the 'shvartzes'. But since goy Bunker said it, Jewish prejudices were laundered as 'white goy' bigotry. This way, Jews could have the cake and eat it too. Air their very Jewish grievances but through goy figures who took the blame. Just like 'privatize the profits, socialize the losses', 'spew Jewish rage, blame goy hate'.
Another black figure who pissed off Jews in the 90s was Spike Lee. While many Jewish critics highly praised DO THE RIGHT THING, others were troubled by such an incendiary film set in a city that seemed to be on the edge. Though DTRT doesn't have Jews, it threatened New York(aka Jew York) with riots and mayhem in the name of black rage. (Black and Jewish relations reached a nadir with Mayor Ed Koch's brazen remarks about black criminals as 'animals'. And there was the matter of Bernie Goetz in the mid-80s and the Central Park assault-rape in 1989, the same year DTRT was released.) No wonder Hollywood went with DRIVING MISS DAISY than DTRT for the Oscars in 1989. Spike Lee didn't improve matters with Jews when he praised Louis Farrakhan and featured Jews as swindlers in MO' BETTER BLUES. In the early 90s, NY Jews had enough of blacks and went with Rudy Giuliani than David Dinkins, the first black mayor of NY.
Indeed, there was a reason why Jewish Power favored globo-homo over black interests over the years. Even the presidency of Obama proved a bigger (ba)boon for the 'gay' community. If anything, Jews cleverly used Obama to mute the black community. With a Negro as president, many blacks thought they were winning when all Obama ever did was bend over to Jews and homos and pushed for more mass immigration. At any rate, as long as Obama was the candidate, black vote was overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, and Jews need not worry. But many black voters stayed home in 2016, and furthermore, Donald Trump was gaining black vote with his anti-immigration-stance and his swagger as the 'first ni**a president'. It was out of this desperation that Jews in 2020 favored BLM over globo-homo to keep blacks reliably on the Democratic side. Another reason why Jews revived black identity politics was out of fear of white populism triggered by Trump and the internet. For Jews, 'America First' and its railings against 'globalism' were code words for 'white people need to break free of Jewish control', and so, Jews decided to ramp up hysteria about 'white supremacism' to suppress white identity and interests. And what better way to attack White Pride than by using the Negro Card because the Narrative have long featured blacks as saintly victims of slavery & Jim Crow and as the Idolatry-Industry have celebrated blacks as top athletes & rappers? But this is now, and things were different then, when AMERICAN HISTORY X was made, a time when many Jews were worried far more about blacks than about whites, most of whom seemed rather restive and apathetic.
Tony Kaye and Spike Lee have one thing in common. The vain desire to be acknowledged as artists(or at least personal 'auteurs'), but when push came to shove, it was more conceit than conviction. DO THE RIGHT THING, for example, has the look and feel of reality but is full of BS on many levels. One scene has every group badmouthing every other group, but in reality, despite all the differences and distrusts among diverse groups, the overwhelming racial tension in NY or any big city is white vs black, brown vs black, yellow vs black, Jewish vs black, Arabs vs black, Hindus vs black, and etc. Even Jews and Arabs get along more peacefully in NY than do Jews with blacks or Arabs with blacks.
As with AMERICAN HISTORY X's empathetic treatment of Derek and skinheads, DTRT shows the human side of the Italian-American pizzeria owner and his sons(though it seems calculated than curious). They are not portrayed as simpleminded goombas or knee-jerk 'racists' and have their own rationales. So, their seemingly jaundiced views aren't entirely without reason, and Lee does show just enough of stupid black behavior to justify the prejudice. But when push comes to shove, Lee is a black tribalist first-and-foremost and sides with Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem when they are clearly the instigators of all that goes wrong. Buggin' Out's complaint that the walls of the pizzeria have pictures of Italian-Americans but no blacks makes about as much sense as a white guy complaining that a black man's rib or chicken joint has pictures of famous black bluesmen and sports stars. And yet, Lee in his interview thinks Buggin' Out has a point, which goes to show the kermitty-the-frog-lookalike-mofo is a real idiot. Lee is no Martin Scorsese. Though Italian-American with a deep feeling for his heritage and community, Scorsese cuts no slack for his kind, nor does he round up the narrative with some pat 'message'. Tony Kaye and Spike Lee do understand what it means to an artist, but it never carries over from conceit to conviction. As such, even as so many gritty details in DTRH and AHX ring true, the over-arching narratives and messages are unconvincing.
