Everyone has his opinions, and just about the only Stanley Kubrick films that won near-universal acclaim, at least upon release, were PATHS OF GLORY and DR. STRANGELOVE. Everything he did since STRANGELOVE divided critics, even violently. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had its core admirers but was widely dismissed upon release. (Over the years, it’s come to be nearly universally acclaimed however.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE still divides viewers. BARRY LYNDON was generally overlooked upon release though it had defenders. Its reputation has gone through the stratosphere since but remains an obscure work outside cinephilia. THE SHINING got mixed reviews, overall leaning toward the negative, but is now revered as a landmark in horror. It has truly become legendary. An amazing work, the final section does come apart. FULL METAL JACKET is striking but inconsistent in tone once it goes from training to combat. Kubrick was always better with design & control than chance & chaos. The random fury of urban guerrilla warfare gets the Procrustean treatment of an conceptual artist always looking for designs and patterns(even when such is nowhere to be found). Action scenes in FULL METAL JACKET are remarkable in and of themselves but don’t quite mesh with the rest of the film except at the very end when strategy is key in flushing out the sniper. Overall, battle scenes are more effective in PATHS OF GLORY where the nature of combat allows more for orchestration; Kubrick’s style was more akin to classical perfection than jazzy improvisation. Personally, I’d say SPARTACUS is Kubrick’s weakest movie(if we exclude FEAR AND DESIRE and perhaps KILLER’S KISS as mere practice-films) despite its undeniable strengths and moments of grandeur. To a large degree, its failures owed to Kirk Douglas’ insistence on Hollywood Epic than Art Film, and in that regard, the failure was a kind of success. Had Kubrick gotten everything his way, it might have made for better art but lesser popular entertainment. Douglas was correct in the sense that it won big at the box-office(something that can’t be said for BARRY LYNDON, a film of far greater artistry). Anyway, the great battle scene in SPARTACUS is indicative of Kubrick’s strengths and weaknesses. It is awesome as display of strategy, logistics, and formations, but things get confused and sloppy once the melee ensues. Sam Peckinpah and Akira Kurosawa were more adept in the heat of action. Kubrick’s Olympian god’s eye view was better suited for the forest than the trees.
EYES WIDE SHUT may seem less impressive than Kubrick’s other films for the simple reason that little happens in a story led by a character who comes across as rather thin and shallow. Perhaps, this would have mattered less if it were a smaller work on a modest scale. However, expectations for Kubrick’s works, especially since 2001, came to be larger than life. It’s like David Lean couldn’t return to modest films after the success of BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, which is why even RYAN’S DAUGHTER was blown up to epic proportions when it would have done better as a smaller and more intimate tale. EYES WIDE SHUT is a both a big film with impressive production values — but then, Kubrick’s perfectionism makes even his earlier work THE KILLING into an elaborate exercise — and a small intimate tale of an ‘ordinary’ man and woman. There are no battles, ghosts, historical travelogue, charismatic criminals, apes & spaceships, nuclear apocalypse, or pedophilia. Indeed, if not for the lewd suggestion of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman getting it on(in the nude), the film would have been a tough sell to the public. Though Kubrick was always an Artist or ‘auteur’, he’d been savvy enough to work on projects that had both artistic and popular appeal. The one exception prior to EYES WIDE SHUT was BARRY LYNDON, a full-fledged art film and probably his greatest work after 2001, and it was a box-office bomb. (Its only mass appeal was Ryan O’Neal who, at the time, was at the height of popularity.) In order to remain bankable, Kubrick had sense enough to tackle projects that could be construed as ‘genre’: Science Fiction, War Movie, Historical Epic, Satire, Horror.
But EYES WIDE SHUT was different… unless one argues it’s a kind of arty ‘porn’. Little happens in the story. A couple attend a party, smoke pot, have an argument, and the guy wanders through the night. With a password, he gains entry into a secret gathering/ritual and is soon exposed & expelled. Next day, he tries to pick up the pieces of what may have transpired the night before but remains as confounded as ever. He goes home, and the couple come to some kind of emotional reckoning, a catharsis. That’s about it in terms of plot. Furthermore, Tom Cruise plays the least proactive character in all of Kubrick’s films. While Jack Nicholson’s character was virtually alone in the Overlook Hotel, he fumed & raged and made things happen with the power of will and imagination in cahoots with ghosts. In war scenarios such as PATHS OF GLORY, DR. STRANGELOVE, and FULL METAL JACKET, characters have no choice but to take charge of things as it’s a matter of life and death, kill or be killed. Criminals in THE KILLING and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE naturally play predator. Ryan O’Neal’s Barry Lyndon may be most like Bill Harford(Cruise), but he has a cocky and arrogant side; indeed, he got himself into a fine mess(but also gained considerably along the way) because he was something of a rogue and gambler. In contrast, Bill Harford is someone to whom things are done than someone who does things to make a difference. The one thing he did make happen, the slipping into the mansion, proved to be a botch-up job, and it ended all-too-fast and rather pathetically. (The uber-rich guys, irritated and even enraged as they might have been, probably had a good laugh afterwards.) There is something hapless about Harford who happens to be over-his-head — this is where his height gains special significance — in personal life and realm of fantasy.
Because not much happens in EYES WIDE SHUT in terms of plot, the film has to work either on the sociological, psychological, personal, and/or mythological level. It’s like one’s response upon entering a cathedral or art gallery. Nothing happens except one’s emotional and sensual responses to the surroundings. If one connects with the setting, it’s a worthy experience. If not, it’s dull and boring. On the sociological level, EYES WIDE SHUT has something to say about class, money, privilege, corruption, sexual politics, and power, but it isn’t particularly interesting on that level because, after all, there have been countless critiques, in print and celluloid, about society’s ills and problems of corruption. EYES WIDE SHUT is remarkable for its intersection of the personal with the psychological bordering on the mythological. Whether it works or not really hedges on how we read Harford’s mind as he undergoes the dark night of the soul, and this requires some degree of speculative work on our part with tools of empathy and identification. In this, EWS has something in common with WICKER PARK(also L’APPARTEMENT on which it is based) and MOTHMAN PROPHECIES where the central drama/trauma derives from the crossroads of the psychological and mythological. In the case of WICKER PARK, imagination creates its own romantic myths(even though the misunderstanding arose from a minor detail), and in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, the ‘spiritual’ elements feed on the widower’s ineradicable despair and angst. In this, EYES WIDE SHUT is also comparable to VERTIGO where the question of who-dun-it(especially as Hitchcock gives the game away before the protagonist finally fits the pieces) is far less crucial than the power of the mind to invent and weave myths, especially those pertaining to love, or lost love. It’s no wonder Kubrick worked so long on A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the scientist(played by William Hurt in the version finally realized by Steven Spielberg) utters these words: “David, do you have any idea what a success story you’ve become? You found a fairy tale… and inspired by love, and fueled by desire, you set on a journey to make it real. And most remarkable of all, no one taught you how. We actually lost you for a while. But when you were found again, we didn’t make our presence known because our test was a simple one. Where would your self-motivated reasoning take you? To the logical conclusion… that Blue Fairy is part of the great human flaw to wish for things that don’t exist, or to the greatest single human gift – the ability to chase down our dreams.” If David of A.I. and Bill Harford have anything in common, it is the wish to be special and unique. David wants to believe that he is the special beloved of ‘mommy’, and Bill wants to believe that he is that special person to his wife. Love and Marriage create this myth that you are with your soul-mate, indeed as if fate ordained you two to meet and mate and belong to one another. In truth, anyone could have ended up with anyone else, but it’s more comforting and home-sweet-home to think of one’s spouse as the soul-mate one was meant to be with. Both David and Bill feel their minds frying when confronted with the fact that they may not be so unique, invaluable, and irreplaceable to the special person in their lives. Worse, if ‘mommy’ has such feelings for anyone in A.I., it’s for her real son, and if Alice is truly wedded to anyone at the soulful level, it’s with the naval officer, the man of her dreams.
Now, a work such as EYES WIDE SHUT may seem rather odd from Kubrick who always came across as too cerebral, inquisitive, and dissecting for romanticism. Kubrick was clearly more like Quilty than Humbert in LOLITA, and upon hearing Kubrick’s 60s interview, one can’t help thinking Peter Sellers as Quilty was riffing on none other than Kubrick. Still, Kubrick was something of a romantic about power, and in this, he shared an obsession with Woody Allen who also grew up in a world when the Castle Keep was held by Wasps. (This might be said of Roman Polanski as well, and some might argue EWS is an artier version of ROSEMARY’S BABY.) As such, they were outsiders yearning for a glimpse inside, a kind of Kafkaesque fascination with the world of power and privilege. But power can be psychological & irrational as well as social & political. Why is it that a certain something can wield such total power over us? This ‘thing’ can be a greater motivator than all the money and guns in the world, though to attain it one may expend all of one’s money and guns, indeed to the point of losing them in the bargain. Igraine cast such a spell(though unwitting) on Uther that the latter risks all for one night with her. As king, he could have had lots of pretty women, but it had to be her and her alone. In that sense, the most powerful person in Western Mythology is Helen of Troy, not because she herself had much power but because she possessed a quality that made countless men willing to fight over her.
It’s the poetics of power. Contrast General Turgidson in DR. STRANGELOVE with Humbert in LOLITA. One might say both are motivated by lust. Despite his vaunted status in the US military, Turgidson is like a man-ape who is really about fighting for food, turf, and women. He is motivated by sexuality but in the most generic way. There is nothing poetic about his appetites. He is competing for ‘sperm banks’. In contrast, Humbert is totally fixated with one woman-child, and it has to be her and only her. (On this level, the film version of the story is less about pedophilia because there is no indication that Humbert has the hots for other young girls or nymphets, whereas he wants to be forever with Lolita even after she’s grown into full womanhood. It’s something unique about her than her age that drives him mad with love.) He has an overpowering sense about Lolita, something shared by no one else in town. Others may find her pretty or sexy(in the generic sense) and may want to date her or fantasize about her, but to Humbert, she is everything, more than all the world. She, or something about her, has power over him like nothing else. In a way, such is both the weakest and strongest kind of power. Weakest because Lolita or people like her don’t amount to much in terms of money and power; also, they have power only over those besotted with them. Strongest because, for the besotted, they are willing to do anything to attain the love of their obsessions. Consider the fate of the professor who sacrifices his status and sanity for Lola-Lola in THE BLUE ANGEL. It’s the difference between the general and the personal, and the only way to approach EWS is on the personal level. In the general sense, yes, EWS has something to do with power, money, sexuality, and etc. And yet, the film is most enticing and provocative in its probing of the personal and poetic, the particular elements of obsession that lend it special meaning. It’s the difference between Roy(Richard Dreyfus) and the French astronomer(Francois Truffaut) in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. Both are interested in extraterrestrials, but for Roy it’s something more than academic fascination or a matter of science; it has become his new faith, something for which he is willing to depart even from Earth and his fellow human kind.
Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the (Jeffrey)Epstein case because at the core of the film, Stanley Kubrick—who was something of a renegade Jew—gives us a glimpse into how a specifically Jewish financial and political elite uses sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals to promote internal cohesion and control.
I’m not sure that the uber-power in EYES WIDE SHUT is specifically or mostly Jewish. It could well be an uneasy alliance of Old Wasps and New Jews. Besides, even the goy elites in modern history have barely been Christian. Founding Fathers were Deists and Masons. In a way, the Wasp-Jewish fusion has a long pedigree. Jews wanted the prestige of gaining entry into the nobility or Wasp socialite realm, and the goyim were impressed by Jewish intelligence and money. So, the ‘cohesion’ in the film seems less about Jewishness than about Power, and that means alliance of uber-privilege of goyim and Jews.
The Harfords have a huge, beautifully decorated Manhattan apartment, nice clothes, and a spiffy Range Rover. But the first clue that something might be amiss in their marriage is the fact that they have only one child, aged seven.
But plenty of affluent people have one child or no child at all. They tend to focus more on career, money, status, and social life than family and children.
Victor is played by Sidney Pollack. Ziegler is obviously supposed to be Jewish, so the Christmas party seems a little odd. The Harfords also celebrate Christmas, but there appeared to be a seven-branched candelabrum in their dining room. Apparently, religion doesn’t mean much in the world Kubrick is portraying.
Rich Jews throwing a Christmas party isn’t odd at all, especially as Jews don’t regard Christmas as a religious holiday. It’s like Japanese celebrate Christmas by ordering KFC. Jews got rich off Christmas as retailers, advertisers, and carol-composers. Plenty of Jews take part in Christmas festivities, at least on grounds that it’s time to have fun(and an opportunity to crassly materialize the birthday of Christ). It’s like some Jewish families have Christmas trees, if only for the kids. As for Harford having some Hannukah stuff, it’s further sign that the Goy and Jew worlds are merging. Consider all the white goyim who say ‘Happy Hannukah’ as if the Jewish holiday is part and parcel of Christmas season.
Alice gets rapidly drunk
She gets tipsy, which is not the same as drunk. Drunk would be the state that Nicholson character had once fallen into when he injured his son in THE SHINING.
Cruise spends practically the whole movie grinning in a manner that seems both smug and desperately ingratiating, entitled and needy. It is bizarre and unsettling, but I am sure theater people have a word for it, as might the DSM.
Actually, that’s what made Tom Cruise so charming, lovable, and famous all over the world. That ingratiating smile beginning with his role in RISKY BUSINESS. But if most Cruise movies were star vehicles where the whole world was supposed to be turned on by his smile(which made the real-life Cruise rather smug about himself), Kubrick played a trick on the kid by putting him in a role where not everyone, especially his wife, is so gaga over him. Indeed, characters in EWS seem divided between those who swoon over him and those who see him as no big deal or a putz. Thus, EWS is kind of like an anti-star vehicle. But then, Cruise deserves credit for taking on roles in BORN IN THE FOURTH OF JULY, MAGNOLIA, and EYES WIDE SHUT where he played against his star persona.
One wonders if there is a Jungalo Factor to EYES WIDE SHUT, especially because one can see interracial couples in the background in few scenes. Besides, the head honcho at the orgy dons a mask that looks ‘groidean’. One thing for sure, the film seems to have played a role in messing up Cruise-Kidman marriage, especially as Cruise allowed his wife to be used like a whore by Kubrick. To those on the set, Cruise and Kubrick would have seemed rather like Harford and Ziegler. Cruise-Harford was like a mouse toyed by Kubrick-Ziegler the cat. Also, Cruise lost both his wife to Negroes. For a while, Kidman went with Jewgro Lenny Kravitz, and Katie Holmes went with Jamie Foxx. Though Cruise imagines the naval officer to be a white guy, what if she had a Negro in mind?
Then Bill is interrupted by Ziegler’s butler, who guides him upstairs. Now we see the kind of house-calls that account for his lavish lifestyle.
Harford leads a double career as a doctor-doctor and doctor-fixer. In this, he is like George Clooney in MICHAEL CLAYTON, a terrific corporate thriller, in which Sydney Pollack also had a role albeit as a somewhat conscientious(relatively speaking, of course) executive of a top law firm. The powerful need fixers, and it seems Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t merely a super-pimp but something of a fixer who could get things done for a price.
Ziegler is clearly a member of the inner party of the elite: ambiguously Jewish, fantastically rich, utterly degenerate. The Harfords come from a lower, outer stratum of the elite… They might be faintly Jewish, or maybe just New York goys steeped in a Jewish atmosphere.
The difference is the Harfords of the World remain more-or-less stuck in their milieu, one of affluence and privilege but nothing special. There were Harfords of the World around when Wasps were on top of Jews, and they are around when Jews are on top of Wasps. They are the constant unter-elites of society. When Wasps were on top, the Harfords of the World served them loyally for a price. When Jews are on top, the HOTW serve them loyally for a price. The Zieglers of the world went from bottom to top. Others go from top to bottom. In contrast, the HOTW snugly and reliably stay above the middle and under the top. They are so bourgeois.
As soon as they enter the Ziegler party, the Harfords are bombarded with opportunities to cheat, but neither does so. The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party, the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity.
Is this true? I think plenty of white kids at public universities look for every opportunity to indulge in ‘degeneracy’ ala ANIMAL HOUSE style. And lowly Negroes have their House Parties. Perhaps, there was a time when most people lived by moral conventions as dictated by church, family, and tradition, but ‘degeneracy’ has become so shamelessly common from top to bottom that few people will sense there is anything particularly degenerate about Ziegler’s party. If anything, everything seems quite respectable on the surface in that particular occasion. The Hungarian playboy is a smooth operator, and he works his charm on Alice because he finds her beautiful. It’s not like he’s bumping and grinding on every woman on the dance floor. And the two dolls lead Bill Harford away because he’s quite a looker. At any rate, both sets of seducers hint at slinking away to some other part of the mansion for hanky-panky. So, the party is mostly respectable, at least on the surface. Indeed, it is only when Harford is led away to some other room that he comes upon Ziegler with the naked hooker. Still, there is a clear spatial boundary between respectability and indulgence at Ziegler’s party, in contrast to the later party where the main hall becomes the place of hanky-panky. If anything, we come to realize that Ziegler’s party is something of a put-on, a mere prelude and appetizer to the Real Feast reserved for later in the night for insider-guests only. Ziegler’s affair is one where everyone from super-insiders to lesser associates kindly rub shoulders. If one didn’t know about the OTHER party, the orgy later that night, one might think Ziegler’s party is the ultimate gathering of insiders, but it turns out that such notion is a facade, something that only an outsider would believe. It’s like plenty of people believe that the center of power is in the Oval Office and Congress when, in fact, the real power is held by those who buy the whore politicians and game the system from behind the scenes.
In a way, the elaborate ritual orgy may be a sign of the anxiety than confidence of power. If one is confident of one’s power, what need for secret societies and cryptic rituals? Consider the movie SOCIAL NETWORK where Zuckerberg isn’t interested in being admitted into some exclusive club because he is so confident of his intelligence and ability to win and rake in billions. In contrast, the Wasp twins in decline seem to rely on status and connections made possible by ‘secret’ arrangements to hold onto their privilege. It could be that Zieglers of the world, as New Money, are on the up and up. They know how to make super amounts of money. In contrast, Old Money is in decline, and one way it can assure continued power and privilege is by creating secret orders. That way, the can sell their exclusivity to the New Rich like the Zieglers. Secret Society has nothing to sell to the public that is of any value, but it has something to sell to those with lots of money who want to be ‘different’, as part of a select few who get to do or witness special things beyond the reach of laws and conventions. In THE SHINING, it’s the fallen Wasp elites of old who are sucking on Jack’s soul for succor. All they have left is the ghostly cult of privilege. And in BARRY LYNDON, the uber-class has its rules of membership that can be bought even by a rogue like Barry Lyndon for a very steep price. But with respectability being somewhat boring in our day and age, it seems the secret society in EWS attracts Big Money with sexy rituals.
Part of Scientology’s appeal has been its Cult of Secret Knowledge. In truth, the kind of people at the head of Scientology aren’t the best and the brightest, not the richest and most powerful. But the ‘church’ has been able to attract many famous celebrities because of the cult of secrecy that portends hidden secrets of the ultimate power. It is sci-fi version of Ayn-Randianism, and people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, who are famous and rich but not really bright, are made to feel special as favored members who are privy to the innermost secrets of the universe.
Alice is particularly incensed at how cocksure Bill is that she is faithful. Bill is a typical modern conservative. He seems to think that only men have strong sexual desires, which are still weak enough to be kept in check by vows and a sense of honor. But women—at least the kind of women one might marry—don’t face the same temptations… “If you men only knew,” Alice responds ominously. She then proceeds to red-pill her husband by telling him of her fantasies of sleeping with a handsome Naval officer who stayed at the same hotel as them the previous summer… Bill understands nothing about female psychology, and precious little about male psychology, for that matter. He does not understand that part of the sizzle of marriage is the possibility of infidelity. We all value our partners more when we see that other people want them. But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options. Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them… He’s sexually inert, gelded. Beyond that, she is enraged by the fact that he takes her fidelity for granted, that he thinks of her as sexually inert and incapable of pursuing other options…
I read the scene differently. It’s not that Bill thinks only men feel strong sexual desires. Sure, men feel STRONGER desires, but he is surely aware of female desires too. He just feels that evolution has made men into bigger sexual risk-takers. Indeed, this very notion has been discussed to death in the man-o-sphere(that happens to lean mostly dissident right). Because women are weaker and can get pregnant from sex, they’ve sought out more reliable mates. Women need men for protection and prefer those who will play the role of fathers. In contrast, men could just hump some woman and run off to hump another. He doesn’t have to worry about pregnancy. Also, being stronger than women, he doesn’t have to worry about some big strong woman beating him up and forcing him to stick around. So, Bill is correct in the general sense, but reality isn’t only about generalities but about particularities(especially in modern affluent society where people can indulge in fantasies and desires divorced from immediate concerns of security and survival), and it is the particularity of Alice’s feelings that upset the apple cart. But then, even by general rules(of evolution and male/female differences), things have gotten complicated by modern society. First, penicillin has cured many STP. Birth control pill and abortion mean that women need worry less about pregnancy. The current Law protects women from feral men. If anything, the courts usually favor women over men. And the state provides for single-mothers. So, even if Bill is correct about evolution’s impact on sexual-emotional differences, modern world no longer has much use for those differences. And once women found out they can have more immediate pleasure by acting like men, that became the new reality. Evolution depends on selective factors, and when those factors change in society, different traits come to be favored. So, even if Bill is right about how evolution shaped the respective natures of men and women, he seems willfully blind to the fact that modern society has far less use for those traits and, if anything, favors and encourages counter-traits. Also, there is a contradiction in feminism that is supposedly anti-men but nakedly longs for ‘real men’. When feminists bitch about patriarchy, they really mean they want liberation from the dull moral world of beta-males and want to run off into the world of alpha-males because they find the most pleasure having sex with top males. So, if feminism is about women pursuing happiness without restraint and if what makes women most happy are the studs, then feminism turns into a game of women putting out to ‘bad boys’ or ‘tough guys’. Contrary to being about female empowerment, it turns into female submission to ruthless alpha male domination… because nothing makes women so happy as putting out and submitting to studs. In a way, Bill is unaware of his own contradictions. After all, if he argues from the point of evolution, he should know that evolution made women long for the alpha-males over beta-males because the former, being tough, can protect womenfolk from other alpha-males. Then, it’s only natural that his wife might have more hots for some guy who seems manlier than him.
Still, when Alice’s nasty rebuke turns into dreamy confession, it’s obvious that the argument was not really about generalities. Indeed, it’s telling that Alice’s words are most devastating not when she is most combative and bitchy but when she is most yielding and yearning. When she was nagging him, he held his own and shot back with counterpoints. What truly unsettles Bill is when she stops being nasty, calms down, and relates a memory of how she was so willing to surrender herself to a man… but to another man. So, Bill could handle combative and bitchy Alice but is lost for words with pacific and romantic Alice because the deepest object of her desire is not Bill or ‘other men'(a generality) but one particular man who’s been like a god in her memory and imagination. Though Trevor Lynch says Bill was ‘saved by the bell’ by the phone call, Alice was going down along with him. She wasn’t winning the argument because her evocation of the naval officer went off the script(and off the deep-end) about men-and-women in general and instead became a personal confession of an obsession that is entirely her own. It is as self-annihilating as annihilating of Bill’s ego. Though Alice started out by bitching like a typical feminist brat nagging about ’emancipation’ and ‘equality’, she falls into a hypnotic state while recalling how she was utterly mesmerized by a god-man. This man’s very presence cast a magic spell on her. So, it’s really about him in particular than anything else that really triggered Alice into starting an argument for a chance to finally release her dark secret(and it seems to have partly cathartic effect on her). It is therapeutic to let it off her chest albeit without realizing what effect it would have on Bill. Though a modern couple, her confession sounds like something out of Greek mythology where the greatest honor for a woman was to be visited by a handsome god like Apollo. Seduction by the Hungarian playboy at Ziegler’s party was significant insofar it evoked her state of mind when her gaze had fallen on the naval officer. Time isn’t just about quantity but quality, like an ounce of gold is more precious than a ton of steel. It’s like the scene in CITIZEN KANE when old Bernstein says a glance at a certain girl in his youth has remained with him still and not a day goes by without him thinking of that moment.