Derek is highly intelligent and articulate. He is also a natural leader. With Cameron’s help, he builds up a serious and well-organized skinhead gang.
It's possible that an intelligent man of some talent could be drawn to a movement of such idiocy. People naturally gravitate toward community, and if the only white-conscious one happens to be extreme, what choice is there? Also, it's easy to tower over idiots, which makes Derek's natural leadership qualities even more compelling.
Still, more interesting would be a story about a white-conscious community that isn't extreme or deranged. It's like what Aldous Huxley said in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED: The satire in BRAVE NEW WORLD offered only two extremes, savage authenticity and bogus artificiality with nothing in between. Likewise, movies about white identity tend to offer only two possibilities: 'Anti-racism' and radical racism, as if there's nothing in between. But the example of David Duke shows how white people can overcome this. Duke joined the KKK and dabbled in Neo-Nazism as a young man because he found nothing white-and-proud out there, but he later formulated a new movement of white identity/interests that paved a course generally free of Neo-Nazis and the KKK. And the saner elements of the Alt Right also represented this path. There are also Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. And yet, in the popular imagination, if you aren't a self-loathing white 'gulliberal' who waves BLM and sucks up to Jews, you must be a 'white supremacist', a KKK, a neo-nazi! And AMERICAN HISTORY X, despite its somewhat humanizing portrait of skinheads, falls into the same trap. There is no in-between option, no rational course that balances white identity/interests with respect for other groups. Rather, white identity must be synonymous with racial extremism.
It's like serving a menu where the soup comes icy cold or boiling hot but never warm. Goldilocks option is denied to whites. Unless whites are total self-loathing maggots, aka 'gulliberals' or 'cuckservatives', they are total 'white supremacists'. Sadly, many on the Dissident Right have internalized this dynamics and feel they must go 14/88 to be authentic as proud white folks when, if anything, they've fallen into the Jewish Trap of either/or for whites.
Derek refers to Murray as a “Kabbala-reading motherfucker” and reveals a huge swastika tattoo which he says means “not welcome.”
I wonder if the scene was alluding to the dinner in THE HEARTBREAK KID where the Jewish guy talks about honesty of the cauliflower. It's a powerful scene, and the hurt in Elliott Gould's character is convincing enough. He could be a nice guy, but Derek, so consumed with a race-war worldview, can only see him as The Jew, the enemy. Chances are the man never read the Kabbalah and happens to be a milquetoast secular Jew. And yet, there's a certain truth to Derek's attitude as well. Even though he, his mother, and the Jewish guy all share in the generic Americanism, there is a vast gulf at the deeper level, especially because Jews do have roots whereas most whites don't. Derek seeks to reconnect with roots but sadly connects with poisoned ones. To his mother, the Jewish guy is just another date. And on some level, he is just that, an American who happens to be Jewish.
And yet, even regular Jews are somehow different in their deeper sense of heritage and loyalty, in their stronger sense of grievance. So, in some ways, Derek knows the Jew better than the Jew knows himself. Derek knows that, when push comes to shove, even regular all-American Jews are Jews first and American second. And yet, Derek isn't fully honest about his feelings because, apart from the real animus, there is a certain envy. After all, if whites had a similar sense of roots and heritage, they would not have lost to the Jews. When Jews came to America, they remained Jews first, Americans second; they kept with their deep loyalty. When white Europeans came to America, they became Americans first, Europeans second(or none at all). Jews didn't abandon their Old World ties, white Americans did. But then, European betrayal goes back to the adoption of Christianity. For a Jew to be Jewish means to preserve heritage, memory, identity, and loyalty. For a European to be Christian meant thje rejection of indigenous cultures in favor of a cult of a Jew as Messiah. Furthermore, to be Christian means a white Christian must regard a black Christian, brown Christian, and yellow Christian as more his brother than a white pagan is. Thus, Christianity was the first Americanism that made Europeans reject their own for something Other.
This is why E. Michael Jones and people like Nick Fuentes are foolish to cling to Christianity as the source of Western identity and pride. While a proud white person can be Christian, Christianity must be treated as one's personal ideology than core identity. It's a matter of creed, not breed. Jewishness in contrast is creed wedded to breed. E. Michael Jones faults the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and Kevin MacDonald finds problems with the Jewish Culture of Critique, but the problem is less that Jews have them than that goyim lack them, or at least they lack them as their own. Without revolutionary spirit, there is stagnation. Without the culture of critique, there is only dogma and conformism. The problem for the white race isn't the Revolutionary Spirit and Culture of Critique per se but that they've outsourced them to Jews.