So, the reason why Alice got so upset was not over generalities of presumed differences between men and women or Bill’s lack of jealousy. Generalities are for dogs, particularities are for cats(that are finicky). Broadly speaking, she might even agree with Bill on general facts about men and women. What really vexes her is that she can’t purge that particular man out of her mind as the one True Love who could have brought her to greatest happiness, both physically and spiritually. There is a duality to the meaning of fidelity. Fidelity to duty and fidelity to passion. Unless the object of one’s duty and passion happens to be one and the same, everyone is both loyal and disloyal in his/her love life. Alice has remained loyal to Harford out of sense of duty, convention, affection, and/or comfort, but she has been disloyal to her truest desire. Even though she opted to remain with Bill, she has ‘cheated’ herself out of romance with the man of her greatest dreams. Indeed, had she never seen this person, she would have been far more content in her marriage as Bill is quite a catch, generally speaking. To most people, Bill would be an ideal hubber. He’s a doctor, makes good money, has a nice place, and is a handsome guy. To most women, he would be the Perfect Man(apart from his unspectacular height). He seems to have it all. In contrast, no matter how rich Ziegler is, the ONLY reason women go with him is because he got money. He’s no looker. If some guys have looks but no brains/money, some guys have brains/money but no looks. Bill has money(though not super-amount), a prestigious job, and also the looks. So, if Alice hadn’t met the eyes of the naval officer(who must have been godlike in beauty), she probably would have had little to complain about(and in her sober state, she doesn’t). But the navy guy had such an effect on her that even her ideal marriage seems lacking.
Kubrick was fascinated by the conundrum of More of More. In LOLITA, Humbert comes across as a smart, urbane, and witty man, especially in comparison to Shelley Winters the gross philistine. But compared to the dazzlingly and perversely brilliant Quilty, Humbert is pure boy scout. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, humans of the future(now past) have superb and amazing technology, but compared to extraterrestrials, it is kid stuff. Likewise, Bill Harford to most women is an ideal catch, but there is the More of More. As handsome as he is, he can’t hold a candle to the naval officer, at least to Alice. So, little in EWS makes sense unless we take into account the particularities that deviate from generalities. It’s like generalities about sexuality and age, even if broadly true, can’t come close explaining what happens to Humbert in LOLITA. When his eyes were transfixed on her on that afternoon, his fate was sealed. For him, that moment was the infinite(and beyond). Henceforth, he couldn’t conceive of his life apart from Lolita. Had he never met her, he would likely have been content living anywhere with a decent job and modest comfort. Just like everything changed for Christians with the coming of Christ — what with everything before Him having being relegated to B.C. or Before Christ — , Humbert’s entire life becomes divided between BL and AL, or Before Lolita and Anno Lolita. (Then, the Christmas allusions make a bit more sense in EYES WIDE SHUT.) Alice’s feelings for the officer must have been just as strong as Humbert’s for Lolita. But then, she had to walk away because she had no ‘in’ with the officer, whereas Humbert gained entry into Lolita’s life as lodger in her mother’s house. Anyway, just like Humbert’s ‘madness’ cannot be explained in terms of generalities, Alice’s romantic agony or love sickness cannot be reduced into a ‘political’ lesson. The argument about men/women in general was merely a pretext for Alice to finally confess what’s really been eating away at her. It was never about Men but that one-and-only particular Man. In other words, Bill’s confidence that Alice would never cheat on him would be true IF NOT for the fact that she was totally dazzled by that one man, the naval officer.
In a way, Bill’s emotional state in that moment is a counterpart to Shelley Winters’ response in LOLITA upon reading Humbert’s diary. The truth slams her in the face, and she’s at her wit’s end. She realizes Humbert never cared for her and was really in love with her daughter. Bill discovers that Alice, at least since the day she saw the officer, was really in love with the other man and was only playing wife than being wife with him. (Granted, it’s much worse for Shelley Winters’ character because Humbert really holds her in contempt, whereas Alice still feels affection and warmth for Bill.) Now, if Bill were an ugly guy who got a hot wife purely with money, he might have taken it better. At least he would understand why his wife feels the way she does. But he’s a good-looking guy who attracts women from all sides, so he’s flustered that Alice is totally head-over-heels with some other guy. But then, in traditional society, aristocrats were the warrior caste. Doctors were the servants of the warrior class. In modern society, businessmen are the top, and doctors/professionals, with their special skills, are above the warrior class(unless warriors happen to be colonels and generals). And yet, in evolutionary terms, women like killers than healers. Besides, it seems the officer wasn’t merely a warrior but the most handsome guy imaginable.
In a way, Bill’s explanation for his own fidelity and that of his wife is a form of narcissism. After all, even if he rebuffs other women, he knows he’s married to a gorgeous woman. He has someone special to come home to every night. And he probably assumed that Alice feels the same way about him. He doesn’t spell it out, but he figures one big reason why Alice is loyal to him is because he’s a good-looking and successful guy. Now, if Bill was married to someone like Lena Dunham and if Alice were married to someone like John C. Reilly, one might think infidelity would be a greater possibility. But what need for infidelity when both husband and wife are such lookers? And yet, there is always the problem of More of More. While Bill is handsome, there is More Handsome… just like there is Ziegler’s Party for the Rich and Privileged and then there is the Haute Orgy for the super-duper uber-privileged. Just like Bill isn’t satisfied with Ziegler’s party once he hears about the super-secret orgy, Alice could no longer be content with Bill once her eyes fell upon the god-stud in the form of the naval officer. It’s like once Scotty becomes besotted with ‘Madeleine’ in VERTIGO, he’s like that song, “I Only Have Eyes for You”. He even loses his sense of humor when Midge plays a little joke on him.
So, the problem is not that Bill understands nothing about female psychology. He understands plenty, and he’s more-or-less correct on the dog-general level. But just like dog-realities don’t apply to cats, Bill’s ideas about Women-in-general isn’t enough to understand the particular power of poetry, myth, and romanticism that has taken hold of Alice. Beauty has that mysterious kind of power. It’s like John Hurt’s odd obsession with some third-rate teen-flick actor in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND. His personal ‘madness’ cannot be explained in general terms of age, sex, class, and/or homosexuality. After all, plenty of middle-aged homo men might have seen the same thing and not reacted so powerfully. But for him, the actor meant everything.
The visit to the Nathanson apartment is the beginning of a series of temptations—an implausibly long series of temptations that comes to resemble an allegory like The Pilgrim’s Progress. In an intensely awkward scene—one of many to come—Marion kisses Bill and confesses her love for him only a few feet from her father, lying on his deathbed.
This scene is significant because Marion is to Bill what Alice is to the naval officer. Alice is married to Bill but was willing to sacrifice everything for a night with the officer. Marion is engaged to some guy but is willing to throw away everything to be with Bill. Even her father’s death is secondary to her sadness that she might never see Bill again. Indeed, it’s likely she merely used her father’s death as pretext for getting to see Bill once again. After all, he’s not really needed there as he’s a doctor, not a mortician. So, it’s perversely amusing that Bill himself becomes the object of obsession not unlike the one that stole his wife’s heart away. Does he realize this irony in the moment? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing for sure, Marion isn’t as pretty as Alice. To Marion, Bill is the tops. But Alice, who is equal to Bill in the looks department, can conceive of a higher beauty.
…he is taunted as a faggot by a bunch of drunken frat boys. (All of them taller.). Next he bumps into a beautiful prostitute, Domino (also taller than him), who takes him back to her apartment. But Bill chickens out, pays her for her time, and flees.
Encounter with rowdy boys is significant as a wake-up call from his bout of self-absorption. Emotions work like a black hole sucking all awareness and consciousness into one’s darkest pits(as if one’s self-pity or self-aggrandizement is the end-all of the universe), and therefore, as unpleasant as the encounter is, it shakes Bill back to reality that doesn’t care about your feelings. Also, even though the rowdy boys are lowly creatures, they are warrior types like the naval officer. Bill comes across as someone who’s never known fight except in gym class. And, as different as Alice and the Rowdy Boys are, both have one thing in common in having ‘sucker-punched’ Bill with hard truth. Alice’s is a poetic dream of the romantic warrior whereas Rowdy Boys’ is the prosaic drumming in the streets, but they are one and the same at the source. Whether it’s knight in shining armor or thug with a hammer, it’s the killer who has the most immediate impact on our psyche. And yet, surprises can be as pleasant as unpleasant. Life is like a roll of the dice. That night, Bill was unfortunate to have walked the part of the street where a bunch of guys knocked him over. But later in the film, he discovers how lucky he was not to have had sex with the prostitute who turns out to be HIV-positive. Who knew? It’s like what Ziegler says about life. It’s got ups and downs, you win some, you lose some, and that’s that. You can be sucker-punched by life, but also sucker-hugged.
As for the prostitute, he doesn’t chicken out. Ironically, he is ‘saved by the bell’ once again. Phone call from Alice interrupts a torrid night that might have been. The call reminds him of his duties, and he does the right thing… just like Alice did the right thing when she didn’t give herself to the naval officer. But there are key differences as well. Alice was truly infatuated with the naval officer, whereas Bill is merely attracted to the prostitute on the carnal level. He could walk away without regrets, something that was impossible for Alice who never stopped thinking of the officer(though the cathartic confession may have relieved her torment somewhat). Also, Bill isn’t sure what he wants or why he is there with the prostitute. Was her kindness welcoming and therapeutic? Furthermore, she seemed genuinely attracted to him, thereby stoking his ego as a lady killer. Was his power of money(to afford such a woman) assuring of his own status? Was it meant as revenge against Alice? But would it have been justified as revenge when Alice didn’t give herself to the naval officer? He walks away too, which would suggest he ultimately did the right thing as Alice had done. But then, Alice walked away from a true desire, whereas he walks away from a mere dalliance involving dollars. There is also the contrast between Bill & the hooker and Ziegler & his hookers. Bill’s willingness to pay her the money despite the lack of service suggests generosity and concern, soft and warm qualities. It also suggests naivete and weakness, as if he’s eager to win respect with money. In contrast, Ziegler is far colder with his use of money and women. Granted, Ziegler can act ‘warm’, as when he gives friendly advice to Bill near the end, suggesting that Bill too is just a whore to him.
Over drinks, Nick tells Bill of a party he is going to play at starting at 2 a.m. It is a masked ball/orgy, where he plays blindfolded. But the last time he played, the blindfold was not secured, and he caught a glimpse of “such women.”
That one glimpse was so electrifying that Nightingale just had to spill the beans to Bill. Just one look. Just like just one look at the naval officer profoundly affected Alice, that one glimpse gave Nightingale a sense of what’s really out there but hidden from view of mortal eyes. And both Alice and Nightingale had to tell someone about it. They both told Bill. It’s also Nightingale’s way to compensate for his fallen status. Once a medical student, he now works as a piano player in various clubs. So, when they first meet, Bill has the edge, but when Nightingale says he plays music for the uber-rich, he reveals an edge over Bill, and soon, Bill is pleading for the information that will get him into the orgy(just like kids were clamoring to be allowed into Joel’s brothel-for-a-day home in RISKY BUSINESS). That glimpse sounds so tantalizing to Bill that he’s willing to risk all to be there. In a way, it’s psychological compensation for his inability to penetrate Alice’s fantasies. What did Alice really see in the officer? All his mind could muster was b/w crude porny images of sex between Alice and the officer. There is a blockage. He can see the sex but not the mythology. But perhaps, entering the secret ritual will be akin to cracking the barrier of the forbidden zone. Thus, the mansion has both physical and psychic presence, like the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING.
The rich have the means to materialize their fantasies. Even a hick like Elvis Presley, upon making millions, built himself Graceland. And Michael Jackson had his Neverland. Reality and dreams are opposites, but with enough riches, people can shape reality to conform to their fancies, much like Ludwig II did. And the scene when Harford walks through the mansion is dreamlike.
Bill then rushes off to the Rainbow Costume shop and rouses its owner, Mr. Milich, from his bed to rent a tuxedo, hooded cape, and a mask. The scene is overlong, padded, and excruciatingly awkward
I found it hilarious. Kubrick was superb with character-actors, like the Russian wrestler in THE KILLING and prison officer in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Milich is quite a character.
The ball/orgy is the most famous sequence in Eyes Wide Shut. The scene, like the story as a whole, is based on Austrian-Jewish Decadent novelist and playwright Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (Dream Story).
I’m not a big fan of decadence myself, but didn’t Greg Johnson discuss with ‘Pill-Eater’ about recruiting young men for homosexual trysts at white nationalist meetings? It seems decadence and degeneracy are too pervasive to be pinned to any particular group.
In the movie, the ball is before Christmas, but there’s nothing Christian, or even rebelliously Christian, about this event. Indeed, it is most definitely anti-Christian, a profanation and inversion of Christianity.
But then, how Christian was the history of Christianity, with all those perverted Popes? And with the Catholic Church patronizing all those homosexual artists who created neo-pagan paintings and sculptures of naked men and women doing who knows what?
And didn’t Christianity begin with a ‘cuckold’ myth of Joseph discovering that his wife Mary was impregnated by another… who, according to an angel, happened to be God, which is why Joseph didn’t have her stoned to death, I guess. In pagan myths, women were visited by gods and gave birth to semi-gods, but somewhere along the line, paganism and Judaism fused to create Christianity, a very contradictory faith.
And while the orgy isn’t very Christian, the whole drama about a woman who chooses to sacrifice herself for Bill carries quasi-christian undertones.
Kubrick… considered adapting it with Woody Allen as the explicitly Jewish protagonist… He even considered casting Steve Martin in an explicitly comic adaptation. But when he finally made the film… Bill would be played by a non-Jewish actor, and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.
How times changed. When Kubrick first read the book in 1968, Wasps were still on top, and Jews were still climbers. By 1999, Jews were masters of the world, and EWS reflects this reality.
…why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality and the laws of society.
This would be true in a generally moral society, but ours isn’t such. Hoi polloi have been hooked to Jerry Springer and worse. Howard Stern has been the hero of millions. Since the advent of the internet, kids got access to pornography. Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham are part of mainstream. Rap is the biggest musical genre. So, one could be an average Joe and indulge in all kinds of perversion without shame or opprobrium.
In the end, what is striking about the orgy isn’t its degeneracy. Rather, it’s the quality, exclusivity, and secrecy. It’s not so much what happens but by whom and where. In other words, if Bill came upon a bunch of regular guys and gals screwing each other in some dumpy part of town, it wouldn’t have been anything special. It’s like the appreciation of Art isn’t merely about the pictures but the context. The same painting has infinitely more allure in a great museum or in a mansion than in a junk shop or garbage dump. When people attend operas or classical concerts, it’s not just for the music but to be in the right place with the right kind of people. One could take the exact same class in a community college or Ivy League college, but it feels more special to be in the latter because of the pedigree of being part of haute education. So, in the end, the main allure of the ‘ball’ isn’t really the sex but the fact that it’s closed off to all but a few. It’s like Jack entering the gold room in THE SHINING. People aren’t boffing each other there but merely sitting around sipping drinks, but it seems special because it’s the Jet Set in a world of their own. It’s like the saying ‘location, location, location’. Two exactly same houses could be built in a small town and in the fanciest part of Manhattan, yet the one in the small town isn’t regarded as much while so many swoon over the one in the center of metropolis.
Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better. Pedophilia and cannibalism probably top the list.
Pedophilia seems to be common among the lower orders. Many women who become hookers, junkies, or porn performers were molested by ‘white trash’ or ‘black trash’ men. As for cannibalism, it is the national sport of Negroes in Africa. All this Alex-Jonesy fantasies about elite perversion misses the point. It may be that some very rich people love to dabble in such stuff, but it’s not what the real power is about. In THE GODFATHER II, Hyman Roth has no time for such nonsense. Neither does Michael Corleone. It’s the Gearys, Johnny Ola’s, and Fredo’s of the world who get all Beavis-and-Butthead-ish about the ‘boing’ stuff. From top to bottom, there will always be perverts. Whether it’s the upper classes in LA DOLCE VITA or the lower orders in Pasolini’s ACCATONE, there will be people looking to get off on ‘boing’. But when it comes to power, it’s neither here nor there. While the powerful can be pervy, perviness doesn’t guarantee power that is really the product of intelligence, cunning, ruthlessness, and connections. But of course, people would rather see a movie about rich people doing decadent stuff than working hard at gaining power because the former is more fun and sensationalist. When people like Alex Jones focus so much on the perviness of the globalist elites, they are missing the point. Even if all super-rich people acted totally respectably in their personal lives, they could still do a lot of evil. Even if George Soros never did any hanky-panky in his life, the fact is he destroyed entire economies. Even if it’s true that Mitt Romney has been a loyal family man, he was a corporate raider who hurt entire communities. For all we know, the intrigue-obsessed general in PATHS OF GLORY is respectable and dignified in personal life, but his way of politics is truly devious, demented, and vile. Of course, the perviness adds an extra kick to evil, but it’s the gravy, not the meat.
One woman takes up with Bill… Then things stop making sense. Immediately, she states that Bill does not belong there and warns him to leave… But there’s really no way that she could know this. When Bill entered, she was engaged in the ritual. There was no time for anyone to figure out that Bill was an interloper, and no way to communicate this to the woman. There was also no way that she could have figured this out on her own, for he was masked like the rest of them.
It seems they figured out he was an interloper soon enough and probably told the girl to scare him off with some cryptic threat. All it would have taken is for someone to whisper the instructions into her ears. “Say something to make him leave.” The other possibility is that, even though he was masked, she was so familiar with the setting and the people usually in attendance that she sensed right away that he didn’t belong. Or, maybe there was a scent about him that alerted her that he is the man who saved her life earlier in the evening. In the Christian mythology, Jesus saved Mary Magdalene from stoning, and in turn, she devoted her life to Him, and there seems to be a similar dynamics between Bill and the girl. I can see Lynch’s point about the abruptness of her alerting him, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that she was told to warn him away.
When he checked his coat, the pocket contained a costume rental receipt made out to someone who was not on the guest list. But this still does not explain how the woman could have known who he was. Nor does it explain how the whole party could instantaneously gather back in the ritual chamber to unmask him.
It doesn’t matter if she knew or didn’t know who he was. What matters is someone probably told her to warn him to leave. And she did just that. It appears as though she’s risking her own well-being by taking the initiative to warn him before others find out, but more likely, they told her to warn him so as to shoo him away without making a scene.
How did so many people gather so fast in the main hall to ritually humiliate him? Hive mentality. When bees or ants feel threatened, they drop everything and form a united bloc. What matters most to these people is their power, privilege, and secrecy. The fact that some outsider intruded into their space is deeply upsetting to them. It’s the opposite of what happens in WICKER MAN, in which a man is goaded into the community to serve as human sacrifice. In contrast, Bill really sneaked into a place he didn’t belong. Also, it’s possible that not all(or even most) of the men engaged in sex with the models were members of the uber-rich. Just like the women were hired, it could be the men were hired to serve as studs, with the rich folks mainly serving as voyeurs.
There are layers of irony here. The uber-rich have built for themselves a grand palace of wonders but use it for profanity, but then act as though their ‘sacred’ place has been violated by a filthy usurper, one who actually kept his clothes on. But then, if ultra-beauty can be afforded by the wealthy and if wealth often comes by dubious means, it’s only natural that beauty and perversion would sit side by side. (It seems casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is the biggest donor to the GOP, the ‘family values’ party.) Also, considering that homos have been so closely involved with arts, culture, and design, there is an added layer of perversion + beauty.
Alice is giggling in her sleep. He awakens her, and she tells him about her dream… The Naval officer emerged from the words, looked at her, mocked her, then made love to her. Because he knows what to do with a naked woman. Then they were surrounded by couples coupling. Then Alice began to have sex with countless other men. She knew that Bill was watching her and started laughing at him. Then he woke her. Dr. Bill has been through a rather long day, and I can’t imagine a more humiliating bit of news to cap it all off. In a normal man, millions of years of evolution might have led to anger, even violence. But not our Bill.
Alice’s dream is like HAL computer’s singing “Daisy” as it ‘dies’ in 2001. The song goes from dreamy to grunting animal noises reminiscent of the apes in the beginning of the film. As in the movie ALTERED STATES, the root source of all things is the brutish and animal. So, even though Alice had the most romantic dream about the naval officer as a god-man, her passions when-push-comes-to-shove turns into an animal lust without rhyme or reason. The reason why Bill may feel especially perturbed is he’s not sure if she’s telling him the whole truth. She said things got really dark and ugly in the dream, and she began to panic and felt afraid. And yet, when he woke her up, she was giggling and seemed to be having a good time. So, maybe she liked the dream a hell of a lot more than she let on. Bill and Alice are so close and have shared the bed together for nine years, but through Alice’s confession and dream, Bill truly realizes what vast differences exist within the realms of the mind. Their bodies are so near and even co-mingled in sex, but their minds are separate universes with their own cosmos of secrets, real or fantastical. It’s like FISHER KING where Jeff Bridges’ character finally does what he can to unlock the secret that is haunting the Robin Williams’ troubled soul. It’s so difficult to bridge the gap between mental universes, especially when someone develops a mental black hole that sucks in and holds so many secrets.
While Bill had long day(or long day’s journey into night and night into day), the reason why he isn’t particularly angry with Alice is because where he’s been isn’t all that different from where Alice has been. If anything, he is more guilty. While Alice acted out her fantasy in the private world of dream, Bill actually got very close to a hooker and then attended an orgy where men and women were really doing what Alice only imagined in her sleep. The difference is Alice had sex in non-reality whereas Bill had no sex in a reality full of sex. Thus, both were faithful and unfaithful. In body, Alice didn’t commit adultery but did so in soul. In contrast, Bill physically entered a world of debauchery but didn’t take part himself.
Also, upon confessing her dream, it is Alice who feels dirty, ashamed, and apologetic. She breaks down and cries, while Bill remains stolid. Earlier in the night, she spoke of romantic yearning for a beautiful man. But now, she awoke from a dream in which she was little more than a skanky whore who allowed herself to be passed around like a piece of meat. Especially as Alice knows NOTHING of Bill’s late night sojourn — she thinks he was at the dead man’s bed through the wee hours of the night — , she feels especially guilty as she is not without conscience. While Bill was presumably putting off sleep by being the good doctor, Alice lost herself in revelry of sexual fantasies. At this point, she is weeping and feeling apologetic. She feels Bill has the right to judge her. So, it’s as if Bill really won the evening… though, given the nature of her confession, he can’t be too happy the way he ‘won’. It is on the next day when Bill breaks down in tears and confesses what he’d been up to that both are on equal footing again.
If this is starting to seem like a very long story to you, don’t worry: There’s only one hour left. The next day, a very tired Bill runs a bunch of errands. He tries to locate Nick Nightingale, using his grin, doctor card, and lies to wheedle his hotel out of a waitress, but when he gets to the hotel, the creepy gay desk clerk describes how a visibly bruised and shaken Nick checked out in the wee hours in the company of two burly men…These scenes are all annoying padded and awkward, with plenty of Cruise’s cringy grinning.
It might seem long if one focuses only on the physical action, but it holds interest for those who are on Bill’s psychological wavelength. It’s a new day, and Bill could just put it all behind him. After all, couples do argue, and oh well, Bill and Alice got into a tussle the night before. And Bill escaped from the mansion unscathed. He could just forget it all as if it were a dream and move on. And yet, there are traces from the night that linger, and he just can’t let it go; he has to play the amateur sleuth. In this, he has an easy time with the civilians, the social inferiors who are impressed by his good looks, good teeth, charm, and credentials. To them, he is a prince, and they offer up whatever tidbits of information to be in his good graces. As inferiors generally want to get near and/or impress superiors, they give into his inquiries. The hilarious homo clerk is especially taken with him. But if social inferiors open up to Bill, his social superiors shut him out and want to keep him out. One wonders if their evil is greatly exaggerated, and they’re merely trying to scare him off because they themselves are scared of scandal. If they truly feared him and Nightingale, why not have them killed? But are they really killers? Or did they want to kill him but didn’t do so at the behest of Ziegler who might have some soft spot for him as a good whore/soldier.