Furthermore, is it even true that Jews are somehow unique in this revolutionary spirit? Didn't the Christian West try to revolutionize the whole world by spreading the Gospel to every corner of the planet? If Christianity is anti-revolutionary, why didn't it leave other peoples and cultures alone? Why introduce the Faith into non-Christian lands and try to turn the culture and values upside down? Long before Jews became communists and other kinds of radicals, Christianity in the West and then across the Non-West spread spiritual and social revolutions of far-reaching consequence. Furthermore, perhaps the revolutionary spirit owes more to certain factors in Northern Europe that made both Christians and Jews more bold, restless, aggressive, and impatient. After all, most Christian orders in North Africa and Near East were ultra-conservative and stagnant. And most Jews in the Middle East were hardly like the firebrands Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. The real revolutionary spirit took off in Western Europe, especially in Northern Italy, France, Germany, and southern Britain.
Since the purpose of this film is to warn us against Derek’s ideas, one wonders what director Kaye and screenwriter David McKenna were thinking.
Yes and no. The film isn't merely an indictment of white 'racist' extremism but of the social conditions that make it fester and grow. To the film's credit, it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities that drive white kids into forming their own gangs. While the message is against white 'racism', it has the courage to admit that hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum. In a world of black and brown tribalism, whites have no choice but to band together, though whites in the film do it in a self-destructive way, though not as much as the fellas in ROMPER STOMPER.
Trevor Lynch is being disingenuous in pretending that Kaye set out to make a simpleminded anti-white and 'anti-racist' propaganda and only accidentally stumbled on some inconvenient truths. No, Kaye set out to make an 'anti-racist' work of art, but the truths dredged up by artistic commitment didn't sit well with the favored narrative. This has long been a problem with scholars who are at once committed to truth and ideology. David Puttnam who wrote BOWLING ALONE set out to gather facts in support of Diversity but arrived at the opposite conclusion, which was painful for him. He was scholar enough to admit his thesis was disproven but ideologue enough to have written another book expressing the hope that Diversity could somehow work. But then, as reality never fully jibes with any single worldview or ideology, there is always bound to be some degree of conflict between what one believes and what one sees(if he has any interest in the truth).
Thus, AMERICAN HISTORY X is partly right, partly wrong. It's true that far-right neo-nazi types of movements in the West have been toxic, useless, and self-destructive. And yet, the film falters in posing only two possibilities: Far-right extremism and wishful hope in the Dream. But why should it be so? It's like there is a middle course between militarism and pacifism, and one doesn't have to be a total hawk or a total dove. In a way, this whole left-vs-right discourse has poisoned the blood politics. The great promise of fascism was the left and right could be fused together constructively, and the early successes of National Socialism were a testament to that. But Adolf Hitler's radical racism destroyed the future.
However, if they are going to present Derek as fearsomely intelligent, then they need to match him with a more capable opponent, and they don’t. This means that Derek Vinyard can win any fair debate, which matters to some movie watchers.
Edward Norton seems to be very smart(though also overly eccentric), but is Derek really fearsomely intelligent? Or does he seem highly intelligent in contrast to the morons he hangs with? Even a hill seems pretty high in the plains. Derek is certainly far above average in IQ, but he doesn't seem to be a genius. And if indeed he was truly smart, he would have seen through the problems of Neo-Nazism on his own. Derek is smart but not smart enough to avoid falling into his own traps of ideological fanaticism and dogmatism. In becoming so hardline based on his rage, he creates his own stupidity instead of advancing an alternative and superior ideology and worldview that rejects both naive Liberalism(& spineless 'conservatism') and far-right nuttery that attracts losers and ne'er-do-wells.
In a way, he seems drawn to the skinhead world because he wants dominance, and it's easy to be a lion among hyenas. If you want to serve, you seek out the superior. If you want to lead, you seek out the inferior. Being the all-too-rare smart 'white nationalist' has gotten to his ego. But worst of all, he doesn't just adopt an extreme ideology but an extremely demented lifestyle of ugliness and degeneracy. In this, the skinheads weren't much different from Antifa, a bunch of druggies and degenerates.
Brooks(Sweeney_ has made a career reading lines in his resonant, well-modulated black man’s voice. But he doesn’t come off as particularly intelligent. Derek’s father Dennis dismisses Sweeney’s pontificating as “nigger bullshit,” impressive only to the witless and gullible. When Sweeney actually argues against Derek, it turns out that dad was right. Sweeney’s arguments are terrible.
Negro Sweeney may be a silly-ass jiver, but what makes a teacher special isn't necessarily his beliefs but his willingness to engage his students, encourage discussion, and provoke argument. So, the reason why Derek is impressed by Sweeney may have less to do with the Negro's brilliance(real or not) but his willingness to at least have a conversation with the 'enemy' that calls him a 'ni**er' behind his back. Today, so many Negroes want the 'conversation' to be monologues. Sweeney, at the very least, is willing to listen to 'racists'.
But Derek is a bit abrasive and autistic about “principles.” The Aryans tire of Derek’s preaching, so one day, their leader forcibly sodomizes him in the shower. This leads Derek to change his whole worldview. But that is just dumb and out of character. Derek keeps getting himself into trouble because he is a stickler for principles.
It's not just about principles but about authority. Prior to his prison term, Derek was always the alpha, and others looked up to him. Being part of the skinhead gang wasn't just about 'principles' but the pride of princehood. Derek spoke, others listened. He gave orders, others followed. They were his disciples. He felt he had the White Pride movement in the palm of his hand. No one among his peers dared to give him lip. He was the head wolf within the pack.
In prison, he continues to see himself as the natural leader, and other whites should look up to him. But he realizes that guys in prison are harder, tougher, older. They are seasoned veterans of thuggery and criminality. If Derek went to prison for over-zealous behavior while foiling a crime, other 'Aryans' are probably there for brazen criminal acts. Derek was a leader of boys and girls on the outside, but he's faced with real men inside the prison. And when he begins to look down on the 'Aryans' as unworthy of his attention, others feel offended and put him in his place. He is ironically made the 'bitch' by fellow whites.
But nothing that has happened challenges his basic principles. Lamont proves only that every group has likable outliers... As for the Aryans: they are not supposed to sell drugs and rape one another. But is it realistic to expect sterling characters in prison? Besides, when people betray their principles, couldn’t that be because the people are bad, not the principles?
All very true, but we have to remember that Derek is an extremist with hardcore view of the races. It all depends on one's starting point. Reality allows for outliers and variances, but Derek developed a fanatical view of the world where whites are his brothers and non-whites are his enemies, pure and simple. Derek began to reject Political Correctness because he came to notice reality for what it was — lots of blacks are scum, and white people have grievances too — , but then he went far beyond noticing reality by creating his own fantastic worldview based on the iron laws of race. He didn't go from social naivete to principled commitment to reality but to a rather delusional iron law of the Aryans vs everyone else, especially the Jews and blacks. And for that reason, it is plausible that he is disillusioned by the behavior of the 'Aryans' in prison and grateful for the Nice Negro. Derek got to hating blacks so much that he was unwilling to admit that not all Negroes are insane bunners.
Also, Lamont, buffoonish as he is, shows that decency isn't really about learning, intelligence, or highfalutin stuff; it's about people connecting on the level of openness and friendship. So, it's not really about 'basketball and pussy' but about being honest and forthright. It's like Zorba the Greek isn't a learned man but wise in instinct. Of course, contra Zorba's argument, it's much easier to see the good-or-bad in a man when peoples have their own nations. It's true that Greeks shouldn't hate all Turks, and vice versa, but it's good for Greeks to have Greece and good for Turks to have Turkey. Nationalism(minus imperialism) is the best means by which people can judge others by their character than skin color or ethnicity. After all, a Greek in Greece feels secure and need not worry about extinction of his people, culture, and land. Greeks and Turks once butchered one another because of the insecurities and anxieties created by the Ottoman Empire.
...it is merely a shaming tactic to liken complaints about white dispossession to blacks blaming the white man for their own failings. It might appeal to an older generation of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” conservatives, but Derek would see through it. What matters is the question of truth. White dispossession is real. The solution is not to “try harder” in a rigged system but to change the system. Blacks who still fail in a system of objective black privilege can’t blame the system for that. They can only blame themselves.