Anyway, all of us had an experience so intense, strange, or weird that the next day, we had to revisit the ‘scene of the crime’ to get a sense of what really happened and why? And Bill goes through that kind of emotions as he realizes that he just can’t let this go. What happened, from his wife’s confession to Marion’s declaration of love to the hooker to the orgy to Alice’s dream, was a succession of events that he simply cannot digest and flush out of his memory. It was a terrible night but also a wondrous one, truly extraordinary for a doctor who’s been used to the routine life of the neo-bourgeoisie.
he drives to the estate, where a bloodless, vampiric looking butler hands him a threatening note.
Was it the butler? Or was it the owner of the mansion? He seemed too grim, somber, and old to be a butler or mere servant of the house.
But then Victor tries a strange gambit. What if everything that happened that night—the warnings, the threats, etc.—were just a charade to scare Bill into silence. This is impossible, of course, for reasons explained above. Beyond that, Bill asks what kind of charade ends up with someone being killed. Victor replies that Mandy simply had her brains fucked out and was sent home. The overdose was her doing. The door was locked from the inside. The police were satisfied.
As sinister as Victor and his sort can be, his explanation is probably the truth. It was likely all an act. She was coached to say those things, and she probably died of drug overdose. If she was killed, it was part of a sick ritual than to silence anyone.
The reason why this explanation upsets Bill isn’t because he suspects Victor and his crowd are a bunch of cold-blooded killers who are capable of anything. It’s because it undermines the myth that finally filled his heart with meaning and something akin to mythic love. As he’d connected the dots, he surmised that the mystery woman at the orgy was so taken with him and felt such love that she willingly offered herself as sacrifice to save his life. After all, the whole dilemma began when Alice told him that she loved a man so much that she was willing to sacrifice everything — her marriage, her sanity, and even her child — just to be with him. Bill’s neo-bourgeois mind had never conceived of love so powerful and passionate, verging on the mythic. All night, he wasn’t sure what he was looking for, but the next day, as he pieces the puzzle together, he comes to believe that the Mystery Woman(Mandy) loved him as much as Alice loved the naval officer. She loved him to the point of giving up her life for him. So, even as he is distraught over the news of her death, he is also deeply moved and inspired that he could be the object of such love, thus becoming the mythic equal of the naval officer. And that is why Ziegler’s rather prosaic explanation is so threatening to Bill’s poetic reverie. It deflates the myth that finally gave so much meaning to his life. It was all just an act? What a bummer. She was just another hooker paid to play some stunt, and she didn’t sacrifice herself but just died from self-indulgence.
If that was Kubrick’s intent, then we have to judge this movie a failure. The first time I heard Nichole Kidman say “fuck,” fade to black, I felt such revulsion and rage that I would have pushed a button and blown the whole film to hell.
Sometimes, take the advice from another Cruise film, RISKY BUSINESS. Sometimes you just gotta say, “What the fuc*.”
Just like medical mis-diagnoses come with profound consequences, so can the misconceptions of history, the wrong lessons learned from great events. World War II is remembered as the defining event of the 20th century. Concluded around midcentury, it more or less divided the century into pre-WWII and post-WWII periods, thematically as well as temporally. Granted, the pre-WWII period more than witnessed its share of violence as it was defined by two great events, World War I(aka The Great War) and the Bolshevik Revolution(and the ensuing Russian Civil War). There was also a kind of a Cold War(or Hot Peace) during the seemingly normalizing interwar years, a return to growth and stability. But for all the optimism(mostly in the US of the Jazz Age era), there were seismic rumblings beneath the strained optimism and fragile stability. Red Russia, emerging from a devastating Civil War, posed a challenge not only to the capitalist West but the entire colonialist world order as Leninism reinterpreted Marxism as an anti-imperialist creed. For a time, the capitalist ‘demoligarchies’(or democratic oligarchies) tolerated and even welcomed fascist and quasi-fascist movements as useful bulwarks against communism. Benito Mussolini had lurched from the left to a kind of modernist right that guaranteed security for the capitalist class while appealing to the masses with populist rhetoric and nationalist propaganda. Likewise, the West found feudalist-modernist Japan useful as a capitalist-imperialist counterweight against Russia and a partner-in-crime in the control over China. But, tensions grew as Italy, Germany, and Japan, though of the pro-imperialist camp more-or-less united against the anti-imperialist Soviet communist camp, were perceived to have designs on the empires of the dominant Western powers, especially Britain and France. In Hitler’s case, he went out of his way to assure the British, the biggest empire-holders in the world, that his plans were mostly in the east(toward Russia) and posed no threat whatsoever to the Anglosphere. His overtures might have been acceptable, even welcome, but for one reason: Hitler’s anti-Jewish ideology that made it thorny for the Jewish-permeated Anglosphere to come to terms with National Socialist Germany. Thus, what might have been a ‘beautiful friendship’ disintegrated into bitter rivalry. Anglos went with the Jews against the Germans instead, and the Germans had no option but to make war on Britain that declared war on Germany. Ironically, unlike Jews who not-so-secretly resented and detested the Anglos(and wanted to see the Anglo World destroyed via cultural subversion and financial parasitism), Hitler and Germans genuinely wanted a mutually respectful relation with the Brits. (Well, Anglos chose the Jews and must now sleep in the bed they made.) The Germans still had one chance of success(or at least survival) with a constructive relation with the USSR, but Hitler loathed the Slavs as much as the Jews resented the Anglos. Just as Jews were hellbent on psychologically & financially and then finally physically enslaving the Anglos, Germans were committed to turning the Eastern Slavs into a race of helots. Jews succeeded by playing the long game, inseminating Anglo minds with ‘white guilt’, Negrolatry, and the Cult of Diversity. Jewish finance relegated the British economy into a subsidiary of Wall Street and little else. And mass immigration and Jungle Fever meant that Anglos would be physically replaced in Britain(like Palestinians in Palestine) and sexually colonized by black seed. British culture today is exemplified by Christopher Nolan’s THE ODYSSEY, or NEGRODYSSEY, surely a fantasy-come-true for Mark Zuckerberg’s anti-white wench of a sister.
While troubles were brewing in Europe(with the unfinished business of imperialist rivalry and the rising communist challenge) and in Asia(with simmering tensions between Japanese ambitions and the slow but steady Chinese resurgence under KMT rule), the one bright spot seemed like the US that experienced unprecedented economic growth in the 1920s, a time when the stock market turned into a participatory sport. But even in the US, safely distanced from the trouble spots around the world, the euphoria danced atop powder keg, an economy distorted by out-of-control speculation enabled by loopy and unregulated financial schemes. When the US was hit with the Great Depression, the rest of the world suffered a Greater Depression, spiraling out of control and in desperation grasping for radical solutions. Thus, the seemingly healing effects of the Interwar Years proved to be for naught, and the world plunged into World War II.
Many feared something similar would happen in the post-WWII period, i.e. if World War I led to World War II, could World World II lead to World War III, one fought with nukes and ending civilization altogether? Like the period following World War I, the post-WWII period was marked by an uneasy peace. There was, first and foremost, the Cold War that pitted the two great erstwhile allies of World War II against one another. From the West, it was a conflict between the Free World and the vast prison colony of communist totalitarianism. There was also the problem with the growing restlessness among the various colonial subjects clamoring for independence, made all the more problematic with the Soviet Union usually backing the non-West against the West. Some feared that World War III might be triggered from one of these colonial conflicts that might suck in the great powers. It almost happened in Korea, where a local conflict soon turned into near-World-War-III, at the very least a Sino-US War. Had the USSR gotten involved, it might have set off World War III, but Stalin dumped the burden on Mao, thus preventing a direct confrontation between the US and the USSR. Eventually, the question of imperialism was more or less resolved, with the Western powers agreeing to let their subjects go their own ways and rebuilding relations with them on the basis of mutual respect, thereby precluding most of the Third World from moving closer to the communist world. And the presence of nuclear weapons made the great powers think twice about overly provoking one another, though things got pretty heated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The general absence of global imperialist rivalry(with Germany, Japan, and Italy having been thoroughly defeated in World War II and with the British & French empires agreeing to recede from the world stage) made for a more stable and peaceful world order, with only two big players, the US and the USSR. And the hard economic lessons of the Great Depression had resulted in more stringent systems of regulation and social safety-nets to prevent the kind of crises that beset the world and fomented radicalism following the market crash of 1929. And finally near the twilight of the century, communism faded in Russia and Eastern Europe, and China moved to market economics in constructive relations with the West. Thus, there was no World War III to render the peace following WWII into yet another ‘interwar period’.
But there was one fatal flaw resulting from World War II: The Holocaust Cult and the misreading of the Jewish Role in the 20th Century(and World History in general). The misconception and false diagnosis would have profound consequences, possibly even leading to the destruction of the West(and its satellites) and pushing the world toward a major conflagration. The Good War, in terms of narrative and iconography, was spun into essentially an Is-it-Good-for-the-Jews War. It was World War II that made ‘antisemitism’ a cardinal sin. Given the horrors of the Shoah or the Holocaust, it seemed reasonable to be retro-alarmed by the relatively permissive attitude toward ‘antisemitism’ that had enabled the growth of Nazism. Had ‘antisemitism’ been as verboten in the first half of the century as in the second half(especially beginning in the Sixties when Holocaust Remembrance was made mainstream), Hitler and his gang might never have come to power. Perhaps. But we now live in a world that has resulted from the virtual banning, by law or stigma, of ‘antisemitism’ or criticism of Jewish Power. We see something similar with the blacks. The idea was that since ‘racism’ led to acts like lynchings of blacks(some of them innocent of the accused crimes), no ‘racism’ must be tolerated in regard to blacks. The result? Blacks-gone-wild. With hardly any pushback, we have Jews-gone-wild in the world and blacks-gone-wild in the streets. As for homos-gone-wild, that’s another story though inseparable from Jewish Power. Without brakes on Jewish Power, Zion may well drive humanity over the cliff. Radical antisemitism led to Nazi Hell, but radical Semitism has created Zionist Hell.
The mind tends to work in binaries. Good and Evil. God and the Devil. Sacred and Profane. The most popular stories have heroes and villains instead of heroes and heroes(or villains and villains). THE ILIAD is probably something of an exception as it’s about heroes vs. heroes, i.e. Trojans aren’t any less worthy than the Greeks or any less favored by the gods. Even THE GODFATHER, though ostensibly about villains and villains(as all sides are into criminality and corruption), has the audience cheering for the Corleones as the ‘good gangsters’ against the ‘bad gangsters’. Even when Don Vito Corleone orders the killing of a prize horse to strong-arm a Hollywood producer, the latter’s demeanor has us feeling, ‘He had it coming’. Even though the realities of the American West were often grey and murky, plenty of Westerns went with the crowd-pleasing formula of noble(even self-sacrificing) heroes against irredeemable villains, the outlaws. And even a ‘corrective’ Western like THE UNFORGIVEN(directed by Clint Eastwood) ended with a bang where the (anti)hero clears the air by letting the ‘baddies’ have it. Either it was a sop to formula or a sly challenge to the audience that, for all the complexities grappled with hitherto, they wanted it black and white than murky and grey.
And so, the notion of World War II as ‘The Good War’ should give us pause. While it’s true that the Nazi Germans and Imperial Japanese(and to a lesser extent the greasy Italians) were plenty bad, how good were the supposed ‘good guys’? Many prefer The Good War narrative while others have tempered it by employing a kind of moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and Commie Russia, i.e. while the West, mainly comprising the UK(and Canada & Australia) and the US, was indeed noble and good, the Soviet allies were almost as bad or even worse than the Nazi Germans. From their (mostly alternative rightist)perspective, The Good War narrative is largely marred by the alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union that, by some accounts, was more murderous than Hitler’s Germany. They also bemoan Eastern European nations having gone from the Nazi frying pan into the commie fire. And even though they mostly endorse the American strategy employed against Japan(including the dropping of the atomics bombs), they question American’s larger role in the Asian sphere that led to the communist victory in China soon after the end of the Pacific War. In their view, it was The Good War but seriously marred by the alliance with the communists. Some acknowledge the alliance as inevitable or unavoidable given the circumstances — ‘the enemy of your enemy is your friend’ — but believe the West went exceedingly far in its aid to the Soviets and its support of communist elements in China(then ostensibly allied with the KMT). Others go much further, i.e. while conceding that Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany were repressive and/or brutal and guilty of plenty of crimes, the far bigger threat was communism(especially in cahoots with World Jewry) and anti-imperialism, and therefore, it would have made more sense for the capitalist-imperialist West to team up with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union and to come to terms with Japan against China(communist or anti-communist) as a waking giant that might ultimately challenge Western hegemony. Even as such types challenge the notion of The Good War, they do believe that the West(when white dominant) was indeed the Best, and therefore any war, even if pro-imperialist, would have been justified in the furtherance of Western interests.
1848 held a near-mythic place in Western History as the near-revolution that failed but sowed the seeds, both liberal and leftist, that would come to fruition in times to come. Thus, while sudden change was halted, profound changes afoot were unstoppable and inevitable. Thus, the reactionary powers that suppressed the revolutionary forces either won a Pyrrhic Victory or unwittingly aided in the historical evolution by preventing the radicals from taking over(and thereby leading to revolution’s self-immolation as in the French Revolution); after all, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States, none of which underwent radical political revolutions, witnessed the greatest social and economic progress in the second half of the 19th Century.
A hundred years later, 1948 proved to be even more pivotal. While World War II was the greatest event of the 20th century, wars eventually end, and it’s the shaping of the peace that sets the course for the future. ‘1948’ roughly refers to the period following World War II that settled accounts with long-term repercussions for the rest of the century and beyond. There was the independence of India, signaling the end game for the British Empire. A year later, Mao Zedong and CCP swept to victory in China. The so-called Iron Curtain was more or less consolidated around 1948, with the uneasy amity between the West and the East replaced by mutual paranoia. In 1949, the Soviets attained the atomic bomb, and the Cold War was on in earnest. By 1948, Harry Truman’s administration had more or less finished the job of purging the leftists, radicals, and Soviet sympathizers who’d gained a foothold during FDR’s reign, thus setting the US on an irreversible Cold War footing, made all the more hardline by the Korean War(that sort of turned into mini-WWIII). And there was the creation of Israel, a triumph of Western colonialism just when the historical trend was against Western Imperialism, sometimes violent, sometimes diplomatic.
All such events define the present world. Even the psycho-political effect of the Cold War hasn’t faded as there remains the tendency of Russia and China to characterize the US-led West as ‘neo-imperialist’ and of the US/EU to brand Russia and China as ‘autocracies’, i.e. they may practice capitalism economically but are still ‘commies’ at heart. Many in the West have been led to believe Putin is a crypto-Soviet revanchist with dreams to reconstitute the Soviet Union, and of course, China is said to be run by ‘Chicoms’. The emergence of an independent India has also been of profound importance even though its full impact wasn’t felt until the economic reforms of the 1990s that set the country on the path of rapid growth. However, the nature of its independence from the West, ultimately cordial and compromised than blunt and total, has defined the two-faced nature of India’s place in the world, with its elites still slavishly beholden to certain aspects of the West.
Even though, among the major events of 1948, the creation of Israel seems the slightest and least important, in some ways it has been the most consequential, though the full significance wasn’t felt until the 1967 Six Day War that established Israel as the premier power in the oil-rich Middle East. In and of itself, Israel wasn’t that important, but as its power and significance grew in tandem with Jewish ascendancy in the United States(as the richest and most powerful country and then the Lone Superpower after the Cold War), Tel Aviv became one of the centers of the world, with its politicians(increasingly arrogant, supremacist, chutzpahstic, and gangsterist), in cahoots with ultra-powerful American Jews(with control of media/entertainment, academia, finance, big pharma, big tech, legal institutions, gambling, and etc), calling the shots when it came to world-shaking/shaping US foreign policy. The creation of Israel was also significant for its reversal of the general post-war tide away from colonialism/imperialism whereby former empires receded or adopted a more hands-off approach to the Third World. Zionism initially focused on securing Palestine for the Jews as their homeland of ‘Israel’, but as Israel went from a Jewish state to the politico-spiritual center of World Jewry as the dominant world power, its influence pushed the West to adopt once again an aggressive and imperialist approach to the Third World, evinced in the Wars for Israel in the Middle East & North, the toppling of regimes hostile to Israel and friendly with Russia/China/Iran in Latin America, and saber-rattling all around the world by the goy cuck-dog ‘leaders’ beholden to Jewish power & influence. Trump is merely the latest and the ugliest tumor of the Zionic cancer metastasized throughout the neo-imperialist West. If not for the creation of Israel and concomitant Jewish takeover of institutions in the US, UK, and EU, the West would likely have developed friendlier and more mutually respectful relations with the Third World. Instead, the US strong-armed Venezuela largely to make it submit to Zion and to betray the Palestinians and Iranians. The Zionic influence is such that Trumpian foreign policy has even threatened the Western World, especially Canada and Denmark(as claimants of Greenland), with neo-imperialist jingoism.
Jesus said “Man doesn’t live on bread alone”, and it’s true enough that history has been defined by links across political power, spiritual aura, intellectual persuasion, economic prowess, and expressive talent. Initially, political power was essentially militaristic, dominated by the warrior caste, but the rise of spirituality and/or philosophy led to more morally-centered justifications of power, less on raw might and more on divine mandate and/or philosophical wisdom. And in time, the economic players, who’d been subordinate to the ruling class of warrior noblemen or would-be philosopher-kings, grew so vastly in wealth, especially with the rise of easily transferable capital, that they eventually came into dominance, emerging as the bourgeoisie. With the rise of intellect(especially in the sciences) and the related secular ideologies, traditional forms of spirituality or religions began to fade, but it soon dawned on Modern Man that while God/gods can be eradicated, the emotional need for sanctity, sacredness, or holiness cannot be, e.g. the Soviet Union propped up Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin as the new gods to worship, and the Liberal West became soulfully beholden to Negrolatry, Holocaustianity, and ‘godomy’(god-as-sodomy), aka GloboHomo. One thing for sure, it wasn’t enough for the powers-that-be to amass economic fortunes, political influence, legal force, intellectual standing, and military power. All such could be called out and critiqued. There is no prohibition against people calling out the rich, the military, the eggheads, the lawyers/judges, and of course the politicians(most of whom are regarded as hardly better than used car salesmen, given the power tends to attract unattractive personality types: the greedy, vain, and narcissistic, the resentful, vengeful, and vicious, and the sycophantic, craven, and toadyish). And it’s perfectly okay to bash the artists and entertainers as well. What most people are afraid to mock or desecrate is that which is deemed sacred, as blasphemy(religious or secular) is taken as an affront to something that is higher and beyond the material and rational. If someone disagrees with you on politics, philosophy, arts/culture, or economics, you may regard him as wrong, misguided, or foolish but not necessarily as profane and ‘demonic’. Throughout history, even those who’d paid with their lives for criticizing the king or some corrupt lord or going against the system might later be rehabilitated, even canonized. Take Thomas More. But anyone who was punished for blaspheming the good name of the Lord got no sympathy. If you challenged the authority of a corrupt king and consequently lost your head, your name may be redeemed in years to come, but fat chance if you spat on the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, beholden by the Christian West as eternally and indisputably holy and divine. Thus, few things are more hazardous than blaspheming what is widely assumed as holy. Even in cases where you aren’t alone in detesting a supposed holiness, you may have second thoughts about giving offense lest those who hold it near-and-dear go ‘crazy’, e.g. the fear of rousing up hotheaded Muslims into acts of violence, even terrorism, over perceived insults to Muhammad and/or Allah, as was the case with Salman Rushdie’s THE SATANIC VERSES and other such cases. It’s like fearing to mutter anything about ‘mother’ in front of an Irishman or Negro lest he, intentionally or not, take it wrongly and go into full-rage mode. Thus, the sacred is of the utmost importance. The dangers, however, are quite relative as what is sacred in one order may be profane or meaningless(or apathy-inducing) in another one; also, what some groups might respond with stigmatization or shunning, others may react with extreme violence. Indeed, this is evident with the evolution of Christianity from the essential spiritual core of the West(and Slavic East) to something peripheral or subordinate to another and higher sanctity(by the willful design of Jewish Power). Via the Bolshevik Revolution, Jewish radicals sought to eradicate Christianity altogether(with Marxism-Leninism being, for a time, the New Holy), but somewhere along the way, Jews figured a religion like Christianity cannot be wiped off the face of the Earth, not least because Christianity feeds on victimization. The persecution of Christianity under communism turned it once again into a symbol of suffering and resistance, whereas hitherto it had been reviled by Marxist-Leninists as an exploitative soul-control-mechanism by traditional authority. In Poland, the Catholic Church had a unifying effect against communism and Soviet domination, and the record of persecution under Bolshevism gave the Russian Orthodox Church a second life. (To use the Dumb Polacks against communism, the Vatican picked a Pole as pope in John Paul II.) Therefore, the smarter thing was not to eradicate the church but to subvert, corrupt, and reprogram it(from a self-sustaining autonomous faith system into one obeisant to another sacro-system). Christianity today lacks the confidence that remains palpable in Islam(despite most Arab/Muslim countries having been no less corrupted and compromised by the Jewish-supremacist-controlled West). Islam is adamant as the final prophecy of Muhammad. In contrast, Christianity believes it must prove its worth and redeem its checkered history at the feet of new sanctities greater than itself. Thus, Mainline churches hoist ‘godomy’ flags and iconography of Negrolatry(around George Floyd, for example) as most Mainline morons believe that celebrations of homo-fecal-penetration & tranny genital-mutilation and the cult of the magic-tragic-Negro are holier than Jesus & Jehovah. And Evangelicals believe the Old Testament is the definitive text, i.e. the New Testament is less a radical revision and departure from the Jewish Way than a portal for inferior goyim to find their way to the Jews as the Chosen Master Race. In the minds of Christo-Talmudist cucks like Mike Huckabee, Jesus(via St. Paul) didn’t so much offer a New Covenant for all mankind as direct all goyim to crawl on their knees to the House of Holy Jews to bow down and obey. Current Evangelicalism is like a cult of human sacrifice to appease the Jews as the Chosen Tribe. It doesn’t matter how many Palestinians and Lebanese have been slaughtered. It doesn’t matter how many Iranians have been killed by sanctions and bombs or how many more may die. It doesn’t matter if the current energy and fertilizer crises(arising from the Iran War) may lead to famines in the Third World(especially in Africa) and end up killing millions or even tens of millions. If it pleases the Jews as the Chosen god-men, the superior master-race, then it will all have been worth it. Ironically, the Jewish religion, which had long prided itself as being distinct from others in the ancient world in its rejection of human sacrifice, has become a mass cult of global human sacrifice, especially among White Talmudo-Christians(but also among secular Charles-Murray-and-HBD types who believe Jewish Genius equals Jewish awesomeness, meaning superior Jews have won enough Nobel prizes to do with the rest of humanity as they please). Anything to appease the Jews as the Global Tribe of 12 million mini-christs and/or mini-einsteins.
The fact that Christianity has thus been altered goes to show that spirituality isn’t sufficient to perpetuate a tenet of holiness. If well-funded Satanists with cultural clout infiltrate the Christian church and go about making Satan out to be the dearest friend of(or even the master over) God and Jesus, enough suckers will fall for it. The idea of Christian churches celebrating ‘godomy’ was inconceivable at one time, but most Mainline churchgoers now believe Christianity exists mainly to serve the higher sanctity of GloboHomo and Negrolatry(or the idea that some Negro street thug is holier than Jesus and worthier than all the white race combined since time immemorial). It has gone from Blessed Eucharist to Bunghole Eucalyptus. Throughout the 20th century, unlike in Bolshevik Russia where churches were targeted for destruction or repression, churches in the US appeared to be thriving, in contrast not only to godless communist USSR but post-Christian secularist Europe. On the other hand, the fact that anyone could harshly criticize or openly impugn/insult Christianity in all its aspects — faith, dogma, history, clergy, morality, and etc. — without serious repercussions, especially since the Sixties, was a sure sign that Christianity had fallen from its perch as the sacred heart of the West. Some may argue that this was the natural outcome of modernity with its liberalizing and secularizing influences, i.e. in an open and tolerant society committed to free speech and individual liberty, all views, however offensive or problematic, are allowed airing. Such an explanation would be plausible if it applied to all views deemed controversial, but it simply isn’t so. If satirists, critics, and mockers of Christianity remain unscathed for their views, those who offend the Neo-Sanctities are harshly rebuked, socially and/or professionally destroyed, financially denied service, and often targeted for extensive lawfare. So, the very ‘liberal’ or ‘libertarian’ voices that will defend the rights of anti-Christian or anti-Muslim voices on grounds of ‘free speech’ will turn on a dime and call for the ‘cancellation’ of the blasphemers of the New Holies, them being Negrolatry, GloboHomo, and various forms of Jew Worship: Israel-Firstism, Jews-as-Chosen-ism, Holocaustianity, Anne-Frankism. The West really went from ‘theocracy’ to ‘neocracy’.