Not quite. Sweeney is different from most Negroes who only blame whitey(with encouragement from Jews). Sweeney is saying it's not enough for blacks to blame everything on white because of 'muh history'. Blacks as individuals must examine their own behavior and ask what they've done to make the world a better or worse place. And this rule should apply to whites as well. While Derek is right about the social problems caused by blacks and non-whites, his solutions have been lousy. Adopting extremist views, turning hate into a virtue, and reducing the world into a Manicheanism hasn't done anything for him or his crew. Derek's extremism made him blind to even the good things about other races while blinding him to the failures among his own kind.
After all, Derek didn't suffer merely for his ideas. He's not a saintly martyr. He made his own life miserable by adopting a cartoonish view of the world where it all boils down to heroic skinheads vs everyone else. Blacks and Jews didn't make him get a stupid Swastika tattoo on his chest. With his smarts and ability, he could have served his race in more constructive ways, but he chose the lifestyle of a skinhead lout, and this rubs off badly on his younger brother. For all his superior intelligence and leadership qualities, he didn't try to elevate his racial comrades but descended to their level of crude thuggery. Ironically, skinheads are totally 'whigger' material.
...when Sweeney chooses to focus on his individual life rather than questions of social justice, this is not moving from the “wrong questions” to the “right questions.” ...focusing on your own life doesn’t make social problems disappear. It simply distracts you from noticing them. Individualism is just escapism. It is a form of cowardice.
I don't think Sweeney is arguing for individualism. He's not saying focusing on one's individual issues will make larger problems go away. Rather, a better world begins with yourself. So, even if one has a generally low opinion of blacks, it simply wouldn't do to act like a lout and blame the world for it. There are too many things that Derek and his mates do that are self-destructive. And this was certainly true of the Alt Right. True, Jewish Power has done everything it could to destroy white identity and interests, BUT did Richard Spencer and Co. have to indulge in drugs and alcohol and act like louts? Did they have to get together and give Hitler salutes while screaming Sieg Heil? Did Spencer have to mess up his marriage in the most spectacular way? Did Matt Heimbach have to boff his mother-in-law and beat up his father-in-law? What was that? Jerry Springer hour? Does Chris Cantwell have to be a cantaloupe-head? Hating 'ni**ers' is one thing; must so many white-nats act like 'whiggers'? Especially when Jews are out to get you and smear you as a 'white supremacist neo-nazi', how about not acting like cartoonish clowns? If Jews use the rain machine to make you wet, the last thing you want to do is break your own umbrella. But that's just what Spencer, Heimbach, and Cantwell did.
Jordan Peterson, goofy guy that he is, did have a good point about making-your-own-bed. The world has lots of problems, and they won't go away however a good person you try to be on the individual level. That said, making the world a little better has to begin with you. If the world is full of lies, you-as-individual must stop telling lies. Derek was right about the rottenness of race relations in the US, but he made things worse by not only regarding others as crude stereotypes but becoming a crude stereotype, as if to confirm the propaganda of SPLC: "Look, they are nazis!" The best way to combat Jewish supremacism is not to embrace white supremacism but to reject all forms of supremacism and call for a limited nationalism for all peoples.
The movie explains this miracle with a ridiculous deus ex machina: the spindly black buffoon Lamont somehow has enough credibility with the various prison gangs to “protect” Derek.
This is actually far more plausible than people might think. Having been around plenty of Jews and blacks, I know how they think and operate. Blacks are not only about thuggery and apelike behavior, though there's plenty of that. There's a scene in DO THE RIGHT THING where the usually unpleasant Radio Raheem has a soft spot for Mookie(played by Lee). And Mike Tyson, the lout and thug that he is, could break down in tears thinking of Cus D'Amato. So, it's possible that Lamont, a much-liked figure among the blacks, could have asked for favors among the brothas who, out of favor to him, left the white boy alone. Unlikely but far from implausible. It's like the scene in THE KILLING FIELDS where the skilled pleading by Dith Pran with the Khmer Rouge leads to Sydney Schanberg being spared. Things like that do happen. Negroes are craaaazy, but if you know their psychology and treat them like children-who-are-bigger-and-stronger-than-you, you can get along. It's like the meanest nastiest black biatch will melt in your hands if you tell her how she looks so lovely in that weave, shoo. They suddenly go from crazy gorilless to happy gorilless.
Danny gets in trouble when he writes a paper on Mein Kampf for the civil rights portion of Murray’s class on American history.
That is the funniest thing in the movie.
Once Derek is paroled, he does not want to get back into the gang. Instead he wants to get Danny out of it. This is irrational. Derek killed two Crips. They will be seeking revenge. He has a better chance if he has the gang behind him. If he really wants to extract Danny and break with the gang, then he needs to be diplomatic about it.
He did try to be diplomatic and walk away on friendly terms, but things fell apart. The problem is it's not easy to bid farewell to a lifestyle like that. It's like the system keeps calling Deckard back to be blade runner. It's hard to walk away from gang life. It's like a family, a brotherhood. Also, the gang hero-worships him and has no clue as to his transformation in prison. As for the crips being out to get him, if they really were they would have gotten him in jail. Crips, lowlifes that they are, know that Derek didn't kill the blacks in a gang war but in a foiled robbery. It's like the mafia make a distinction between 'business' and 'personal'. Negroes are like that too.
Also, it's not about being rational or irrational but being sensible. Derek has walked away from that life; he's outgrown it, much like Mark Wahlberg folded his career as a rapper. His priority is to save his younger brother from the lifestyle, and he knows they must go Cold Turkey. It's like when Lawrence of Arabia finally calls it quits, it's total and absolute. He's no longer a fellow Arab but a British soldier back on duty.
Also, whatever one thinks of Sweeney, he didn't have to do what he did. But he did it for someone who hates blacks because he believes that, on some level, there is something better inside Derek. So, on that personal level, he owes something to Sweeney who went the extra mile for an enemy.
In a way, it's like the reverse situation of RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. Why does the black guy ride and fight alongside the Confederates even though it's the North that promises freedom for blacks? Because the Negro's master, unlike typical white Southerners, has set him free and treats him as a dear friend. On the personal level, the Negro feel indebted to him even though he would rather be on the other side. Rationally, the Negro should use the first opportunity to run and join the Northern side, but his sense of personal indebtedness to his master/buddy keeps him fighting for the South. He is both grateful and bitter. Their bond of friendship is also like a bondage. And Derek feels similarly about Sweeney. Much of human nature is personal, not rational. Consider the sentimentalism that affects even the Dissident Right, especially among the boomer types. Why are they so incapable of naming the Jew?
Also, Derek's transformation is a testament to the power of pain. What finally breaks Cool Hand Luke in the end? The grueling agony. He simply couldn't take it anymore. Likewise, Derek's transformation owes as much to pain & fear as to better understanding. Thus, it is both noble and ignoble. Through prison experience, he did become wiser and more broadminded. But he also became more fearful and desperate. But then, so many choices we make are not pure but compromised, a blend of courage and cravenness. Take Puyi in THE LAST EMPEROR. He really did change but under considerable duress. The story of Jesus is an outlier because He didn't cave to the pain.
...Danny’s bloody murder in a school bathroom by a Crip. Again, I am not sure what the filmmakers were thinking, but this conclusion does not support their anti-“hate” agenda.
The ending would indicate that AMERICAN HISTORY X is not a simple anti-hate message. It is disturbed by the radical politics of hate but is aware that hate is not a one-way street. There is plenty of black hostility and thuggery. Why not give the film its due in addressing this truth instead of being so incredulous that a propaganda movie subverts its own message? While the film isn't entirely truthful and invokes certain PC shibboleths, it has just enough courage and daring to break free of ideological dogma.
Tragedy of history is that sentiments are rarely in sync. Jean Renoir made THE GRAND ILLUSION as remembrance of the tragedy that was the Great War and as warning against another such conflagration, but Nazi Germany banned the film and embarked on war-footing. So many in UK and France didn't want war, but Hitler regarded their decency or moderation as weakness. Likewise, so many whites wanted to bury the hatchet and be nice to Jews following WWII, but Jews decided to destroy the white race. Sentiments out of sync in history.
AMERICAN HISTORY X ends on a note of tragedy. Derek really did change and tried to turn his brother around, but the immediate world remained as it is, with sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It was the hard lesson learned by the lord in Akira Kuroawa's RAN. As an old man, he'd seen enough battles & bloodbath and wanted to retire peacefully in an orderly world, but war was still raging in the hearts of man. In EXCALIBUR, Uther wants to call it quits and settle down. He's 'weary of battle', but his enemies are ready for more. The ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X is well aware of this ironic tragedy, and it was intentional. It's like when the sun is in the east, the west is dark, and when the sun is in the west, the east is dark. Rarely are humanity and history in sync. The film ought to be lauded for the courage to end that way.