Then, the most sensible explanation for the declining prestige of Christianity is not so much the increasing liberalization of society but the shifting sacralization of themes. Just as Bolshevik Russia, despite its professed secularism, was just as zealous and fanatical in its sanctimony as was Christian Russia, albeit in reverence of Marx and Lenin than Jesus and the Tsar(as the father of the empire), the so-called ‘liberal’ West is no less ‘spiritual’ and inquisitional than the Christian West was, except that its objects of worship are decided by Jewish Power(just like the new sanctities in National Socialist Germany were determined by Adolf Hitler and his school of ideologues). So, someone like Bill Maher, though having presented himself as an irreverent liberal or libertarian hipster open to all manner of controversies, will circle the wagons with his Jewish supremacist buddies to maintain the sacred taboos essential to Jewish Power. (Sasha Baron Cohen is no different, always ready to sling mud at other peoples and cultures but calling for neo-blasphemy laws against those who call out on Jewish Evil.) Even though there are genuine liberals(some of them Jewish like Glenn Greenwald) around who stand on principle and defend free speech rights, the bulk of Liberalism Inc. has been more committed to propping up new holies than defending free speech against the repressive tendencies of ‘neocracy’. Whether ‘progressive liberals’ or ‘conservative libertarians’, their hypocrisies have been blatant in our time. 2020 witnessed how deranged supposed ‘liberals’ could become via the ‘woke’ mind-virus. And Trump’s second term exposed the hollowness of ‘conservative’ commitment to liberty when the so-called MAGA commissars, at the behest of their Zionist donors and handlers, targeted universities and institutions for calling out on the evils of Zionism.
Official sanctity is never about one thing. Jewish Power owes to a confluence of financial power, political power, legal power, media power, intellectual/academic power, cultural/artistic power, and spiritual power. Like lord Hidetora demonstrated in Akira Kurosawa’s RAN, it’s easy to break a single arrow but difficult to break three in a bundle. Indeed, the prolonged power of the Christian Church in the West owed to its protection by the aristocratic-warrior caste, the funding by the merchant class, and the intellectual support from the scholarly class. On its own, any spiritual institution finds itself vulnerable. The sudden shift from Catholicism to Protestantism(or vice versa) among various European polities demonstrated how spiritual authority relied on the fickle whims of political power. Parts of the Christian World, especially in the Near East and North Africa(but also in the Balkans as well) conquered by Muslims often resulted in mass(and sudden) conversions to Islam. Jewish power was held in check throughout the history of Christendom because, despite the wealth of Jewish tradesmen and financiers, the Church had the backing of kings & noblemen and the services of the scholarly class that lent the church intellectual, as well as spiritual and moral, prestige. Also, the political power of the Christian kings and noblemen dissuaded the Jews(who were privately hostile to Christianity) from overt acts of subversion against the Church. And as much of the economy was land-and-agriculture-based, independent of Jewish financial power, the Church had a solid economic basis of support.
In the late modern era, much of the support systems of the church eroded away one by one. With the rise of science and the Cult of Reason by the way of the Enlightenment, the intellectual class became increasingly secular, no longer serving as the intellectual scribes of the Church. Many Jews in the modern era also subscribed to secularism, both sincerely and cynically. Many turned away from the Judaic faith and customs and felt emancipated not only from goy restrictions but from the dead weight of Jewish tradition. But, there was also a cynical element as secularism could be employed by Jews to subvert, discredit, and mock Christianity(to the advantage of Jewish Power). The difference between Jews and Christians was that the Jews remained Jews even without the faith whereas Christians were suddenly nothing without the faith. Jewishness, after all, is an ethno-religious identity, meaning even without the spiritual element, the ethnic element retains cultural value. Furthermore, because the origins of Jewish identity are inseparable from the cult of Chosen-ness, even Jews who reject the faith are in some ways defined by the spiritual source or the sacred conception of Hebraic identity. In contrast, Christianity is purely a credo-religion based on belief(as no single ethnicity can claim a special blessedness by Jesus). In the modern world, much of Jewish pride became associated with intellectual achievement(in sciences & medicine with Einstein being its public face), business success, ideological influence(via Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud among others), cultural innovation(and even domination, especially in Hollywood and via control of popular music), and the art of outwitting goyim(albeit leavened with humor to keep the goyim laughing even as they were bamboozled, ridiculed, and humiliated). Whereas secular white achievements could no longer be called ‘Christian’, secular Jewish achievements could still be categorized as ‘Jewish’(an ethnic category). Secular Western Gentile achievements were designated as ‘white’(or ‘Aryan’ in some quarters), a racial category, but such increasingly fell out of favor and ultimately reviled as ‘whiteness’ became associated under Jewish influence with historical guilt, racial supremacism, and other tainted notions. Thus, whatever Jews accomplished added to Jewish Pride, whereas whatever whites accomplished was attributed to generic mankind(even though whites did the bulk of heavy lifting in various endeavors of human progress) or unfair white advantage(thanks to ‘white privilege’ accrued via exploitation of the darkies, e.g. the reason why Anglos achieved so much was because they leeched off the blood and sweat of Hindus and Negroes). Polls have also shown that most Jews regard the Holocaust and/or Zionism(as reaction to Jewish Tragedy) than religious tradition as key markers of their identity. Unlike Christians and Muslims, Jewishness thrives even without faith and tradition. Even the most irreligious Jews feel the pride of Jewishness in the Tribe’s worldly successes. And no matter that many Jews who perished in the Shoah were irreligious or even anti-religious. The Holocaust phenom is about Jewishness as a race, not a religion, from both the Nazi German and Zio-Jewish perspectives. It didn’t matter if certain Jews were atheist, Christian converts, or even ‘Anti-Semites’, aka ‘Self-loathing Jews’; they were still blood Jews in Himmler’s eyes. Zio-Jewish perspective operates on a similar plane, i.e. dead Jews in the Shoah are counted as members of a race, not a religion. For both the Nazis and the Zionists, it doesn’t matter what the Jewish victims believed or thought; the only thing that mattered was their blood. For the Nazis, persecution of Jews was especially justified because the Jews were deemed uniquely problematic and dangerous. For the Jews, persecution of Jews was uniquely tragic because the Jews were deemed especially precious(to God and/or History), even superior to the rest of humanity. From the Jewish perspective, the tragedy of the Holocaust isn’t so much centered on the deaths of millions of innocent people as on the killings of superior Jews by inferior goyim, and it explains Zionist supremacism/imperialism as the logical and natural outgrowth of the Jewish Holocaust mindset.
Of course, the post-war Jewish narrative could have taken a different tact, and some Jews have done just that. They maintain that the essential tragedy of the Holocaust was that millions of innocent people were killed; these victims happened to be Jewish, but mass killing is equally tragic regardless of who does the killing and who does the dying. Such Jews are appalled by what’s been happening in Gaza. But for the Zio-Jews, the true tragedy of the Holocaust was not that ‘six million people’ were killed but ‘six million Jews’ were killed, i.e. the superior race was killed by inferior goyim; it was like a mass deicide of Jewish god-men by goy sub-humans. Though not officially articulated in such a manner, many Jews and many goyim FEEL that way, i.e. the Holocaust was about the rightful master race murdered by the rightful servant race, a crime against God and Nature. Had the Jewish sense of superiority owed entirely to religious dogma(of the Covenant), the impact would have been limited as plenty of groups throughout history have thought highly of themselves on the basis of myth. However, the outsized Jewish achievements in the secular sphere in late modernity suggested a kind of neo-covenant, historical than spiritual, the idea that humanity simply cannot progress(or progress fast enough) without the input of Jewish Genius. Without Jews, we wouldn’t have modern physics, modern medicine, modern psychology, Hollywood, humor & comedy, Christmas carols, social justice, big ideas, wealth creation, and people to award with Nobel Prizes.
The secular-sacralization and fascinated-fetishism of Jewishness comport with general neo-spiritual trends in the late modern era. When God mattered, no matter how vaunted an individual or group, he or it ranked way below God. Even the greatest king was nothing before the King of Kings, Jesus, or a mere mite before Allah. With God out of the way with the advent of hyper-modernity, individuals or groups could be elevated(by themselves and others) upon the pedestal with nothing above them. There was no higher authority than Marx and Lenin in the Soviet Union. Nothing higher than Adolf Hitler in National Socialist Germany. When Stalin and Mao ruled, they were like gods. But most such cases were the product of closed systems. Stalin was god in the USSR but a monster to much of the world. In North Korea, the Kim clan has control over education, media, politics, military, entertainment/culture, and etc., and as such could elevate itself to quasi-divine status. What’s godlike in one place is usually a zero elsewhere. This is where Jewish Power has been different. With God out of the way, Jews have elevated themselves to godlike status, and their global influence is far-reaching and deeply entrenched all around the world, especially in parts that matter most: The US, UK, EU, and West in general. It’s now spread all over Latin America as well, with the likes of Javier Melei bowing down like a servile dog at the feet of Jews as near-divine beings.
Given the prestige, influence, and power of the West, even parts of the world outside direct Jewish influence fear to cause offense with views that may be construed as ‘Anti-Semitic’. Just as even non-Muslims fear to rile up Muslims by badmouthing Muhammad or Allah, even non-Philo-Semites(or non-Jew-worshipers) fear drawing the ire of the West that commands global culture and international laws. Notice how Russia and China, though often defiled and defamed by World Jewry, dare not name the Jewish Power. The fear concerns not only Jewish Power but the outrage of white cuckery premised on Jew-Worship. Just like the US tolerates American citizens boycotting any of the 51 states but will not countenance the boycotting of Israel, whites are far more likely to tolerate(and even reflect on) hostilities directed towards them than toward Jews. Badmouthing Jews is to white cucks what badmouthing Muhammad or Allah is to Muslims. Muslims will tolerate insults hurled at Muslims as individuals but will not tolerate insults targeting the Prophet or Allah. Likewise, white cucks(especially among the boomers) will tolerate anti-white invective but fly off the handle over anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist criticism. Because of Jewish/Zionist tentacles all over the West that still sets the global standard, Jew-Worship(or Jew-Fear, akin to the fear of god) isn’t limited within a closed system. (Even critics of Jewish abuses feel obliged to go out on a limb to demonstrate that they are NOT ‘Anti-Semitic’, only anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish-supremacist. Criticisms of most other peoples, nations, and cultures aren’t accompanied by similar caveats. One may hate Russian people and culture along with Russian politics and power or hate the Chinese people and culture along with Chinese politics and power, but one must love the Jewish people and culture even as one loathes Jewish politics and power.) Badmouthing the Kim clan in North Korea means big trouble but is perfectly fine elsewhere. And despite the real fear of Islamic violence, no one fears insulting the Prophet or Allah where there are few or no Muslims around. To that extent, Islamism is also a closed taboo system limited to where Muslims are in power or notably represented. There is no penalty for having negative views of Islam, Allah, Muhammad, or Muslims per se in much of the world. In contrast, anyone(especially at elite levels) associated with ‘antisemitism’ can very well expect to be purged, canceled, blacklisted, de-banked, and/or excommunicated throughout much of the world. Even where criticism of Jewish supremacist excesses, especially via Zionism, is relatively tolerated, one must profess a clear distinction between Jewishness and Zionism(or some related Jewish evil), i.e. pretend that Jewish Evil is in no shape or form an outgrowth of something inherently problematic with Jewishness itself. Outside the Islamosphere, hating on Islam can result in bodily harm(usually from a hot-headed Muslim migrant) but isn’t deemed a thought crime, whereas ‘antisemitism’ is the sin of sins in the secular West.
Jew-Worship is the Worship of Man predicated on Tribal Sanctity in an open system, which means it applies to everyone everywhere, at least if they want to be part of the global system(of access, status, and privilege) — especially since 10/7(or the Gaza Uprising, followed by Gaza Genocide), the powers-that-be have tightened the screws on Ivy League universities to reject any candidate associated with criticism of Zionism. Whereas the system will tolerate, encourage, and even mandate certain kinds of hatred — one must hate Russia in order to join the club, for example — , it will seek to destroy anyone suspected of ‘antisemitism’. Granted, ‘racism’(mostly against blacks) and ‘homophobia’ are comparably taboo(due mainly to Jewish insistence on Negrolatry & ‘white guilt’ and GloboHomo as substitute for Christianity and minority-over-majority favoritism). While the supposed ‘liberal’ Western order in its official capacity disapproves of all forms of prejudice, many within the system have been prone to badmouth the people/culture/attitudes of Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Arabs, and of course white folks(usually demeaned as ‘far right’, ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, and/or ‘supremacist’ for the slightest infraction against the globalist norm) without negative consequences. Conservatives are tolerated, especially in the wake of 10/7, for ‘Islamophobic’ speech, and hardly anyone pays a price for alarmism over Russia or Yellow Peril hysterics over China.
Of course, it sometimes leads to confusion, as when the very Europeans, who were admonished for their ‘Islamophobia’ or Anti-Arab sentiments, are suddenly urged to crack down on Anti-Zionist or Pro-Palestinian protests. The very ‘liberal’ voices calling for tolerance of Islamic culture will then condemn the Muslims for not celebrating GloboHomo ‘godomy’ and skank-feminism, both of which are anathema to Islamic values. The very Jews who excoriate Europeans as ‘xenophobic’ and/or ‘Islamophobic’ will, in the next breath, demand that those very Europeans stand with Jews/Zionists against the Islamist threat or Arab barbarism. The very Jews who’ve claimed to champion openness and cultural tolerance have also pressured European elites to ‘cancel’ and suppress Russian arts & culture along with Russia news and info. The very Westerners who extol the virtue of free trade and the advantages of fair competition will use whatever means to shut out Chinese tech and to sanction the hell out of any country in the cross-hairs of Jewish hegemonism. In other words, for all the professed condemnation of every kind of prejudice, bigotry, and hatred, some groups and ‘values’ are more equal than others, a double standard known all too well by the Palestinians(and their sympathizers) as the very West that’s been droning on and on about the evils of ‘racism’, imperialism, and genocide is now fully supportive of Jewish racial supremacism, war of aggression against Iran, and full-blown genocide in Gaza. Whatever the West claims to uphold is routinely usurped by the higher sanctity of Jew Worship.
Even though Western Jew Worship is wedded to guilt and/or sympathy concerning the Holocaust, that’s only half the story as people don’t worship what is merely pitied. People pity homeless dogs and stray cats but don’t worship them. People pity the starving and the diseased in Third World countries but don’t worship them. Why was Jesus worshiped as the King of Kings? Simply because He got whupped real bad and was nailed to the Cross? Pitiable to be sure but hardly the stuff to inspire worship. No, Jesus as the object of worship(as the Christ) was the product of the mythic narrative of His overcoming of death, ascendance to Heaven, and revelation as the Son of God(which according to Christianity is as good as God Himself). Thus, the pity over what was done to Jesus was turned into the guilt of Deicide and the gratitude that the Messiah, far from seeking revenge on mankind, offered it forgiveness and even a ticket to paradise on condition of its prostration before Him and proselytization of His message. In other words, it was the awesomeness, in tandem with the pity and guilt, in regards to Jesus that really made Christianity. And it was this awesomeness or divinity that turned a simple case of Jewish-requested execution(by the Romans) into a full-blown act of Deicide, serving as the primary source of Christian ‘antisemitism’. (Even though modern/secular ‘antisemitism’ has been traced back to Christian Jew-hatred, Christianity was in many ways always more Anti-Aryan than Anti-Semitic. True Aryan culture of the West was pagan and indigenous, the stuff that arose from the vision, inspiration, and imagination of the Euro-Aryans. Christianity could be harshly judgmental toward the Judeo-Semites but grudgingly acknowledged them as the spiritual forebears of the Christians, whereas it regarded Aryan pagan cultures as demonic and satanic, as such targeted for destruction. Even with the neo-pagan revival of the Renaissance, much of the reconstituted pagan aesthetics were used to glorify the Semitic figures of Biblical narratives. There’s so much handwringing about Christian European mistreatment of the Jews but precious little about the far greater violence and terror meted out to pagan communities as repositories of indigenous Aryan culture. From this angle, the Anti-Semitism of Nazism was more a neo-pagan revenge against the Semitist terror, even if via the vessel of Christianity, than an extension of Christian hostility against Jews.)
The same goes for Jew Worship. For all the expressions of sympathy for Jews as eternal victims of the ineradicable scourge of ‘antisemitism’ and for Israel as a tiny beleaguered state beset on all sides by Jew-haters, what really animates Jew-worship among the cucks is the perception of Jewish awesomeness, especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The world was told that the Jews were pushed to near-extinction in the single greatest act of evil in all of history, but within several decades Jews took over the reins of the greatest power in the world, the United States. A bunch of Jews who barely escaped the fate of Anne Frank made the most money, racked up Nobel prizes, took hold of academia/media, led major social movements, and even made the world laugh via Seinfeld. And the Six Day War narrative had little Israel as David surrounded on all sides by Naziesque Arabs who came ‘just this close’ to bringing about another Holocaust, but the Jews, either owing to their genius & heroism or blessing from God above, whupped all them barbarous ‘ragheads’ in merely six days.
When it comes to worship, people usually go with awesomeness over goodness. The history of Christianity proves it. A religion that began as a resistance cult became the official faith of the Roman Empire. Why didn’t the Christians reject this corruption of faith, its appropriation by a brutal empire? Because the Roman Empire was awesome. For most of Christian History, Christians hardly acted Christian. They waged endless wars, looted and pillaged, enslaved and exploited. But it was all awesome, so never mind all the blood spilt in the name of Christ. Or take the Enlightenment and its single greatest manifestation, the French Revolution. It was a declaration of liberty, fraternity, and equality in dethroning the king and calling for justice. But it ended up with Emperor Napoleon. Imagine that, a revolution in the name of the people that replaces a king with an emperor. But Napoleon was awesome and appealing as the face of the Enlightenment. Communism’s appeal was the cause of justice for the little guy, the worker(or peasant in the case of China). But Stalin’s brutal policies led to the deaths of millions of little guys, and Mao’s policies ended up killing tens of millions of peasants. Yet, Stalin and Mao were awesome, therefore worshiped as living gods, even by the masses who suffered under them. The history of the Americas has often been narrated as the story of justice and progress, with Catholics bringing Jesus to the savage natives in Latin America and with Anglo-American Protestants spearheading a great experiment inspired by both the Enlightenment and Christianity. Yet, the history has been replete with mass extinctions(and sometimes exterminations), extensive slave trade, greed & corruption, imperialism, and endless war-making. (The power trajectory of American History can be summarized in terms of Anglo-Americans detaching the US from the Anglo-British Empire and the Judeo-Americans attaching the US to the Judeo-Zionist Empire. Benjamin Franklin cut the cord, and Jonathan Pollard tied the knot.) How did Christians(and do-gooder progressives) square the real history of the Americas with their professed turn-the-other-cheek and love-thy-enemies precepts? Because the history was awesome. There was so much gold to be had in the mines of South America, so much wealth to be generated in North America, and so much power to be built up to dominate the world. When the USA-USA-USA red-blooded Christian types bleat about America being the ‘greatest country in the world’, they don’t mean goodness or kindness but lots of wealth and lots of power to beat up other countries, such as Venezuela. It’s all about awesomeness. Scratch a Christian or any other believer or ideologue, and you find a ‘fascist’(as used in common lingo) whose true conviction is Awesomeness. Much of ‘white guilt'(especially in regards to ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’) is less the product of conscientious self-realization than the worship of Jewish Awesomeness. After all, the very whites who weep and atone for their rancid history of ‘antisemitism’ are totally enthused in supporting Jewish supremacism and the Gaza Genocide. If conscience were truly at work, these whites would be condemning all forms of supremacism and mass-extinction events instead of replacing the discredited supremacism of ‘racist’ whites with the awesome supremacism of the almighty Jews.
Granted, Jews understand that awesomeness alone isn’t sufficient to guarantee fealty as it feeds mainly on fear and fascination. Over time, the awe may also inspire hatred and resentment. After all, the US became the most awesome power in history, but Anti-Americanism has always been rife around the world. All those who bowed down before Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Hitler didn’t necessarily respect or revere them. With the end of the Cold War, the world learned how much the Eastern Europeans had privately resented the awesome dominance of the Soviet Union. If Jewish prestige and Israel’s standing in the world have been slipping lately, it’s because Jewish chutzpah let the cat out of the bag and, especially via the likes of Netanyahu and Alex Karp, has been running mainly on awesomeness. Thus, many more people, especially the impressionable young on social media, have come to see Jewish Power as essentially aggressive, arrogant, nihilistic, and pathological, or awesome but awful. Especially under Biden and Trump, even the pretense of Jewish fairness and conscience have been laid aside in favor of we-do-whatever-we-want-to-because-we-can-and-what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it-which-is-nothing. It’s come to look like supremacist-gangsterism pure and simple. History teaches us that power that runs on awesomeness alone is doomed. If communism held a moral advantage over fascism in the Western World, it was because the former was seen as empowerment for justice-sake whereas the latter was seen as power-for-power’s-sake, at least according to the popular narrative. Increasingly, people are beginning to see Jewish Power as the latest manifestation of ‘fascism’, something devoid of moral ideology and premised essentially on Jewish supremacy, insatiable power-lust, and shameless braggadocio, especially as Netanyahu and Trump seem to operate on the same wavelength of self-aggrandizement and megalomania, though one should make a distinction between narcissism and arse-cissism. Netanyahu is the true narcissist as he feels real power and believes himself to be in control. In contrast, Trump’s apparent narcissism is phony because, deep down inside, he knows he’s a pitiful cuck-maggot dog of Zion. How can anyone be proud and boastful of being a servile dog? Therefore, his seeming narcissism is really a form of arse-cissism(or ‘farcissism’), the farcical playacting of a pathetic arse.
Perhaps, the over-the-top flaunting of arrogance and contempt among Jewish elites owes to several generations of excessive goy obsequiousness towards all things Jewish in the Western World predicated on both Jewish victimhood and Jewish victorhood. Given the rise of Holocaustianity, virtually all white aspirants in respectable society and influential circles went out of their way to demonstrate an absolute and unconditional intolerance of ‘antisemitism’ regardless of context. At the same time, there was the unspoken awareness among all goyim that the real power was going from the WASPS(White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) to the BUGS(Busy Urban Globalist Semites), and so one had to prove one’s worthiness to be in good graces with the all-powerful and all-wise Jews as the New Ruling Elites. As a result, Jews, especially the privileged ones since at least the 1970s, grew up surrounded by fawning goyim always eager to lavish flattery on all things Jewish, not only among the Democrats but among the Republicans who took cues from the (Bill)Buckley-Cuckley School of Suckup to win over Jewish money, talent, prestige, and sanctity. When several generations of Jewish elites, innately prone to chutzpah, arrogance, and contempt, grew up with and experienced nothing but goy sycophancy, obeisance, servitude, and even worship, it must have been tempting to let it all hang out and act god, like Larry Ellison openly flaunting his wealth to rig the media, Jewish oligarchs openly funneling tens of millions to oust Thomas Massie in KY, Netanyahu visiting the White House to ram Trump up the arse on a routine basis, sabotaging the release of the Epstein Files(and flicking the middle finger as if to say, “there’s nothing you can do about it”), and very possibly taking out Charlie Kirk who began to see the light on Jewish Power. But, if the Ancient Greeks were right, nemesis hides around the corner.
In more ways than one, the current crop of Jewish elites seem profligate with the power and prestige that had been assiduously(and cleverly) built up over the years, especially after World War II. They’re taking too many chances, taking too much for granted as the ‘masters of the world’(in the words of Norman Coleman), overly reliant on the awesomeness of their power without appreciating its paradoxical foundation(of the cult of Jewish victimhood), especially in relation to the Holocaust. The (once assumed)timeless standing of Christianity owed to both pity and power. Pity for Jesus as a Good Man whupped real bad by a cruel and uncaring world but also awe of Christ as the Son of God as the King of Kings: Jesus as both the whipped and the whip-hand. Jewishness in the post-WWII world relied on similar narrative manipulations. Jews were Holocrucified as a people and nearly pushed to the brink. By the war’s end, with so many European Jews dead or destroyed in spirit, Jews could have been counted out as a people of power and consequence. Yet, as if miraculously resurrected, Jewish power was back on track and approaching elite domination in the country that mattered the most, the US. Thus, there was a complex interplay of Jewish victimhood and Jewish ‘victorhood’. Whether it was a Jewish man who survived the Nazi death camp or a Jewish kid whose lunch money was stolen by a Dumb Polack, Jews were gaining the upper-hand and, as such, held fascination as both the underdogs(the kind that people love to root for) and the top dogs(the kind that people swoon at). Whether George Soros, who survived the Holocaust, or Steven Spielberg, whose nose was bloodied by blond Aryan-Christian school kids, they came to define and rule the world. But if Soros and Spielberg, for all their vengeful venomousness, have always appreciated victimology as the secret formula for the long-term security of Jewish Power, the younger generation of privileged Jews, the Adam-Sandlerites and Seth-Roganites, only know entitlement. If many earlier generations of Jews built up something from nothing, many later Jews grew up in affluence in a world where ‘antisemitism’ was verboten and where goyim of all stripes, as if unworthy even to carry the jock-straps of Jews, competed to be the favored dogs of Zion. Indeed, what is the White vs Hindu competition all about other than a pissing contest to be favored as the #1 sidekick of the Jews?
The Jewish victim-victor narrative and iconography were the product of careful and extensive coordination among many centers of Jewish power and influence. Jewish academia provided the ideas and the histories, Jewish media provided the stories and spins, Jewish entertainment provided the sounds & images, Jewish finance provided the means(as most Holocaust-themed films weren’t profitable), Jewish activism(via ADL and SPLC) smeared and silenced critics, Jewish lawfare threatened and destroyed rivals, and Jewish gangsterism did the dirty work when all else failed. Thus, Jews were able to shield their great power and its destructive reach/potential with the force-field aura of Anne-Frank-ish victimhood. Claude Lanzmann who made the 9-hour documentary SHOAH also made TSAHAL, an apologia of the IDF as a necessary bulwark against presumably another Holocaust. Notice how Lanzmann tied the Holocaust and Zionism together even though Palestinians had nothing to do with German atrocities and, if anything, Jews took on the Nazi-like role against the Palestinians. In his defense, one could argue that TSAHAL was made at a time(1994) before Israel went full-Judeo-Nazi, but surely all the signs were there, and furthermore, people like Lanzmann seem incapable of viewing Jews as anything other than eternal victims, the corollary being that goyim could oppress the Jews but never vice verse, i.e. no matter what Jews do, it’s always spun as ‘self-defense’ against ‘Anti-Semitic’ goyim, be they European/White or Arab/Muslim. How ironic that all the grisly and ghastly antics among German officers and soldiers in Spielberg’s SCHINDLER’S LIST are now playing out in real time in the ravaged towns and cities of Gaza and Lebanon, but we’ll only be inundated with yet more Holocaust films while Hollywood will refrain from making anything consequential about what the Zionists have wrought on Gaza(and Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, and etc. either directly or by the ‘Neocon’ control of US foreign policy).
Plenty of Jews have accused Christians of collaborating with the Nazis, not having done enough to resist Hitler, or remaining neutral in the face of total evil. But now, the Zionists are demanding that Christians in the West stand with Jews in the Gaza Genocide and in yet more Wars of Aggression for Israel. Pope Pius XII has been branded as “Hitler’s Pope”, yet Jews today take umbrage at the current Pope even mildly rebuking what Trump & Zionists have wrought upon the Middle East, spreading unspeakable horrors without the slightest misgivings about the consequences. Apparently, Christians didn’t do enough to stop the Holocaust during World War II but are now not doing enough to facilitate the current genocidal policies of Israel and Global Zion. So, it’s all a matter of who/whom. Genocide is an abomination if done to Jews by goyim, but it is totally awesome, the greatest thing since sliced bread or bagel with cream cheese, if Jews do it to goyim.
At any rate, Holocaust Remembrance wasn’t the natural outcome of World War II, an inevitable emergence of collective conscience given the gravity of what had happened. Like everything ‘mass’, ‘popular’, ‘sacred’, or ‘official’, it had to be manufactured, promoted, proselytized, enforced, and recited over and over. If society is truly guided by conscience, the US should have an American Indian Genocide museum in the Mall instead of the Holocaust Museum as the Holocaust happened on foreign soil. If any genocide should be commemorated in the US, it should be the one done to American Indians, but the stone-faced alcoholics in the reservations are without wit, will, ability, and means. So, they just got some casinos managed by Jews who skim off the profit. The fact that something as ludicrous and obnoxious as GloboHomo ‘godomy’ can take the place of Christianity is proof that the great majority are suckers, easily manipulated and (mis)guided. (At the very least, the George Floyd Cult, ridiculous as it was, played on the Christian themes of martyrdom in a debased manner of UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. In contrast, ‘godomy’ has nothing even remotely Christian-like about it, but so many Christians, especially in the Mainline community, are besotted with it. What does that tell you about white mentality?) Whether Chinese youths going nuts during the Cultural Revolution or ‘woke’ minions in the West hyperventilating over the sham idolatry of George Floyd, it was an ample demonstration that the people, especially the impressionable young, are swayed by mass indoctrination. The proof is in the pudding. While the communist East understandably reviled the Nazis no less than the West did(especially with Jewish ascendancy), it downplayed the uniqueness of Jewish suffering and emphasized the general victimhood of all peoples under Nazi tyranny. As a result, the kind of Jew Worship that came to define the West was absent in the East, especially as the Soviet Union fell out with Israel and allied with Arab countries hostile to Zionism. Nothing was inevitable or ‘written’ about the Holocaust becoming the centerpiece of the World War II narrative, which was manufactured by Jewish domination of institutions in the West. It’s no wonder that, post-Cold War, Jewish Power went all in on erecting Holocaust memorials in the formerly communist Eastern Europe nations and pressuring the new batch of ‘leaders’ to catch up to speed in the abject servility to and veneration of the Jews in the West. It was to compensate for lost time.
During the Cold War, the one point of consensus between the US and the USSR was that Nazism was the worst thing ever. No matter how much the US reviled the commies and how much the USSR reviled the ‘cappies’, it was agreed that the Nazis were infinitely worse. But here was the difference. While the USSR held that Nazi evil owed to its essentially anti-human ideology, the US and the West, increasingly under Jewish influence, held that Nazi evil owed to its essentially Anti-Semitic worldview. Despite the tremendous loss of life among the Soviets, the USSR didn’t define Nazi evil in Russo-centric or Slavo-centric terms. Instead, the idea was that Nazis disregarded human life in general, implying all human lives have equal value. In contrast, the West came to favor an essentially Judeocentric view of Nazi evil, i.e. Nazis were evil because they targeted Jews especially.
The two legacies, one Russian/Soviet and the other Jewish/Western, continue to exert profound influence on the current reality. While Russians bemoan the loss of all lives in World War II, Jewish lives as well as their own(which by some counts reach 27 million), the Jews and Western Whites mostly mourn the loss of Jewish lives(and ignore the rest). Even as the West identifies the root cause of Nazi evil to have been racial supremacism, it holds that Jewish deaths were infinitely more tragic than all the goy deaths(numbering anywhere from 45 to 60 million), implying that Jewish lives are more precious than goy lives.
Then, is it any surprise that in the current Ukraine War(or Judeo-Russian War), Russians hope to persuade the Jews to stop with the aggression and to drop the alliance with Naziesque elements in Ukraine, whereas Jews see no wrong even in recruiting ‘UkroNazis’ as partners to kill more Russians? From the Russian perspective, Nazi evil mass-murdered Jews and Russians alike, and so, both peoples should, whatever their differences, stand against any manifestation of Neo-Nazism. In contrast, Jewish narrative of WWII centers on the tragedy of Jewish deaths, not Russian deaths. The Jewish lesson from the grim affair is that Jewish Lives Matter and goy lives not so much. Since Jewish lives matter most, Jews are inherently superior, and the Jewish Wish must be the Goy’s command. From the Jewish perspective, Germanic Nazism was evil only insofar as it harmed Jews. If, however, Nazism or Neo-Nazism can be used to kill goyim(such as Russians) for Jewish interests, then it’s fine and useful. Russians came away with the lesson that Hitler’s Nazi evil was anti-human, whereas Jews came away with the idea that it was anti-Jewish. But as long as Neo-Nazism can be made Jew-friendly and kill goyim at the behest of Zion, it can be a pretty cool thing. It’s no wonder Jews have no problem with their tribal brethren Zelensky using Ukro-Nazi goons to drag Ukrainians off the streets into the battlefield against Russia. What do Jews care if Slavs kill Slavs and create an opening for Jewish Power penetration? Recall that the late Lindsey Graham gloated about how all those Russians were dying, and Jews showered him with praise. Such white cuck ilk are dime-a-dozen in the Deep State, and Jews encourage their bloodlust against Russians.
If indeed Hitler had been a rabid Philo-Semite like Javier Milei of Argentina, perhaps, Jews would have persuaded the West to come to the aid of Nazi Germany in the demolition and subjugation of Russia into a slave state for the Judeo-Semites(as the master race) and the Germano-Aryans(as the managerial caste). One thing for sure, the Jewish lesson of World War II is fundamentally different from that of Russia or any other Eastern European country. Just like Jigrocentric blacks took umbrage at the notion that ‘All Lives Matter’ during the BLACK-LIVES-MATTER craze, Jews take offense at the view that all deaths, Jewish and goyim, were equally tragic in the horrors of World War II. It explains why Jews in the West feel no qualms about defaming and vilifying Russians in general and celebrating the deaths of Russian civilians(willfully targeted by Ukraine with the aid of Western advisors and technology), whereas Russians still fear to name the Jewish Power, let alone loudly call for and celebrate the death of Jews. There is no Russian counterpart of Lindsey Graham who goes around celebrating war and mayhem that slaughter Jews. Russians regard Jews as fellow victims of Evil Nazism, whereas Jews see themselves as the sole true victims of Nazi Evil and disregard goy lives as expendable, of some value only if useful to the Jewish-Zionist agenda. (White cuck dogs seem to agree as they go out of their way to make themselves ‘useful’ to their Jewish masters.) Whether it’s the targeting of Russian civilians by Jewish-run Ukraine or the targeting of Iranian civilians, including schoolgirls, by the USrael war machine, it’s all the same to the Jews: Something is evil if it harms Jews, but it’s good if it benefits Jews(even if it is appalling to much of the world). Ukro-Nazis serve the Jews and kill Russians, and that makes it kind of good in Jewish eyes.
Due to the narrative spin of World War II, especially given the immense Jewish influence over academia and media, the world came away with a most dangerous misconception of Jews-as-Eternal-Victims. In truth, Jews were among the main players for domination, scrambling for their slice of the global pie(or all of it). To some extent, this aspect of Jewishness was in line with the historical norm whereby a weak, backward, and/or marginal population, due to a strange set of circumstances, dramatically gained in prominence and played for huge stakes. At one time, the peoples of the Italian peninsula were a joke, and no one could have predicted something like the Roman Empire. Arabs constituted a third-rate power before they came to Islam and grew in dominance. Who would have thought that the ragtag barbarian tribes of Mongols would conquer and lord over so much? The British Isles were a backwater for most of European history but then went onto build the biggest empire ever. The shifting historical fortunes of the Jews fall into such a pattern. Winners become losers and losers become winners in history, just like in sports. Jews too went from losers to winners, from winners to losers, and back to losers to winners.
However, the World War II narrative obfuscated Jewish history by mythologizing the Holocaust as the greatest evil ever committed by man, a horror so immense that it defied rational explanations and took on spiritual dimensions. (Notice the film SHOAH refused to show any historical footage of the Holocaust, just like religious Jews dare not speak the name of Yahweh.) If indeed the Nazi Germans(as the ultimate Anti-Semites) were so demonic and satanic(or almost literally the Devil Incarnate on Earth), then Jewish victimhood must also embody a spiritual element, i.e. Jews must have been targeted by the most evil that ever was because they were so special, good, decent, wise, noble, sacred, tragic, and etc. Surely, the greatest evil hates most the greatest good. Thus, unlike most power struggles(political, economic, and/or military) in history among kingdoms, nation-states, or empires, the Nazi conflict with the Jews had to have been a ‘spiritual’ matter. Furthermore, the Nazis, the evilest monsters of all time, didn’t merely attempt to hurt, enslave, or dehumanize the Jews but to exterminate every one of them(at least according to the narrative). If Nazis were so utterly evil, then their dread and fear of Jewishness(indeed to the extent of attempting to extinguish every trace of it) implies that Jews stood for everything good, wise, and wonderful.
Superficially, the interpretation made for enticing logic, as evinced in all those Holocaust movies where cold-blooded Nazi officers torment helpless(and utterly harmless) Jews slated for some unspeakable horror. Of course, Roman Polanski’s THE PIANIST features a rather decent sort as victim than someone like the notorious director, a pervert-rapist of a minor and fugitive from justice(thanks to a Jewish Power network not unlike the one later set up by Jeffrey Epstein); and notice SCHINDLER’S LIST doesn’t feature a single Jew with the amoral character and contemptuous nature of George Soros. (Now, I believe in the grace period, but all things must pass.) It’s all a fallacy, albeit understandable for a time given the gravity of what had happened. (Likewise, the shining heroism of the Allied forces was exaggerated given the evil forces they were up against, i.e. if their enemies were so evil, they must have been so noble. In fact, most Allied soldiers did as ordered just like the Axis soldiers did; and plenty of them committed war crimes, just like the Axis soldiers. German soldiers ordered to commit mass murder committed mass murder. Soviet soldiers encouraged to rape and pillage raped and pillaged. US soldiers ordered to slaughter German and Japanese civilians from the air or on the ground did just that.) It’s often the case that sympathy and compassion, especially in the form of pity, blinds us to the deeper, more ambiguous and complex, nature of the circumstantial victim. Upon witnessing a bear being chained and whipped, our pity for the poor creature could be such that we lose sight of the fact that a bear(or tiger or any other big predator for that matter) is by nature a dangerous beast. Indeed, this has happened with blackness in the American Narrative. The understandable sympathy for blacks, enslaved and exploited, blinded some whites into embracing something the quasi-spirituality of UNCLE TOM’S CABIN that made a Negro out to be some christ-like figure who sacrifices hisself for the redemption of the white soul. In actuality, there’s nothing intrinsically spiritual or Christian-like about blacks. Prior to having been reduced to slaves, they were jungle savages chucking spears at hippos and other creatures, driving them crazy and turning them ‘racist’ at the mere sight of jungle-bunners.
However, the pity for blacks toiling under white domination blinded many whites to the inherently savage and hunter-warrior side of blacks who evolved alongside some of the deadliest animals that ever lived, with both sides driving each other ‘crazy’, an evolutionary necessity for survival. (Of course, whites later began to favor blacks for another reason. They went from weeping over Negroes as helpless, oppressed, and childlike victims to gushing over Niggaz as powerful, masterful, and badass victors as athletes, studs & ho’s, and rappers. Prowess(as a ‘badass cool’ quality), like pity, has a way of blinding people to the darker implications. Notice how people into fandom readily overlook the moral transgressions of their star athletes, musical performers, Hollywood actors, and the like. Still, nothing is as dangerous as the perverse combination of pity and prowess. If someone is only associated with prowess, physical power or monied influence, he may still face scrutiny and censure. But if he owns both prowess and pity, even honest critics will be reluctant to call him out. Notice even people who are well aware of black pathologies either remain silent or temper their criticism lest they be accused of ‘racism’, which is to say deficient in redemptive commitment to root out ‘systemic racism’.
The sick brew of pity-and-prowess undoubtedly clouds our judgement on Jewish Power as well. The pity for the Jews over the Holocaust(not only as a one-off historical tragedy but as the culmination of the long-standing disease of ‘antisemitism’ at the root of all European/Pagan/Christian history) prevents any honest appraisal of the problems of Jewish Power. (Academic studies have focused on the ‘problems’ of just about everything: Communism, Nationalism, Western Civilization, Russian History, Chinese Culture, Christian Credo, Arab Nationalism, White Privilege, and etc., but it’s far thornier to address the Problems of Jewish Power.) Therefore, Jewish Prowess, like Black Prowess, is only to be admired, never admonished. Just like it’s okay to gush about black athletes but taboo to address the black muscle factor in rampant criminality, it’s okay to rhapsodize about Jewish genius(Albert Einstein) or Jewish wit(Jerry Seinfeld) but hazardous to bring up the misuse of Jewish intelligence in business, politics, foreign affairs, and socio-cultural influence.
Indeed, Negrolatry and Judeolatry have gotten so out of hand that we must even make believe that black and Jewish pathologies are good things. Gangsta rappers spewing mindless filth? Why, they’re ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ speaking Da Troof! Urban black savages in London humping everything in sight and booty-grinding in public? Why, it’s just so ‘colorful’ and ‘vibrant’. As for Jewish cultural subversion in Weimar Germany? Why, that was the golden age of German modernity. And Jewish promotion of Anno Sodomini or Limpwristianity(as substitute for Christianity)? Just get with the program because, otherwise, you must be a ‘homophobe’. Still, the psychological foundation of pity-and-prowess probably owes much to Christianity where the putative messiah was presented as the figure of both the profoundest pity(killed by Jews and Romans in the most horrible way) and the most awesome prowess(in having conquered death and shown His true face as the Son of God). Thus, basked in such a spiritual aura, the Christian Europeans grew in power & wealth(often by conquering and exploiting others) while pontificating about their eternal victimhood as the heirs of the saints who were hounded by the Jews and/or fed to the lions by the pagans.
In history as in life, it mustn’t judge the soul by the body. A man poor in means may be full of greed. A bullied victim may be a natural bully himself. Thus, even though Gazans today are understandably objects of pity, they aren’t natural saints. If Palestinians had the upper-hand, who knows what they might do with the Jews. Likewise, it was foolish to ‘spiritualize’ Jewishness on account of the Holocaust. Sympathy is warranted in the here and now, not for all time(thereby granting a certain group an indefinite moral license to do as it pleases). It’s a general rule that should apply to all peoples.
However, there’s no getting around the recognition(if we’re honest) that Jewishness cannot be understood within the generic patterns of history. There’s something unique about Jewish Identity that makes Jewish Power more problematic than most others. It’s a combination of eternal-thinking, cult-of-exceptionalism, and universal-contempt that makes Jewish pathologies return like a chronic infection that keeps recurring. Various peoples throughout history came to prominence, even global preeminence, but once decline set in, they reverted or regressed to a more normal existence(as if they’d gotten over the obsession with power and domination due to apathy, weariness, decadence, and/or the sheer cost). Italians have no dreams to be mighty Romans again. The Spanish know the sun set on their empire long ago. Turks know the Ottoman Empire is never coming back(though the likes of Erdogan covet parts of Syria). Iranians aren’t looking to reconstitute the Persian Empire. Contrary to the bogus propaganda of the Neocons/Neolibs, Putin and Russkies aren’t about to revive old Soviet borders. Even the once mighty Anglos and the French have resigned themselves to much reduced places in the world. And even though the US is regarded as the Lone Superpower, the one remaining global empire, most Americans look inward and don’t care for hegemonic ambitions. Most peoples throughout history never sought nor gained great power, and even those who once did eventually came back down to ground after their stints as the king of the hill. But, it seems Jews cannot shake off or forsake the ethno-supremacist bug once and for all. Jewish Supremacism, like cancer in remission, doesn’t totally go away but awaits for another opportune moment for relapse. Worse, at least cancer can be diagnosed and treated(with chemo or other means), whereas Jewish supremacism cannot even be identified for what it is and instead must be either ignored or even regarded as the cure(!) than as the disease. ‘Semitists’ cling to a worldview that is essentially ethno-megalomaniacal, hubristic, and profoundly contemptuous of the Other. They regard goyim in the manner that the pigs of George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM regard the other animals. Even many so-called Jewish Liberals/Progressives(especially in the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party) insist on policies that exalt some groups, especially Jews of course, as ‘more equal than others’. This is what makes ‘Semitism’ far more insidious and dangerous than ‘Aryanism’, which, like other imperialist visions, had its day in the sun but entered into the dustbin of history, with its chance of revival being virtually nil.
Unlike discredited ‘Aryanism’, however, ‘Semitism’ is very much alive, deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of many Jews. The resilience likely owes to a combination of spiritual conviction, historical self-aggrandizement(along with the boundless self-pity), and bio-social contrasts(between Jews and goyim). Unlike most identities that are merely ethno-cultural, Jewish identity has a spiritual component, namely that the Jews were chosen by the one true God. As matters of the spirit are eternal, religious and traditionalist(not necessarily faith-bound) Jews subscribe to the idea of their timeless superiority or specialness. Jews are also profoundly historical as the Old Testament, unlike the New Testament, is steeped in mythological history. A highly literate people, Jews also became more mindful of their place in history than most other peoples did. Given that the Jewish tribes were scattered to the winds many times over but always reconstituted as a people and culture, Jews have come to believe in their durability, invincibility, and destiny, i.e. mortal as individuals but immortal as a people, always rising from the ‘dead’.
So, whereas most great peoples gave up on imperial hubris and grandeur once their historical moment passed, Jews tend to regard every tragic setback as a reboot for an eventual triumph. It’s a strange brew of self-pity and self-promotion, a sense of aggrievement hardened into steely resolve fueled by righteous revenge. And given the Jewish advantage in intelligence and tenacity(in personality), they tend to achieve a lot more(and infinitely more in some cases) than other groups, resulting in chutzpah-pride that often festers into arrogance and contempt for dimwit and/or weak-souled goyim. The contempt has only grown over the years as the result of draconian taboos against ‘antisemitism’. Power operates much like ecological balance, i.e. without other organisms and natural limitations to check the overgrowth of a particular organism, the latter wreaks havoc on the environment, which is why in the absence of natural predators, humans must step in to reduce the populations of, say, deer and rabbits. In earlier times, when goyim grew alarmed at Jewish wealth & influence, they called out, prudently or excessively, the potential for abuse and corruption on the part of the Tribe. Thus, even those goyim who acknowledged Jewish abilities and achievements also addressed the darker implications of Jewish accumulation of power and influence. But once ‘antisemitism’ became verboten, goyim could only admire, praise, glorify, and fetishize Jewish Wit and Wisdom, resulting in the pathetic goy prostration at the feet of Jewish Power. When Jews see such dog-like behavior, such servitude and obeisance, of course their arrogance and contempt will boil over into full-blown ‘Semitism’.
Now, what is meant by ‘Semitism’? For a better understanding, we need to consider the meaning of ‘Aryanism’. In the generic sense, ‘Aryan’ is a linguistic category, one comprising the languages and cultures of various ethnic groups that expanded throughout Europe, Near East, Central Asia, and South Asia(parts of India). The Aryan concept holds that these various groups, though having branched off into different peoples & cultures, likely share a common origin given certain linguistic similarities. However, the term gained racial and then racial-ideological overtones beginning in the 19th Century and eventually became the political-philosophical basis of National Socialist Germany, among the most race-conscious orders in history. Hitler’s camp believed that the Aryan race possessed near-divine powers of vision, creativity, and originality, as well as a uniquely potent power of will. Furthermore, it represented the farthest evolutionary advancement of man in terms of beauty and behavior and in temperament and wisdom. In this worldview, ‘Aryan’ was essentially a racial than a linguistic category, and why not, given that languages often correlate with certain races/ethnicity, e.g. Finnish is mostly spoken by the Finns, Chinese is mostly spoken by the Chinese, Hindi is mostly spoken by Hindu Indians, and etc. According to the National Socialist historiography, the rise and advancement of civilization owed almost entirely to the Aryan vision and genius. Tragically, however, the Aryans succumbed to deracination, enervation, and even degeneration by mixing with other races. Thus, Aryanism, the very essence of civilizational greatness and racial beauty, became diluted into trace elements, and once-great civilizations regressed toward mediocrity or worse. In Hitler’s view, the last true repository of Aryan-ness remained in Europe, especially among Germano-Anglo-Scandinavian populations. Hitler extended his view to the Americas: The US did infinitely better than South America because, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese(already somewhat compromised by the Moorish invasions) mixed their blood with browns and blacks, the North American Anglos and Germanics remained race-consciousness and resisted miscegenation(though Hitler wasn’t too optimistic about the future of America given that Jewish elements seemed to thrive there and were bound to subvert the ‘Aryan’ essence of Anglo/Germanic Americans).
Under National Socialism(and related ideologies and/or worldviews beginning in the 19th century), the generic academic meaning of ‘Aryan’ was not to be confused with the politicized racial-ideological meaning of the term. True, even some people in India could trace their roots back to the original tribe of Aryans. So could certain scattered tribes in Afghanistan. And a good number of people in Iran and of course Greece. However, all such peoples were part-Aryans or trace-Aryans tainted with race-mixing. Therefore, the most essential Aryans were in Northern Europe(and parts of North America), and they were essentially the Germans, Scandinavians, and the Anglos(and some Western Slavs). And so, in this ideological context, ‘Aryan’ took on a racial meaning, and this particularism was theorized into a supremacism, i.e. Aryans are not only unique(like every group is) but superior as the Promethean race with the power to create civilization and the Narcissine race of special grace & beauty. The generic meaning of ‘Aryan’ applied to many peoples from South Asia to Northern Europe, but the ideological meaning of ‘Aryan’ was fixated on a subset of the European gene pool.
The core truth for National Socialists had diabolical implications for others. Clearly, the non-Aryans felt snubbed and insulted as lesser races. Also, there were plenty of Christian whites, liberal whites, leftist whites, and traditional whites who found the ideology of racial science to be extreme, pseudo-scientific, hubristic, bigoted, or worse. (The Anglos, though flattered by National Socialist ideology and profoundly racial-conscious themselves, found it crude and vulgar, even an indirect threat to their global dominance. It was more effective to spin their imperialism as the white man’s burden than the white man’s cudgel. Also, by outwardly prioritizing class over race, the empire could recruit and reward the native elites as collaborators among the subject peoples, a policy that would have been more challenging had ALL the browns/blacks/yellows, from top to bottom, been held in contempt as ‘wogs’.)
Just as ‘Aryan’ took on multiple meanings, so did ‘Semite’/‘Semitic’. In the generic sense, it refers to various peoples, mostly across the Middle East and North Africa, whose languages belong to a particular family. Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arabs, and etc. all belong in the Semitic cultural family. And despite being a linguistic term(like the ‘Aryan’), there’s been a correlation between Semitic languages and certain ethnic phenotypes. As many of the Ancient Semitic civilizations have faded into history, with their populations having adopted Arabic and Islam, a modern person is likely to associate Semitic identity mainly with Arabs and Jews, two ethnic populations that have evolved and survived as living cultures into the modern era. Among the warrior-Semites are the Yemenis.
A further twist in the meaning of ‘Semitic’ resulted from the peculiar position of Jews in the Christian-European world. Christianity, despite its Judeo-Semitic origins, developed and spread as a universal faith, whereas Judaism remained resolutely tribal-Semitic. Now, given that the Near East, once predominantly Christian, turned Islamic and given that neither the Christian North-West nor the Islamic South-East was able to conquer and convert the other, even the universality of either Christianity or Islam developed a semblance of racial consciousness: Christianity became associated with white Europeans while Islam became associated with the Arab World. Indeed, prior to Christian Europe’s expansion into East Asia, the Americas, and Sub-Saharan Africa(where the prevalence of primitive cultures made conversion relatively easy for Christian missionaries, in contrast to North African communities with their profound faith in Islam), it appeared that Christianity would mostly be restricted to the white world(while Islam took the lead in spreading far beyond its borders into Asia and Africa). With Christianity as essentially a white thing for nearly a thousand years, Europeans were more likely to be conscious of racial or ethnic matters than the Muslims(who were winning in the conversion game all over Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia). In macro-terms, the great enemy/rival of European Christendom were the Muslims(Arabs and later the Turks), as the two worlds faced off in battle time and time again, turned into legends in the story of the Crusades and Reconquista in Spain. Still, the Arab-Semites and Turks, despite their immense numbers and military prowess, were regarded as outsiders, a force to be dealt with on the battlefield. In contrast, the Judeo-Semites had permeated into the societies of Europe. Not being a warrior-people, the danger posed by the Judeo-Semites could easily be overlooked or underestimated; besides, their skills, especially in finance, were useful to the ruling castes of Europe. And, even as Christians might be offended by the Jewish refusal to convert and accept Jesus as the Son of God, the absence of conversionary zeal made Judaism less threatening than something like Islam that competed with Christianity as the one true faith for all mankind. Jews came under suspicion for their refusal to accept Jesus, but at least they didn’t try to convert Christians into Jews. Thus, Christianity assumed that Jews would never pose an ‘existential’ threat like Islam that sought to grind Christian souls into Muslim sausages.
And yet, Christian Europe kept running into problems with the Jews, resulting in a series of Jewish expulsions from one part of Europe to another then another, suggesting a growing awareness that Jews, not only as religionists but as a race, posed a threat just as great or even greater than that of the Arabo-Semitic Muslims and the Ottoman Turks. After all, the Arabs/Turks, for all their fearsomeness, were outside the borders, whereas Jews were on the inside, often involved in sensitive matters of finance, even to the point of becoming indispensable to the ruling elites whose dependence on Jewish money-lending could grow into an addiction, followed by servitude. Still, as long as Europe remained Christian and regarded Jews as the Other, there were barriers to Jewish advancement in key areas outside finance. Also, as long as religion remained the central divide between Christians and Jews, the racial and ethnic differences could be downplayed or ignored.
But with the fading of religion amidst the rise of late modernity and the Emancipation of Jews from Gentile strictures and Jewish scriptures, ethnicity as the marker of distinction between secularizing whites and secularizing Jews was bound to become more pronounced, especially as Jewish behaviors, attitudes, and actions, now shorn of religion, starkly contrasted with the norms of white society. (Even if Dan Quayle and William Kristol were to become totally atheist-secular, their contrasting personalities would be unmistakable. Same goes for Bill Buckley and Alan Dershowitz.) The Jewish Will remained independent of the Jewish religion(of which it was a cultural-spiritual expression), i.e. it was bound to survive secularization and latch onto new obsessions, concoct new objectives and adopt new strategies. Regardless of the ideology it ‘zeliged’ into, be it right-wing or left-wing, liberal or conservative, religious or secular, radical or comical, what emerged was a personality that was profoundly auto-centric and could accept the world only on its own terms. It’s no wonder that those goyim who identified the problem as Jewish LEFTISM ended up confronting the same problem with Jewish RIGHTISM. Jewish Republican policies turned out to be just as mendacious and destructive(and behind the scenes aligned with Jewish Democratic policies), i.e. Dershowitz is Dershowitz whether ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, with the Jewish Will, more than anything else, animating his thoughts and actions.
Also, it’s been proven to be a misconception that Judaism is non-universalist, a kind of tribalism that minds its own business. Despite their universalist Christian credo, the Amish better fits the bill of leave-us-alone-tribalism, i.e. they’re content to lead their own way of life and leave others alone. In contrast, even though Judaism isn’t conversionary in the manner of Christianity and Islam, it aims to transform all of humanity into accepting the Zionic worldview. The crucial difference is, whereas Christianity and Islam are about universal brotherhood — all within the faith are equal under God — , Judaism is about universal servitude, or ‘universitude’, by which all goyim are to bow down to the Jews as the rightful Chosen Master Race. The Jewish vision of Messiah makes no sense otherwise. This heavenly deliverer would not merely protect the Jews but promote them as the masters of the universe, the Chosen of the True God. It’s why the Christian concept of the Messiah has been so repulsive to the Jews. The Jewish Messiah is supposed to ensure Jewish domination over filthy goyim, not make filthy goyim the spiritual equal of Jews. He’s supposed to be Jewish Hitler, not Jewish Gandhi. Jesus Christ served as a spiritual bridge between Jews and Gentiles, whereby they would become brethren under Heaven. It made about as much sense to the Jews as making peasants into social equals did to the aristocrats.
Oddly enough, the Jewish conception of messianism is being realized by way of American Christianity that, at its deepest core, is about worship of money and might. Because Jews have proven themselves the champions at the American game of success, American Christianity has been newly conceived(and exported worldwide) as the Cult of Jew Worship and Zionic Prophecy. It’s no wonder that the white cuck-elites in the US and its vassals work overtime to spread the Gospel of the Schwartz. Indeed, it’s amazing that even though Creationists and Evolutionists are thoroughly divergent in their methodologies, they’ve totally converged in their shared Jew Worship/Veneration. Mike Huckabees of the world preach sermons about how we must obey and appease the Jews as the Chosen, and Charles Murrays of the world argue we admire and adore the Jews as titans of the mind. Despite the different systems of thought, both are logical conclusions of Americanism that prioritizes money and might above all else as the ultimate measure of worth and meaning.
Such a perspective, religion-based or science-based, is essentially Jewish Supremacist. It doesn’t merely say Jews have a unique, special, and/or great spiritual tradition. It doesn’t merely acknowledge Jews as having disproportionately contributed to the arts & letters, science & medicine, and business & enterprise. It says, on the basis of Biblical dogma and/or IQ fetishism, we should abandon our critical faculties altogether and surrender to Jewish awesomeness as a near-divine guide to the future, especially as Jews are champions in the US as Lone Superpower. If indeed Jews are the Chosen, who are we lowly un-blessed or less-blessed goyim to question or challenge the Jews? Jews are bathed in the holy light while goy souls, dirty and dank, must lean on Jews for a piece of sacred radiance, a view also at the core of Christianity, according to which humanity can be redeemed only through the figure of Jesus as the Ultra-Jew. American Christianity has gone from worshiping the One Jew to All the Jews. As for the social-scientific community of Charles Murray and HBD, the general idea is that Jewish IQ and achievements are so absolutely astounding and awesome that Jews might as well constitute a higher/superior species of humans. Just like dogs and sheep are unworthy to pass judgement on humans, dimwit brutish goyim are likewise in relation to the Jews, who are to goyim what humans are to apes.
Such a view implies that the Holocaust or Shoah was akin to quasi-deicide, i.e. lesser and inferior goy beasts killing superior Jewish gods. Just like mankind doesn’t tolerate animals killing humans — all such animals, domestic or wild, are culled — , the current West rebukes goy uppity-ness towards the Jews. Even when Jews push policies that harm whites, whites may scapegoat any group but the Jews. So, even anti-immigration whites are prone to blaming the Muslims, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, and etc. instead, ironically in the name of protecting Jews from ‘Anti-Semitic’ newcomers. So, even though GloboHomo is largely the agenda of Jewry, white opponents will glom onto the relatively rare Jews who oppose it, thus maintaining the masquerade that they, Jews and Gentiles, are all brothers-in-arms against the nuttery.
If it’s intolerable for lowly beastlike goyim to even criticize the quasi-divine Jews, imagine the repercussions were goyim to cause literal harm to the Jews. We see this logic play out in Gaza. For the longest time, Gazans have been dehumanized, oppressed, and brutalized by the Jewish imperialist occupiers. Over the years, the IDF death squads have been ‘mowing the grass’ time and time again, like what Spartans did with the Helots. So, what has been the Western response to the Gaza Uprising of 10/7? It has been to justify the total destruction and indiscriminate slaughter of Gazans by the Jews. The West has reacted to the violence like most people react to pest control campaigns, like the culling of coyotes and feral pigs to prioritize human interests. The Western elites have either approved or looked away from the extermination campaign against Gazans as human pests, to whom ruthless punishment must be meted out for their diabolical defiance against the superior master race of Jews. From the Western elite perspective, Palestinians should emulate the castrated whites, unconditionally obeisant to the Jews regardless of what Jews do. In the West, Jews often revile white identity and interests, but white elites reliably revere the Jews. The fact that some Palestinians reject such mental peonage is repulsive to many in the West. It’s like House Negroes offended by defiant Field Negroes.
In the current reality, ‘antisemitism’ isn’t the problem. The real danger(to all of humanity via the malfeasance of the Lone Superpower) is ‘Semitism’, by which we mean the particular ideology associated with Judeo-Semites, as opposed to the generic meaning of ‘Semites’ or ‘Semitic’, which would encompass all the various peoples throughout history who’ve spoken Semitic languages. In the modern ideological sense dominated by the Eurocentric Worldview, ‘Semites’ and ‘Semitic’ mainly apply to European Jews. Thus, in this context, ‘Semitism’ doesn’t mean the neutral study of pan-Semitic peoples, cultures, and languages(ancient and modern) but a particularist conception of Jews as a ‘certain people’, a race and ethnicity locked in a power struggle for dominance against humanity. It’s akin to the particularist concept of ‘Aryanism’ that, mainly via National Socialism, came to be associated with a kind of Nordicist racial consciousness and/or narcissism/supremacism. When the National Socialists expounded on the ‘Aryans’, they meant people like themselves on the basis of genetics and phenotypes. Likewise, when Jews speak of ‘Semites’ or ‘Semitic’ characteristics, especially within the context of ‘antisemitism’, they don’t mean the Arabs or the ancient Babylonians. They mean themselves as a most unique people, culture, and history.
Granted, Jews rather disingenuously employ a dualism when it comes to the meaning of ‘Semitic’. On one level, it is to discredit the notion itself as something cooked up by European ‘racists’ to create an imaginary distinction between Europeans and Jews. From this perspective, race is merely a myth and all people bleed red, and there should be no racial distinction between whites and Jews; unfortunately, however, ‘Anti-Semitic’, ‘racist’, and ‘white supremacist’ bigots created the false dichotomy of the Noble Aryans and the Nasty Semites(Jews), and this dark racial fantasy eventually led to the Holocaust. Thus, one meaning of ‘antisemitism’ implies that whites invented or exaggerated the category of ‘Semites’ to relegate Jews to the realm of the Other, thereby erecting obstacles to the potential for mutual cooperation and co-mingling between the two groups. From this angle, the onus of Jews-as-Semites(thereby not truly European or Aryan) is on the White/Gentile/Christian world.
Yet, Jews have long and undoubtedly insisted on their unique identity, cultural history, and spiritual specialness. And the dread of being ‘polluted’ by filthy goyim has suggested a racial/ethnic consciousness of their own, especially as Judaism was always an ethno-religion based on Being(as opposed to a credo-religion based on Believing). Even when later Jews reluctantly became more accepting of race-mixing, many insisted on raising the Mischlings as ‘Jewish’. (Most children of Jewish fathers and Chinese mothers, the misch-mings, are also raised as Jewish than Chinese.) Also, the irrepressible derision of dimwit goyim kept resurfacing among Jews who, as a result, reverted to Jewish consciousness. Take the Soviet Union in which many Jewish communists sincerely labored to create the New Socialist Man who would extinguish distinctions of ethnicity and nationality, a kind of universalist melting pot agenda that would mold Gentiles and Jews alike into a common humanity. But try as they might, Soviet Jews tended to gravitate to one another and couldn’t help feeling that, for all their Herculean efforts, the dumb goyim remained pretty dumb(and Jews aren’t entirely wrong). (Look at Ukraine. The goy morons watched a TV sitcom and elected the sleazy actor Zelensky as an anti-corruption politician. And look at Russia. Despite the infinitesimal Jewish share of the population and World Jewry’s total war on Russia, its economy still has a huge Jewish footprint and wussy cowards like Putin & associates cannot even name the Jewish Power that seeks to ram Russia in the arse.) Furthermore, Soviet Jews also wearied in ideological fervor upon noticing that capitalist and Zionist Jews were doing so much better by prioritizing Jewish identity and interests instead of subsuming them into the socialist future; Jews under the communist system could hardly rise much above the dumb goyim. Bolshevism rid Soviet Russia and its satellites of overt ‘antisemitism’ but also stifled ‘Semitist’ ambitions.
It certainly didn’t help that, whereas the Holocaust was uniquely lamented and venerated as the great Jewish Tragedy of World War II(as well as the mother of all tragedies), the communist world treated the Holocaust as one tragedy among many others perpetrated by Nazi Germans against humanity as a whole. Also, rather paradoxically, Jews came to resent the Russians because Russians had done most to defeat the Nazis. Jews could always blame the Germans for the horrors, the French and others for their collaboration, and the US and UK for not having done enough to save the Jews. In contrast, Russians suffered tremendous losses and bore the brunt of the war in defeating Germany, and so, it was a tougher-sell to guilt-bait the Russians. This matters because post-war Jewish Power has grown fat on the manipulation of Holocaust Guilt(that even came to quell the mildest criticisms of Jewish Power for a long spell). True, there were the key factors of Jewish IQ, talent, and energy, but the ascendancy also heavily relied on Jewish tribal networks, gangsterism, corruption, dirty wars, subversion, and etc., eventually culminating in the perversions of US foreign policy in the 21st century. Had criticism of Jewish Power been more permissible, ill-gotten Jewish wealth and influence would have been checked and restrained; but, the essential brakes were removed in the West, especially due to the Holocaust as the moral centerpiece of World War II as the War to End All Discourse.
In the West, the 20th century came to be divided into B.H.(Before Holocaust) and A.H.(Anno Holocaust). The era of B.H. was one where the evil scourge of ‘antisemitism’ had been tolerated, even encouraged, leading to the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust. But the ‘Good War’ supposedly brought about the new era of A.H., whereby secular gospel in the West would weep over Jews as mini-christs who’d been crucified for the sins of ‘antisemitism’. Thereby, anti-Jewish criticism became increasingly curtailed and then criminalized(in the EU and Russia, rather ironic since Jewish Power calls for open season on Russia-Bashing in the West). Even the denunciation of Jewish ‘horrorism’ and genocide in Gaza are censored or suppressed as crimes against the state in the UK and Germany, with the British and German police ordered to use strongarm tactics against pro-Palestinian protesters.
Even though the communist world subscribed to facets of A.H., it didn’t place Jews at the center of the World War II narrative, especially following the break with Zionism. The Jewish tragedy was among the many. Why the discrepancy between the East and the West? Part of the reason owed to Jewish ascendancy under capitalism, especially in the US that came to dictate policy in Europe as well. But, it also owed to the brute facts of the war. Hitler had no racial/ethnic animus against Western and Central Europeans. Germans went after political enemies and Jews in their spheres of influence in Central/Western Europe but had no problem with the populations in general. Germans had done everything to avoid a war with the Anglo Empire. And Hitler admired French culture(despite his reservations about decadent Latinism). Thereby, the only group that was truly in danger from the Germans in Western/Central Europe were the Jews(and ideological enemies such as the communists). As long as the French, the Dutch, Hungarians, Romanians, and later the Italians handed over their Jews(to be transported to the Camps), they were in good graces with the Germans. In contrast, Hitler loathed the Eastern Slavs as a racially tainted people; furthermore, they inhabited lands rich in resources that rightfully belonged to the superior ‘Aryans’. Therefore, when the German war machine marched eastward, the fate of the Slavs could be as miserable as that of the Jews, which especially motivated the Russians to fight as they did because defeat would have resulted in something far worse than what befell the French and the Dutch under German Occupation; it could mean enslavement or extermination. During the war, Jews around the world cheered on the Soviets as especially heroic(given the half-measured strategy of the West), but the Soviet role in the war was later problematic for the post-war narrative devised by Jews, i.e. the Russian tragedy in the war was either equal to or greater than that of the Jews, thereby complicating the Jewish moral-monopolization of the narrative.
Just as the National Socialists self-aggrandized themselves as the truer(or more pure-blooded) ‘Aryans’(above the race-mixed or blood-tainted lesser ‘Aryans’), the Zionic Globalists regard themselves as the greatest or the ultimate ‘Semites’, the only Semitic peoples worthy of the label, in contrast to the worthless Semitic untermensch trash like the Arabs, be they modern Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis, and etc. Just like Hitler’s ideal European order had Germany and Nordic civilizations at the center, with the rest of Europe revolving planet-like around the Berlin Sun — the lesser ‘Aryans’ serving the higher ‘Aryans’ — , the preferred Zionist vision of Greater Israel is to compel the lesser ‘Semites’(or ‘ragheads’) to sign on to the Abrahamic Accords that places Zion as the political, economic, cultural, and spiritual center of the Middle East and North Africa. (Anglos and Europeans long ago signed onto their own version of the ‘accords’ , effectively offering the West to the Jews on a silver platter to serve as the political colony of Zion.) The Greater Israel project bears closer resemblance to the Nazi Greater Germania project than to, say, Ottoman Turkic hegemonic-assimilationism. The great majority of modern day Turks are not ethnically Turkish in origin; rather, their ancestors long ago adopted the language and culture(as well as the Ottoman version of Islam) of the Turkish conquerors, thus being assimilated into Turkishness. In other words, blood and ancestry mattered less than culture, language, and religion in the definition of Turkish identity. Pre-Nazi Germans attempted something similar with the Poles, persuading and/or pressuring them to adopt German identity and culture. In contrast, Zio-‘Semitism’, like Nazi-‘Aryanism’, insists on distinction by blood, though, to be sure, Judeo-Semitic identity isn’t as restrictive or exclusionary as the German-Aryan one was, e.g. even part-Jews may enter the fold if they embrace Judeocentric supremacism. Due to the Zionic ideology of blood, the Arabo-Semites who fall within the shadow of the Greater Israel Project won’t be allowed to assimilate into Jewishness in the manner that non-Turks were into Turkishness. If the Arabo-Semites are lucky, they will be tolerated; if not, they will be terrorized and even exterminated(like the Palestinians).
Hitler dreamed of the world capital of Germania, but his ‘Aryanist’ ambitions turned to dust. Jews, with most white and Arab elites as their willing executioners, believe ‘Judeonia’ is just over the horizon, especially as India, now the most populous country in the world, has signed onto the HinJew Alliance, whereby Jews lord over the world as the masters while Hindus compete with and eventually eclipse whites as the favored managerial class of the Jews. Given all these developments, ‘Semitism’ has to be perceived as a supremacist ideology, one with the backing of much of the world, making it far more dangerous than the defunct ‘Aryanism’ ever was.
In a strange way, one might argue that the current Israel vs Iran conflict is yet another manifestation of the ‘Semitic vs Aryan’ struggle, though complicated by various factors. Jews, though regarding themselves as ultra-Semites, are backed by the cucked-Aryans of the West. Iranians, though regarding themselves as ethnically ‘Aryan’, are Muslim and have much in common with the Arab-Semites, i.e. to most Westerners, Arab ‘ragheads’ and Iranian ‘towelheads’ look the same. In a way, Israel’s current war against Iran is akin to Germany’s war on Russia in World War II, but with one difference. Whereas the ‘Aryanist’ Germans regarded the Russians as inferior to Western/Central Europeans, the ‘Semitist’ Jews secretly admire and fear the Iranians as far superior to the worthless Arab cuck maggots whose elites have succumbed to Zionic pressures(via the US as the Lone Superpower). Jews see most Arabs as pushovers but regard Iranians as a tough nut to crack, which is why the Zionists worked tirelessly to involve the US in an all-out attack on Iran. Outwardly Iranians have adopted the Semitic religion of the Arabs but inwardly retain something of the ‘Aryan’ spirit of defiance against the Ultra-Semitism of the Jews.
In part, the National Socialists inadvertently killed off ‘Aryanism’ with their vulgar pretensions. ‘Aryanism’, in various guises, had been in practice throughout the history of European/Western imperialism. The British Empire lorded over its vast and diverse nonwhite(and some white) subjects. The US and modern Australia(and Canada) emerged from whites wiping out the indigenous folks, or the native savages. Blacks were generally kept in their place. Carrots and sticks were used to keep Asians and Arabs in line. But the full racial aspect of these imperial projects, though undeniable and obvious to any honest pair of eyes, was rhetorically held in check, tempered by the talk of spreading civilization(and/or love of Christ), expanding trade, creating opportunities, furthering human progress for the good of all humanity, and etc. It’s like a fella has a better chance with a gal if he were to say sweet things and take her out to dinner and be funny and charming as he gradually makes his moves to take her to bed than if he were to slap down his dong on the table and blurt out, “Suck on this, bitch.” British quasi-Aryanism was careful to court as well as to conquer, to flatter as well as to flatten, and it’s no wonder they didn’t care for the Nazi dong-slapping-on-the-table. It’s as if Anglos and the French regarded themselves as refined and polished inheritors of Germanic and Latin traditions, whereas Germans and Italians(as Axis partners) were seen as mired in the raw and coarse versions of Germanism and Latinism. Anglos and the French had been well-trained into useful dogs whereas the Germans and Italians were like wolves and jackals.
Some commentators, like Pat Buchanan, have argued that it would have been better had the British Empire come to terms(or even made a pact) with National Socialist Germany given Hitler’s admiration of the Brits as the master race lording over the ‘wogs’; however, it would have given the game away, let the cat out of the bag as to what the empire is really about. The empire wanted to have it both ways, conquering and exploiting the world but also taking credit for ending the slave trade and promoting social progress(especially against stuff like the Hindu practice of suttee or widow-burning).
There’s a problem similar to Nazi arrogance in the inflated hubris of Zionism, ‘portnoic’ in its arrogance, vulgarity, and blatancy, and some Jews are increasingly anxious about the antics of their tribal brethren. Just like the British Imperialists were careful to sweeten their racial supremacism with ‘liberalism’, ‘free trade’, ‘human progress’, and the ‘rule of law’, Jewish globalists have long cleverly veiled their supremacism with talks of ‘rules-based order’, ‘human rights’, ‘liberal democracy’, ‘free enterprise’, ‘individual liberty’, ‘inclusion’, and etc. And, Zionism, though ethno-supremacism from its incarnation, was sold as the creation and preservation of ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. But the overt ‘Semitism’ of Judeocentric hubris has made it nearly impossible to spin Zionism as anything other than Jewish Nazism. Bibi Netanyahu and his genocidal cohorts, with the full backing of ‘Semitist’ zealots in the West and its satellites, have turned Jewish political expression into a kind of Ron-Jeremiad, a constant pulling out the pud, slapping it on the table, and demanding it be sucked. And the behavior of US and EU whore-politicians, always eager to suck on the Zionic dong or bend over to take it up the arse, has exposed Western Politics to be little more than one big porny ‘gay’ bathhouse orgy. What is Trumpism but getting fisted by Netanyahu? Even critics of Netanyahu, like Hillary Clinton, are nevertheless supportive of Zionism as supremacist ‘Semitism’. She objects not to what is happening in places like Gaza or Lebanon but to how the true nature of Zionism is being exposed by the sheer arrogance and vulgar audacity of Netanyahu whose indomitably shameless chutzpah has let the cat or weasel out of the bag.
If ‘Semitism’ is just as supremacist and grave a danger to humanity than ‘Aryanism’ ever was, why is it allowed to carry on and push the world to the edge of destruction? To grasp why this is, we need to address the different natures of ‘Aryanism’ and ‘Semitism’. ‘Aryanism’ was politically and aesthetically manifested as a warrior culture and pride. Warriors take the battlefield and engage in the zero-sum game of victory or defeat. If one’s own side wins, great. If the other side wins, so be it as warriors are expected to accept death and doom. German Nationalists, Italian Fascists, and Imperial Japanese all expressed warrior ethos and took on the world. Warriors may resort to subterfuge in strategy, but once the fight is on, it’s really on, and those who wage war must bear the burden. Thus, the Germans were like wolves locked in a win-or-lose-all struggle with rival wolf packs. The winners conquer and bask in glory, the losers get crushed and destroyed. Wolves and lions fight on open ground. Once the fighting begins, there’s nowhere to hide. Defeat really means defeat. German ‘Aryanism’ went all-in on warrior pride; they could win or lose as warriors; there was no other way. And given its purist ideology of blood, all Germans could win and live together or lose and die together. Given the terms of ‘Aryanism’, war meant total war, victory meant total victory, and defeat meant total defeat. In its defeat in World War II, it was totally destroyed. And given the purported humanist ethos of the victorious Allies, it was disgraced as an anti-human ideology, one that not only targeted enemy fighters(well within the rules of war, therefore ‘honorable’) but civilians and the innocent for mass destruction. (As for Dresden and Hiroshima, well…) Therefore, the Nazi Germans were denied even the vestige of warrior honor even in defeat, the kind conceded to Napoleonic armies and German soldiers in World War I.
At any rate, the warrior way follows a brutally elementary logic, with the stakes being stark and simple. It’s more about domination than adaptation. Predators such as polar bears, tigers, and lions aren’t known for their adaptive qualities, which are very limited. Polar bears feed on seals in the Arctic, tigers rely on big game, and lions mostly thrive in Sub-Saharan Africa(though some remain in India). Such predators would vanish along with their environments. In contrast, certain species are incredibly adaptive, and among the most remarkable have been the rats. The cartoonist Art Spiegelman understandably settled on mice as animal-representatives of Jews in MAUS: A SURVIVOR’S TALE given that people have a soft spot for the little mouse, but a more honest representation would have been rats. RATTE: A SUPREMACIST’S TALE is the story of our time.
Indeed, some of the darker National Socialist propaganda characterized Jews as especially rat-like. Mice evoke pity, rats provoke dread. Had the ‘Aryans’ regarded Jews as mice-like, the hostility would have been considerably muted. Mice cause problems, but rats are the king despoilers. In an underhanded way, the ‘Aryans’ were acknowledging the ‘rodentine’ greatness of the Judeo-Semites. Whatever one thinks of rats, they are among the most successful and awesome species that ever lived. And the secret to their success is the sheer adaptability, passive/aggressive qualities, and ferocious tenacity. Lions, tigers, wolves, bears, and etc. are many times bigger and stronger(and frightful in one-on-one encounter with humans) than rats but lack the adaptability of the latter. They thrive in suitable environments but face extinction in alien ones. Also, they are easy to spot and eradicate if need be.
Hitler’s vision of empire was far from adaptive. His ideal of ‘Aryanism’ entailed the Germans and their racial cousins lording over vast territories as proud predatory master-warriors, eternal claimants to greatness. Such ambition and hubris made his brand of ‘Aryanism’ highly maladaptive, demonstrable in the refusal to be more accommodating to the conquered Slavic populations that could have been recruited in the war against Bolshevism. For Hitler, it was tiger vs bear. Or lions vs hyenas, and lions don’t ally with hyenas. (Germans did form an alliance with the non-Aryan Japanese, but they were on the opposite ends of the world with no overlapping interests, only common enemies.)
In contrast, the ‘rodentine’ characteristics of Jewishness are nothing if not adaptive. With a cultural psychology shaped more by mental-maze rabbis and money-milking merchants than proud and boastful warriors, the Jewish brand of supremacism or ‘Semitism’ adopted many masks, generally avoiding direct confrontations and instead burrowing secretive networks, expanding its reach under the radar. A bear or lion is easily spotted on the field but a million rats may go unnoticed beneath the earth. In Hitler’s Wagnerian worldview, the Germanic ‘Aryans’ were like gods of Valhalla while the Russo-Slavs were like the giants, terrible but palpable; therefore, the greater danger lay with the Nibelungen, the wily and clever dwarfs of the underworld.
National Socialist ideology held that both ‘Aryanism’ and ‘Semitism’ were equally supremacist but in different ways and means. It’s like all woods burn but burn differently; some are fit for smoking meat, others are not. In the National Socialist worldview, the ‘Aryans’ were like the great predators: beautiful, magnificent, noble, and honorable. They engaged in wars of their choice, bore the cost with their own blood and sweat, and envisioned a future defined by art & culture committed to mankind’s highest aspirations. Sure, the ‘Aryans’ could be ruthless and terrifying, even engaging in what they themselves deemed as excessive(which is why Himmler kept his mass extermination campaigns under the lid), but it would all be for a higher cause, a noble end that would justify the brutal means, a far more ambitious and uncompromising version of what the whites had achieved in America: The native ‘red’ savages were tragically wiped out to make way for civilization and progress, great wealth and power. Yukio Mishima said he was a ‘kamikaze for beauty’, and there was something of that in ‘Aryanism’. Thus, even though the supremacist aims and means could descend into hellishness, the crimes would be redeemed by unprecedented achievements. Therefore, ‘Aryanism’ was deemed a worthy kind of supremacism, a ruthless struggle of will to force the evolution of humanity into higher beauty and nobility. (As crazy as it sounds, recall that the Allies justified the nuking of Japan as a necessary evil to bring about a lasting peace. And the current supposedly ‘liberal democratic’ Western elites hold that no amount of Zionist violence is unjustified as a means to secure the future for the Jews as the true master race.)
In contrast to the ‘Aryanism’, the ‘Semitist’ way of supremacism was ‘rodentine’ than leonine, lupine, or ‘raptorine'(or eagle-or-hawk-like). It was the supremacism of rats that run on insatiable appetite for appetite’s sake. It fought ‘dirty’, unlike the proud and ‘honorable’ predatory forces that engage in the open field(though, rather ironically, the Germans were masters of submarine warfare, a kind of oceanic rattish-ness). The great predators of the wild live or die on the basis of their ability to fight; in contrast, rodents gain advantage through ‘sickly’ means, building vast underground networks and gnawing through just about everything and spreading disease. Thus, the supremacism of rats might be construed as a war on all species, especially the ‘noble’ and magnificent ones. ‘Rodentine’ supremacism, in its single-minded George-Soros-like or Paul-Singer-like ravenousness to loot every nation, may impact the world like rats introduced to Hawaii and New Zealand(and of course the Galapagos Islands). There is no limit to ‘rodentine’ supremacism. Lions are the ‘kings of the jungle’(or savannah to be more accurate), and polar bears are the lords of ice. Lions aren’t migrating north, polar bears aren’t migrating south. Also, once they have their kills, they are satiated and can take it easy between hunts. In contrast, rats incessantly gnaw on everything and tirelessly expand their networks. It’s also the difference between the Russo-Slavs and the Judeo-Semites. The Russian Bear is content with what it has and seeks peace with the rest of the world, fully respectful of other cultures and civilizations. In contrast, the Jewish Rat must have its way in every part of the world, burrowing tunnels into each and every place to transport ‘gay-rainbow’ dildos to shove up the arse of every nation.
Contrary to the notion of Nazi World Conquest, Hitler’s dream was to create sufficient ‘living space’ for the Germano-‘Aryans’ to secure an iron-clad future as a great people. It entailed war, conquest, and even genocide but was limited to Europe and Russia. In contrast, rat-like ‘Semitism’ has no sense of limits. After burrowing into one domain, it aims for another and another and so on. Rattishness is adaptive but, once it takes over, forces all to accommodate it. What do Palestinians and Whites have in common? Both have been hounded and harassed to no end to bend to the rat-like Jewish ‘Semitist’ Will, and both now face doom. Everything that the Judeo-‘Semitists’ are doing to the West was lab-tested on the Palestinian population in the Zionist project, ironically supported by the West slated next in line to be destroyed by the Great Replacement, with White Nakba being a spectacular replay of the Palestinian Nakba.
Rats and Jews are similar in posing a threat to just about everything. For example, deer pose a danger to plants but not to other animals. Wolves pose a danger to deer but not to plants. Through brutal but effective logic, plants, deer, and wolves are complementary in maintaining the balance of nature. The deer suppress the overgrowth of plants, and the wolves prevent the deer from consuming all the plants. In contrast, rat behavior tends to undermine the well-being of just about every species. If deer or wolves vanished, nature will suffer. But one is hard-pressed to imagine how any part of nature or human society will suffer for the lack of rats. Granted, the Jewish contribution to history and civilization is so immense that it’d be crazy to characterize Jews as solely rat-like. But the Jewish power strategy and its intense & unremitting hostility toward goyim do have rat-like tendencies and pose a serious challenge to all peoples. And so, humanity is stuck with the duality of Jews as the greatest blessing and the greatest curse onto mankind. How would humanity benefit from Einstein without being fleeced by Soros, benefit from Jonas Salk without being hoodwinked by the Sacklers? There has to be a way, jointly worked on by goyim and conscientious Jews, to identify and root out(or at least control) the rattish elements or tendencies of Jewishness.
Take a Jew like Rabbi Shmuley(and there are many like him). Surely, no honest person can possibly find anything positive to say about that rat-like creature. When it comes to most peoples, be they Greek, Italian, Irish, Japanese, Mexican, Russian, or whatever, there are likes and dislikes, some who regard them as friends and some who regard them as enemies. But when it comes to Jews like Shmuley, there’s only universal loathing. Now, with chutzpah unchained and Jewish rattishness out of the Zionist bag, more and more people are waking to the rattish side of Jewishness, hard to miss with the likes of Netanyahu, Ben Shapiro, Laura Loomer, Ben-Gvir, Bill Maher, Jonathan Greenblatt, Stephen Miller, and etc. shamelessly hogging the limelight. In nature, every organism sees some others as enemies, some as ‘friends’, some as neutral. It differs from organism to organism, but it wouldn’t be surprising if ALL organisms regarded rats as enemies because rat behavior is so utterly destructive and degrading to just about every species. Among humans, if any group has managed to irk just about every group, it’s the Jews. The prolonged ‘grace period’ following the Holocaust reminded humanity to praise and protect the Jews, but what did it lead to in the end? The ‘rodentine’ tendency of Jews went fully rabid and virulent, culminating in the Neocon Wars, Ukraine War, Iran War, Gaza Genocide, GloboHomo degeneracy, global financial looting, and etc. Things got so bad that if there’s any common thread among the younger generation in both the Left and the Right, it’s calling out Jewish Supremacism. Jews went from mice(mäuse) pitied by all the world into rats(ratten) loathed by all the world. They made David Duke sound like a ‘social justice warrior’.
While it’s untrue that Rabbi Shmuley is typical of the Jewish community, the latter has hardly addressed the problem of the Bad Jew. Instead, most Jews will complain that it’s ‘Anti-Semitic’ to hold the Jewish-community-at-large responsible for the words and actions of the Bad Jews. Such an argument would be valid if Jews regarded the Bad Goy problem in the same manner, but of course they don’t. In every case of Bad Goy behavior, Jews insist that the entire goy community stand together in condemning his ‘antisemitism’ or ‘Jew-hatred’ or whatever. It isn’t sufficient for goyim to say they had nothing to do with whatever the Bad Goy did; they are expected to stand and speak as one in condemning or ‘disavowing’ the Bad Goy. So, the goy community must go out its way to condemn, censure, and ‘cancel’ the Bad Goy, BUT it’s presumptuous on the part of goyim to expect the Jewish community to call out the Bad Jew. But, it’s even worse than that. In many cases, Jews won’t even acknowledge the badness of the Bad Jew. How else did figures like Rabbi Shmuley gain social currency, even nudging RFK Jr. to march alongside him in support of Israel like a servile dog? According to Jewish justice-logic, goyim(especially whites/Christians) must go out of their way to root out the Bad Goy among them, but it’s ‘Anti-Semitic’ to expect or pressure Jews to do likewise with the Bad Jew. Goyim must always be on the lookout for the Bad Goy filled with Jew-hatred, but Jews shouldn’t be bothered with the Bad Jew overflowing with contempt-for-goyim. The onus is on the entire goy community to root out ‘antisemitism’, but it’s ‘Anti-Semitic’ to request the Jewish community to root out the supremacist venom of ‘Semitism’. So, even as whites are expected to reject and expel the Bad Whites, Jews often make common cause with Bad Jews, even the Worst Jews. Ideally, the good people of any community should reject the evil ones. Thus, the good peoples of all communities can work together against the bad apples, be they white, black, brown, yellow, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or etc. But if some communities choose solidarity with the bad among them for the sake of tribal unity, it leaves other communities no choice but to do the same. If blacks choose blackness over goodness and protect bad blacks, non-blacks will be tempted to do likewise for their own tribal solidarity. But things have gotten even worse than that. In years past, Jews pressured white goyim to purge the Bad Whites, the kind of morons and jerks going around saying, “Heil Hitler” or “Gas the Jews”. Today, more often than not, Jews are pressuring whites to purge the Good Whites, people like Joe Kent who showed considerable courage and character in risking his reputation and putting his career on the line to expose Israel as the driver of the Trump administration into the war with Iran. Because Joe Kent acted honorably and in good conscience, he’s been defamed as an ‘Anti-Semite’. One gets the sense that Jewish Power defines goodness not on principle but its utility to ‘Semitism’. It’s like humans judge the worth of work-dogs and horses on the basis of their reliability and obedience, i.e. their value is measured in terms of “Is it good for humans?” Such is the logical result of the ‘Semitist’ contempt for goyim as lesser-beings whose main purpose is to serve the Jews as the master race. And so, the Joe Kents of the world are Bad Goyim(even though they are good, or better than most) while the Lindsey Grahams of the world are ‘Good Goyim’ because their abject cravenness, corruption, and inhumanity are good for the Empire of Zion.
Rats are surely unique as organisms that managed to alienate all of nature and all of humanity alike. Even cats that feed on them probably detest them. Rats are an awesome species in terms of evolutionary success but also a pestilent menace to just about every species. From the National Socialist worldview, there was something worse than racial domination, even if bullying and unpleasant at times, by the Germanic ‘Aryans’. At the very least, those under the German boot could take comfort in being ruled by a race committed to beauty and magnificence. In theory at least, the tyranny of nobility has its advantages; it sure beats the tyranny of ignobility. In contrast, domination by the ‘Semites’ would mean an order pervaded with the celebration of corruption, disease, pathology, degeneracy, parasitism, and mendacity. Better to be dominated or even devoured by worthy warrior lions than be degraded and disease-ridden into the sewer realm of rats. Muslims, despite the danger they posed to Christendom, were still a warrior people, and two worlds faced one another honorably on the battlefield. It was like lions vs lions or wolves vs wolves. Muslims or Christians might win as warriors, but the result would be the rule by proud warriors just the same. In contrast, the ‘rodentine’ Jews fought dirty without honor and shame. Christians and Muslims were like opposing teams in a football game, whereas Jews were like Ace Rothstein the handicapper(in Martin Scorsese’s CASINO) always on the lookout for ‘angles’ in hidden nooks and crannies, cleverly profiting from any win or loss regardless of which side won.
Furthermore, unlike ‘Aryanism’ that is honest, or forthright in its supremacism, ‘Semitism’ will not and cannot admit to its true nature and objectives. Instead, ‘Semitist’ super-rats posture as pitiable mice, as when Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL constantly harps about Jews around the world as victims of ‘antisemitism’ when Israel is committing genocide and involved in a war of aggression against Iran and when Jews are allied with Naziesque elements in Ukraine, as well as fully onboard with the neo-imperialist foreign policy of Donald Trump, a man not long ago painted as ‘literally worse than Hitler’ by many Jews. Hitler could be two-faced in diplomacy but was candid in his fundamental worldview. His ideological rigidity derailed his plans, but there was a certain consistency and even ‘principle’ in his approach. For example, the pride of his racial supremacism precluded his joining up with figures such as Gandhi in the spirit of, say, Indians against British Imperialism and Germans against Jewish Supremacism. For all the tensions between Germany and Britain, Germany was in awe of British Imperialism; and for all the loathing of Judeo-Semitist Supremacism(via subversion), the Germano-Aryanism aspired for a supremacism of its own. It was stupidity but with a degree of integrity(or ideological consistency).
Jewish Supremacism or ‘Semitism’ operated differently, playing for supremacist keeps while providing lip-service to universal justice, serving tribal interests while promoting destructive radicalism and nihilism among goyim, playing the left, center, and the right like Harpo Marx on the piano. Jews earning like Episcopalians and voting like Puerto Ricans wasn’t some misguided naivete but a calculated ploy, i.e. the lack of consistency on the surface served a deeper consistency of tribal power. Live like a prince but play the pauper, be the victor but play the victim. And why not, as Christians had used the same playbook forever, retelling the stories of helpless Christians fed to the lions while going about conquering and plundering much of the world. Or emphasizing the instances of white Christian settlers slaughtered by Indian savages while ignoring the bigger picture of the white/Christian destruction of indigenous cultures. If Christianity lent the West a psycho-political advantage, it was in tempering the temptations of hubris in victory, which throughout history led to either reckless ventures or complacency of invincibility. The tragic sanctity at the heart of Christianity with its narratives of saints and martyrs led to a more balanced worldview. Of course, Jews understood this all too well as Judaism had preceded Christianity, having imbued Jews with the far-ranging realization that history is about rises and falls, progress and regress, fortune and misfortune. So, just like the ant that anticipates hard times and prepares itself, mentally and materially, for the long winter, a civilization invested in longevity must learn to weather the storms and hibernate through the lean years. And it just so happened that the great powers that were excessively invested in pride, victory, and awesomeness(like the grasshopper expecting summer to last forever) were ill-equipped to cope psychologically and physically when things fell through the floor. Binarily obsessed with victory or defeat, they neglected the art of survival. In contrast, those invested in survival found ways to cope and manage amidst the worst setbacks. German ‘Aryanism’ simply couldn’t handle defeat. It’s no wonder Hitler ordered Albert Speer to lay waste to everything as the Soviets closed in. For Der Fuhrer, it was win-all or lose-all. A lion is the king of the beasts or lord of the jungle… or nothing at all. It lacks the ‘rodentine’ tenacity of survival in retreat. Christianity prized the warrior but also valued the saint, a man so good of heart that he could be crushed in body but not in soul. Even though Jews had little use for sappy saints, the kind inspired by the martyrdom of Jesus and the Apostles, they’d developed the concept of the righteous, being favored by the eternal God despite misfortunes in the temporal realm. Such imbued Jews with the determination to survive despite seemingly insurmountable setbacks.
Both ‘Aryanism’ and ‘Semitism’ exhibited ideological flexibility on most matters. National Socialism interwove capitalism with socialism, tradition with modernity, pastoralism & nature-worship with industrialism. Even though many prominent Jews became famous(or infamous) for their ideological extremism, e.g. far leftist Jewish Bolsheviks and ultra-individualist acolytes of Ayn Rand, Jewish worldview began to converge with the advent of Zionism that steadily united the Jewish right and Jewish left with a shared vision. (It should be noted that Ayn-Randism was less about individualism than self-ism or self-centrism, an obsessive conviction that oneself, especially Rand herself or someone of her mold, is on the right/correct side of everything, i.e. an ‘objectivity’ premised on the forcefulness of subjectivity. In contrast, Anglo-individualism in its modesty has regarded every individual as worthy of general rights and responsibilities.) Neocons, as former leftists who moved right, embodied this transformation and made common cause with what came to be known as the ‘Neolibs’ of the Democratic Party. ‘Neo’ in both cases is really ‘Zio’ as both groups are less invested in abstract ideology, left or right, than in manipulating the entire spectrum of ideology from left to right toward serving the Empire of Zion. Jewish ideological flexibility could construe anything, rightist or leftist or centrist, as ‘antisemitism’. Surely, everyone heard the Jewish canard that goes, “Jews are blamed for everything, decried as greedy capitalists but also denounced as radical communists. How could we Jews be both?” LOL. That’s like a Neo-Nazi complaining about some people denouncing Nazism as ‘far right’ while some others, especially disingenuous conservatives, label it as ‘socialist, therefore leftist’. “Oh poor us, we Nazis are blamed for everything, both rightism and leftism. The world must come together to oppose Anti-Nazitism.” In truth, of course, power often plays both sides and plays it both ways. The British Empire, for example, practiced both imperialism and anti-imperialism(when it suited the interests of the empire against other empires, as when British diplomats/agents stirred up Arab ‘nationalism’ against Ottoman Imperialism, thereby creating a power vacuum in the Middle East rife with opportunities for the Anglos and the French). Likewise, even though some Jews were indeed committed leftists(or radical socialists, especially in Russia and Eastern Europe), World Jewry often juggled leftism and rightism depending on the circumstances to broaden its reach and gain advantages.
Given their ideological flexibility, ‘Semitism’ and ‘Aryanism’ had similarities, precisely the reason why the two camps feared and loathed(as well as secretly admired) the other. It’s why Jews hate it when goyim adopt fascism, which resembles the flexibility inherent in the Jewish power strategy. Fascism unites or bundles rightist and leftist elements together. Jews prefer to keep the goyim divided into ‘right’ factions and ‘left’ factions, thus incapable of uniting. Meanwhile, the Jewish Neocons and Jewish Neolibs put aside their ‘ideological’ differences and form a united tribal front. Consider the difference between goy-controlled feminism and Jewish-controlled feminism. Vietnamese communism was feminist in accepting women as comrades in the proposed system. It meant Vietnamese men and Vietnamese women united and struggling together for national independence. It was about letting women join the struggle for power and progress in service to the nation. And Zionist feminism works the same way. Israeli women are guaranteed equal rights and serve in the Israel military, united with Jewish men in the cause of Zionism. In the West, however, feminism usually means Jewish Power pitting white women AGAINST white men. It manipulates white women into siding with Jews, homos, blacks, browns, yellows, degenerates, and subversives against white men who are blamed for every evil under the sun. If American feminism is truly appalled by the epidemic of rape, why is it so silent about black males who are champions of the ‘sport’? Virtually all the hysterics have been about spreading hysteria about white male frat-boys violating white girls(like Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s salacious piece of defamation in the Jewish-run Rolling Stone magazine against a fraternity at UVA) , thereby designed to drive a wedge between white men and white women. (Granted, sometimes it leads to unintended blowback. The #MeToo moral panic was promoted by Jews to highlight Trump and the MAGA ilk as male chauvinist pussy-grabbing sexual abusers, but a lot of women ended up blurting out the names of horny portonic Jewish men. Whoopsy Daisy.)
If ‘Semitism’ and ‘Aryanism’ are similar in their ideological flexibility, they profoundly differ in vision and manner. Given the warrior ethos of ‘Aryanism’, it was deemed ignoble to play the perennial victim or plead for pity. The National Socialists did exploit grievance politics, but the theme was betrayal than victimhood. According to Hitler, the Germans were denied the rightful victory of World War I by a cabal of stab-in-the-back politicians. The Versailles Treaty wronged the German nation by robbing it of essential territories and suppressing its military. Therefore, Germany needed something like the National Socialist Party to restore health and honor. Hitler played on wounded pride, not pity-pleading victimhood. Their hero was Horst Wessel, supposedly a warrior-hero who fought and died for the cause, not someone like the helpless Anne Frank. Germans were depicted as wounded wolves than as innocent mice. Even in its vulnerable state upon gaining power, National Socialist Germany practiced politics and rhetoric from the position of strength bound by an indomitable iron will. Thus, ‘Aryanist’ supremacism could hardly be spun as anything other than what it really was, which besides would have been deemed unbecoming of the warrior spirit.
The supremacist nature of ‘Semitism’, in contrast, was cleverly concealed and operated under the radar for a long time, arguably even for centuries or millennia. The truth is finally beginning to emerge in our time because certain prominent Jews now feel sufficiently confident as the ‘masters of the universe’ with nothing to bring them down. In their privileged world, all they experience is the daily ritual of hapless goy cucks at their beck and call like dogs trained to fetch and roll over. Vanity makes a rich guy believe women see him as hot stuff when it’s all about the money. A lot of powerful Jews now see themselves as the hottest stuff and have no fear of rocking the boat, and why should they? After all, they control the Lone Superpower, the EU is totally supine before Jewish demands, even Russia(which is at war with Jewish Power in Ukraine) is afraid of naming the power(and instead bitches and whines about the Ukrainian Nazis), Syria-Libya-Iraq were all turned into Zio-Western satrapies, most Arab ‘leaders’ are cuck-dogs of the Zionic US, India has signed onto the HinJew Alliance, and Latin America is totally dominated by Jewish finance and infiltrated by Zionist operatives. Jews use Trump to steal oil from Venezuela and force the country to kowtow to Israel, but even Hispanic-Americans, Republican and Democratic, offer no protest. In earlier times, Jews played the game more cautiously and passive/aggressively. Unlike the Germans and Japanese who had nations of their own with sizable populations, Jews were dispersed around the world. Their power was in the networks, unstable and even fragile at times, and Jews in various regions(the imperial core and the imperial colonies) had to cater to the goy rulers and be mindful of the goy majorities lest they be expelled for the umpteenth time. Even in the early stages of Zionism, Jews made a show of assuring the Palestinian population that their goals were modest, seeking peaceful co-existence with the indigenous Arab folks. And Jews hoodwinked the British into believing that Zionism would serve the interests of the empire than endanger prospects by souring relations with the Arabs.
But fast-forward to today, and the anal-cyst-like Netanyahu is the brazen face of Jewish Power. And the likes of Jonathan Pollard openly call on Jews all over the world to betray their host countries to serve the Empire of Zion and Israel. The Jewish super-rat is out of the bag. When rats sense danger, they hide in their burrows. But once they sense overwhelming strength, they grow assertive and even gang up on cats. The World is turning into the Planet of the Rats.
Still, the Mouse/Rat Complex(akin to the Madonna/Whore Complex) persists as an evolutionary strategy of power. Jewish Power acts the rat but plays the mouse. We’re at the point where Jews boast of their overwhelming means to buy up entire media complexes and blacklist any number of voices BUT in the name of defending helpless Jews from pathological goyim stricken with the ineradicable plague of ‘antisemitism’. Thus, the surreal paradoxical logic that Jews must exert their great power because they’re so powerless. And even though the overwhelming majority of criticisms dwell on Jewish power & influence(and abuses thereof), Jewish Powerites and their goy cuck maggots spin it as the latest viral outbreak of irrational Jew-Hatred(as if the critics woke up one day with the Nazi flu). Thus, if you condemn the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, you’re accused of calling for the genocide of the Jews. Act the rat, play the mouse. Practice supremacism, promote victimism.
Jewish ‘rodentinism’ is remarkably adaptive, but adaptation isn’t assimilation. Assimilation means becoming one with the larger body. Adaptation means shape-shifting to fit into new environments while retaining one’s essential core. Rats may adapt to all sorts of environments, but they remain rats. Rats stand out even among rodents, defined by a feature that makes them even more awesome and successful than all the other rodents combined. Take beavers, prairie dogs, and capybaras. They too are rodents and share some characteristics with rats, but they thrive and generally remain in their particular niches. Gerbils resemble rats but haven’t the drive, tenacity, and toughness to adapt to profoundly different environments. Squirrels and chipmunks have managed to co-exist with mankind but mostly limit their activities and dwellings to natural environments. Rats, in contrast, are everywhere, in rural and urban environments, and they invade human dwellings and gnaw away at everything. They’re like the hand of Harpo Marx that reaches into every pocket. For all the talk of Jewishness being tribal(as opposed to universal and conversionary), implying that Jews stick to themselves and leave others alone, it has a habit of burrowing into just about every institution in every country to take over and dictate terms. Israel is often defended as the homeland for the Jews who mind their own business, but it thrives on tunneling into all parts of the world and funneling their wealth to Zion. Jews use Ukraine to undermine Russia so that Jewish oligarchs can carve it up as an empire of rats. Russia is just another ‘Jericho’ whose walls must come tumbling down.
And take Iran, against which Jews had been working doggedly through hidden networks to set up ambushes. What Israel pulled off with the explosive pagers in Lebanon was merely a prelude. The so-called Iranian ‘protests’ prior to the war had been prepared and coordinated by the Jewish-led US deep state. The CIA, NSA, and other departments have merely become rat tunnels of Jewish Power to spread ‘color revolutions’ all over, like what happened with the Maidan coup in Ukraine. Jews do a lot of tunneling before blitzing the enemy. It’s like how Zionist white slavers have lured Slavic women with promises of opportunity, only to trap them into sexual bondage in Israel and parts of Europe(controlled by Jewish gangsters). Notice how Jewish influence has penetrated into virtually all forms of Christianity and perverted them into serving Zion and/or the Jewish Agenda. The more ‘progressive’ churches have been turned into dens of Jewish-promoted Negrolatry & GloboHomo while the more ‘conservative’ churches into fire-and-brimstone altars to Old Testament prophecy(that elevates Jews uber alles).
Wherever you turn in media, academia, arts & culture, you’re likely to find ideas, idols, views, and ‘values’ infested with Jewish supremacism and/or subversion. Want to be a libertarian? Chances are you need to spin apologias for Israel to be let into ‘respectable’ libertarian circles. Incredibly enough, even those circles associated with ‘white supremacism’ have been infected with the ‘Semitist’ rabies. Tommy Robinson of the UK is routinely depicted by the Jewish-run media as a ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’, but all he does is suck up to Zionists. Jared Taylor has been ‘canceled’ by Jews many times over, but he’s always sucking up to them. The German AfD party and Viktor Orban of Hungary are usually dragged across the coal by the Jewish-run media, but they reliably shill for Israel. Jews have routinely urinated on HBD as ‘white supremacism’, but HBD bathes in the golden shower of Jewish Genius, implying that the only viable strategy for whites is to somehow convince the Jews that whites are the most loyal and reliable cucks, dogs, and servants of the Awesome Jews. When even Al Qaeda in Syria and Nazi-elements in Ukraine are doing the bidding of Jews(and when Putin is endlessly defamed by Jews but won’t name them), one really wonders… is there any cookie jar that hasn’t been touched by the Jewish Hand? Jews won’t convert you to Judaism(as you’re too lowly to be Jewish) but will compel you to bow down before the Schwartz.
Among the five possibilities of national politics, Jews have opted for the one deemed most optimal for maximizing power and leverage. The five options are as follows: (1) Jews should forsake their own nationalism and assimilate into their host nations, like when Napoleon pressed upon French Jews to be good Frenchmen first and foremost. From this perspective, Jews should aspire to be good Frenchmen, good Englishmen, good Russians, good Poles, or etc. depending on the place of settlement. French Jews should identify with French goyim than with Jews in other nations. Jews reject this as they prefer to prioritize their own identity and serve their own interests instead of melding with the goy majority. (2) Universal nationalism whereby Jews have the right of nation and homeland but must recognize the same right for all other peoples and nations. If Israel has a right to exist, so do Poland, Hungary, Thailand, Yemen, and etc. Jews reject universal nationalism because it curtails Jewish designs on other nations, such as the Greater Israel Project. Jews plan on forcing, threatening, or manipulating all goy nations to put Jewish interests above their own. Notice how Jews push mass immigration or the Great Replacement on Poland and Hungary, all the better to play divide-and-rule among diversifying goyim, while demanding that those countries totally support the right of Israel to remain a Jewish state. (3) Jew-White or ‘Jewhite’ Nationalism, favored by Jared Taylor, HBD, and some circles on the Right that recognize Jews as bona-fide or even superior whites. This option says Jews and whites have much in common historically, culturally, and genetically, and therefore Jews should identify as white and unite with whites against the ‘wogs’. Jews are assured it’s in their best interests because whites are more likely to be most Philo-Semitic whereas the ‘wogs’ are full of envy, resentment, and hatred in regard to the Jews. Like the GOP, Jewhite nationalist goyim are supportive of Israel, even the Gaza Genocide, but, unlike Conservatism Inc., insist on a set of conditions: Jews need to respect white national borders, support remigration of the ‘wogs’, and defend Western Civilization. Some Jews are drawn to this idea in fear and anxiety that the Diverse future may be unmanageable despite the Jewish skills of divide-and-rule; there’s also the possibility that whites might side with Diversity against the Jews, a growing trend among grassroot white Democrats who sympathize with the Palestinians against Zionism. But the great majority of Jews reject this option due to their distrust of whites and the fear that, once the ‘wogs’ are re-migrated and gone, the whites will then turn on the Jews and tear up the Jewhite contract. Jews fear not only white perfidy and betrayal but their own inability to restrain their radical and subversive tendencies, thus driving the whites crazy, i.e. despite all the white goodwill in the world to make amends with Jews, the irrepressible ‘rodentine’ nature of Jews simply cannot help itself from turning whites into Nazis all over again. (4) The option most favored by Jews is Zionic Multi-Culturalism, indeed what prevails today. Jews degrade goy nationalism with Multi-Cultural Diversity while demanding that goy countries support Israel as the exceptional state worthy of ethno-nationalism. Why are Jews unique in this right? Jews play it both ways: Because of the sanctity of Jewish victimhood, or Holocaustianity, which earned them the right of nationalism and self-preservation. But also because of Jewish specialness, i.e. being the People of the Book and/or possessing higher genius, Jewishness deserves to be protected and preserved as a Living Treasure whereas mediocre goyim deserve to be tossed and turned into a human salad. Goyim are a bunch of cabbageheads. There is one other option, favored by certain Jewish progressives, and it is (5) Radical Globalism whereby all nations, Israel included, are opened up to all humanity in a constant flux of migration. This has appeal among neo-socialist types who see nationalism of any kind as an anachronism but also among some libertarian types who see nationalism and national borders as hindrances to individual pursuit of liberty and happiness. But most Jews aren’t about to give up on Jewish identity and Jewish nationhood and reject such out-and-out utopianism. One other option might be Get-the-Jewism, a variant of Nazism that spreads the word that Jews mean trouble and therefore should be kicked out of every country and sent to Madagascar or be exterminated, but that’s totally out of the question.
A term often fetishized by Jewish thinkers and activists is ‘radical’, whether it’s the ‘radical will’ or ‘radical politics’ or just ‘radicalism’ in general. ‘Radical’ isn’t a substance but a style, one so incessant, obsessive, intrusive, invasive, and subversive that it attains the semblance of substance in its own right. Unlike ‘liberal’ that connotes a live-and-let-live attitude, culture of tolerance, and an air of mutual respect, ‘radical’ implies the will to penetrate, dominate, and destroy. To the radical mindset, nothing is to be left alone. It must be gnawed at from all angles and ground to dust. Radicalism is like ‘raticalism’. (One almost gets the sense that Jews compulsively gnaw on the Other, the goyim, because in its absence their nature will make them turn on each other, as when rats assault and feed on one another in lean times.) The radical or ‘ratical’ component of Jewishness(in worship of God who is perfect, complete, all-knowing, all-powerful, totally domineering, and etc.) was partly restrained by faith in the higher authority of Yahweh and respect due to the traditional rabbinical class, but once those brakes were gone in the secular order, the most radical or ‘ratical’ figures among the Jews turned their tireless incisors on the world. Paradoxically, Jewish religion(of totalistic prophesizing) has both spurred on and reined in Jewish radicalism. Notice how Jewish culture critics(and their imitative goy cucks) are fulsome in praise of works that do most to assault and undermine the social fabric and natural norms of any goy order. Talmudism was a vast mental network of rat tunneling but nevertheless consigned mostly to ethno-spiritual matters. Modern/Secular Jews applied their long-formed mindset to just about everything, indeed to the point where we cannot have women’s sports without the ‘inclusion’ of ‘trans-women’ as yet another triumph of the ‘radical will’ against the very idea of the Normal. Black ‘booty-call-ism’ and Jewish ‘raticalism’ have done much to degrade Western Civilization.
The result among deracinated and weakened whites has been a kind of queue-ism. The Chinese under Manchurian rule were commanded to grow and wear queues as outward expressions of their submission and fealty to the Qing Dynasty, but over time, the Chinese grew so accustomed to the queues that the hairdo(of humiliation) became a cultural marker of their own identity, which is why many were reluctant to cut it off when the Han Chinese began to reassert themselves. Something similar took hold in the West. Jews spread GloboHomo symbols to humiliate the Christian West, replacing the grace of Christ with the ass-holiness of the homo as the path to redemption, an idea too ridiculous even for a Marx Brothers joke, but look how many whites took to the humiliation as a matter of sanctity. Or take Negrolatry. Jews promoted blackness to humiliate whiteness, but even some ‘conservatives’ defend THE NEGRODYSSEY of Christopher ‘Cuck’ Nolan with Helen of Troy portrayed as a jiggity-Negress. These people are no different from the Chinese who’d grown fond of their queues.
While all forms of domination have something in common in their overwhelming force or impact, the functional imperatives vary widely on the basis of their unique or peculiar natures. An environment taken over by rabbit over-population is surely different from one taken over by pigeon over-population. Mites and ticks operate differently from snakes and toads. In history, the supremacy of the bourgeoisie yielded results markedly different from those under the supremacy of the aristocrats. Supremacy of the literati-bureaucrats in traditional China contrasted profoundly with the supremacy of the barbarian chieftains in the Mongol domain or the supremacy of the samurai caste in Japan. In the same vein, even though both ‘Aryanism’ and ‘Semitism’ have been supremacist in pursuit of domination, conquest, and control, their objectives and results have been like night and day. It wasn’t merely a contest of which group got to control the commanding heights. It wasn’t like a Super Bowl match where, regardless of Team A or Team B winning, it’s about the game of football. Instead, the repercussions were bound to be epochal given the profound differences between the natures, styles, self-images, and worldviews of the ‘Aryanists’ and ‘Semitists’. Usually, when one guy replaces another guy as C.E.O, it’s merely positional, with the new head taking on the authority and responsibilities of the predecessor. But in some cases, the new boss has a wildly different vision for the company, just like a radically different editor can fundamentally alter the direction/mission of a magazine or newspaper.
As ruthless and brutal as ‘Aryanism’ could be, its preferred order was bound to be more honest(which is not to be confused with ‘truthful’). It could be deluded in its racial theories, but there would have been no doubt as to who was on top and what the rules were. Lions and wolves declare themselves as winners, and that’s that. In contrast, ‘Semitism’ was bound to produce an Empire of Lies given that the ‘rattish’ or ‘rodentine’ nature, while seeking domination and control, is ill-equipped to declare itself the winner. Lions in victory roar with pride. Rats, even in triumph, only squeak, chirp, and hiss. Their power rests on degrading than presiding over the environment. Lions are brutal and ruthless in gaining dominance but, once established, they can be ‘regal’ and assured in their lordship. Rats, even with the advantage, always feel insecure as small creatures and cannot stop at the radical or ‘ratical’ will to keep gnawing away at everything.
Unlike ‘Aryanism’ that was historically terminated and therefore can only be theorized as to its ultimate outcome or what-might-have-been, ‘Semitism’ has gone from theory to practice as the entire world is subject to its incessant radicalism. More than any ideology, economic system, military prowess, or political organization, the dominant power in the world is indisputably ‘Semitism’, or Jewish Supremacism. Unlike ‘Aryanism’ or Nazi Supremacism that in triumph would have boasted of its mastery and power, ‘Semitism’ continues to spin falsehoods to conceal and deny its power and influence in the ‘Empire of Lies’, a term coined by Vladimir Putin who could not bring himself to name the true wizard behind the Oz.
Naming the Jewish Power is almost as taboo as using the name of Yahweh was among Ancient Hebrews. Due to Holocaustianity and the cult of Jewish Genius/Wisdom, it’s been virtually blasphemous to air the slightest suspicion about Jewish behavior; anyone who does is accused of being a ‘conspiracy nut’ casting unwarranted aspersions. In such a cultural climate, is it any wonder that sleazebags like Larry Silverstein, Les Wexner, the Sacklers, and the entire Epstein Class got away with murder? Jewish Power has turned into a massive Protection Racket. Jews can do anything and can get away with anything, and you have to be in good graces with them if you want to improve your lot(or be spared their full wrath). The mafia would send thugs(or the ‘bad hoods’) to threaten a business, and then the business had to consult with the ‘good hoods’ and for protection from the ‘bad’ ones, even though the ‘good’ ones and the ‘bad’ ones were working together behind the scenes. Likewise, even when Jewish Power torments you, you must seek out ‘friendly’ Jews to provide protection from the ‘hostile’ Jews when, deep down inside, you know both sides are working together. So, Jews carry on with their War on Russia via Ukraine, but Putin keeps meeting with Jews like Witkoff and Kushner and spinning the conflict as one where Russia is up against this, that, whatever, or anything except Jewish Power that has really been pulling the strings.
One of the great moral fallacies of the narrative following World War II was the assumption that the victims of supremacism must be anti-supremacist. The ‘Good War’ mythology settled matters in terms of light and darkness. For example, take the notion of ‘Imperial Japan’, implying that if the Empire of Japan was imperialist, its enemies must have been anti-imperialist. In fact, Imperial Japan was at war with Imperial America. Unsurprisingly, the World War II narrative inspired the populist STAR WARS narrative with the conflict between the Empire and the humble ‘Rebels’, when, in fact, the so-called ‘rebellion’ constitutes just another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the eponymous hero foments Arab rebellions against the Turks to clear the way for British domination. In World War II, imperialist Japan, Italy, and Germany were at war with imperialist Britain, France, US, and USSR. Besides, Italy and Germany were largely aping what the British and French had already done around the world, and the dramatic rise of Japan owed in no small part to being welcomed into the Club of Imperial Powers. Just because the Allies fought the imperialist Axis powers didn’t make the Allies any less anti-imperialist, though they could afford to be somewhat nicer given their manpower and material advantages(whereas the Axis powers soon found themselves in desperate straits with nothing to spare and little room to maneuver).
Likewise, just because the Nazi ‘Aryanists’ were supremacist in hunting down, persecuting, and slaughtering Jews doesn’t make the Jews un- or anti-supremacist. In a way, the fanatical ‘Aryanist’ obsession with Judeo-Semites owed considerably to the perception that the Jews were just as or even more supremacist, fueled by zealotry predating the rise of Aryan civilization. But what especially riled up the Germanic ‘Aryanists’ was that the Jewish ‘Semitist’ game of power subverted and defiled the warrior ethos of courage and honor, as when the young David slung a stone at Goliath’s nuts instead of fighting like a man. We see this ‘comical’ Marx-Brothers way of war with Volodymyr Zelensky who has turned Ukrainian politics into DUCK SOUP, but then it’s a mere extension of American Politics that’s been degraded in the same manner by the same people.
True, the Axis powers could be ghastly in their war crimes, but they declared war and put it all on the line. They also fought their wars themselves and bore the risks. They were like ambush predators or pack hunters. In contrast, the ‘Semitist’ rattish-rodentine or Bugs-Bunny-ish strategy, though remarkably effective(based on the Jewish historical record), was unworthy in the arena of proud warriors. It was like wrestling someone who constantly grabbed your nuts or poked his fingers up your anus. When lions win, it is the rule by kings of the jungle. When rats win, it’s pestilence or the plague. (Predictably, certain ‘radical’ types were triggered by the implications of the movie THE LION KING, in which the noble and superior lions lord over the lesser ‘races’ of species that accept the natural hierarchy. Some culture critics said the hyenas were like ‘racist’ ethnic stereotypes and the villain ‘Scar’ came across as ‘gay’, suggestive of ‘homophobic’ tropes. They reacted to the movie like Susan Sontag to Leni Riefenstahl’s admiring book of photographs of the Sudanese Nuba tribe. Ultimately, however, THE LION KING was lauded as an expression of Negrolatry given the African setting and cultural references.) Just like the trickster Bugs Bunny infuriated Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd to no end, the ‘Semitist’ way of power that circumvented fighting-like-a-man led to the fanatical ‘Aryanist’ conclusion that the dirty and lowdown Jewish ‘Semitists’ had to be expelled from Western Civilization or even exterminated(like pests by the Orkin Man).
But then, Jewish ‘Semitism’ was a historical outlier. Semitic history produced many great warrior tribes, for example the Assyrians, among the fiercest civilizations ever known. The various Semitic tribes, just like the Aryan ones, were no slouches in war in the ancient world. By some accident, mistake, or joke of history, the less(or possibly the least) warrior-like Semitic tribe, the Jews, managed to outlast the tougher Semites, not by taking to the battlefield come what may but by burrowing into mental spaces as spiritual sanctuaries or shelter from the storm. Such a strategy could be conceived of as wise, meaningful, deep, and profound. Hindu mystics, also in their defeat, retreated into and thereby expanded spiritual spaces, the kind that offered solace to many cultures and served as a reminder of the transience of worldly things, however powerful they may be. Christians with faith in Heaven understood the art as well.
Among Jews, however, the inner haven and sanctuary became something other than a spiritual retreat. It became like the ‘rat-tunnels’ used by the Viet Cong in their war with Americans. It not only provided emotional and spiritual shelter from the hardships of the world but served as a place to lick wounds and plot Nibelungen-like strategies to subvert, weaken, and own the goyim. When a