Derek bears some responsibility for his brother’s death: not for exposing him to “hate” but for pulling him out of the gang. As a member of the gang, Danny enjoyed some protection, because the Crips knew that attacking him would lead to retaliation.
Being a member of a gang is a double-edged sword. It can mean protection by your buddies, but it can also mean carrying a target on your back. Notice how blacks who joined the Bloods or Crips had a higher chance of getting killed than blacks who didn't. Same with Mexican gangs. Some may join as a survival strategy, but chances are it will reduce their chances of survival as gang life is about guns and knives, like in WEST SIDE STORY.
Memory will not heal the divisions between blacks and whites in America, because there was no common community before slavery. There is enmity all the way down. Memory only polarizes race relations in America, which in turn polarizes whites against each other.
It all depends on who controls the memory. When proud whites controlled American Historical Memory, there was something for everyone. Anglos and Europeans deserved respect for having conquered and settled North America, creating a great new nation. But American Indians were ennobled in time as brave and worthy warriors who'd put up a courageous war against the white man. Cowboy and Indians were both honored. Black American experience was recognized as one of slavery, struggle, resilience, and color. And yet, White South was also admired for its loyalty, courage in battle, honor code, and its rich heritage. Every group got its due. But then, Jews came along and took control of the Memory and Narrative; the result has been total sacralization of the Negroes and total vilification of whitey, especially Southern whitey.
True, even with white control of memory, blacks were bound to be problematic due to evolution. Having evolved for 100,000s of years in wild Africa teeming with gorillas, rhinos, elephants, hyenas, lions, hippos, cape buffalos, leopards, and wild hogs, blacks evolved to be tough, fast, strong, nasty, wild, and crazy. Black women emphasized butt-shaking, and black men emphasized dong-swinging, and that's why black culture is mostly about the beat and beating up people. What were whites thinking when they imported so many of these black savages? But because blacks were so tough, they could be made to pick lots of cotton and carry big bales on their shoulders. Going was good for whites as long as it lasted.
Even though whites and blacks came to co-exist only relatively recently, there is a strong bond between whites and blacks because whites are so into black-derived music, so admiring of black athleticism, and so into black-buns-and-dongs. White race is into serious jungle fever.
Just consider: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, and etc. are all Slavs, but are Poles into Russian culture, are Russians into Polish culture, are Czechs into Serbian culture, are Serbs into Slovak culture? Chances are NO. But I'll bet they're all into rap music and 'twerking'. Or consider Japan, China, and S. Korea. They are all East Asian, but the chances are they don't much care about one another's cultures or histories BUT they are all into worshiping NBA Negroes and imitating rap music. What do UK, France, Holland, Poland, and Germany have in common? Jungle Fever. So, even though whites and blacks are racially different and even though many whites(including 'liberals') don't want to live with lots of Negroes, so many whites, cons and libs, are enamored of the rambunctious Negro. UK cheers for black athletes, France cheers for black athletes, Holland cheers for black athletes, and etc. Because blacks are so good at sports & hollering and because they excite whites with buns & dongs, whites have come to idolize blacks as the magical race, and this idolatry is what most whites have in common across entire continents. An Armenian may know almost nothing about Belgium, and a Belgian may know nothing about Armenia, but the chances are both are into worshiping Negro athletes and shaking their butts to rap music. What does a white Parisian have in common with a white Texan? They are both into black sports and black music. And they both celebrate ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.
The most likely hypothesis is that the filmmakers were just smug. They thought that Derek’s views are self-evidently evil and that their own views are self-evidently good.
Or maybe Trevor Lynch is being a bit smug in thinking the Jewish Tony Kaye simply had no art in him and only propaganda in mind. Rather than seeing AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda, it makes more sense to see it as failed art. Like some of John Sayles films, it is willing to go further and dig deeper than your average Hollywood movie, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough and falls back on one too many time-worn formulas to fill in the gaps. Thus, it doesn't quite make it as art(which would be something like MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE), but the effort, even if half-hearted, is there.
Now, a failed work of propaganda would be Sam Fuller's ludicrous WHITE DOG that doesn't make sense even on its own grounds.
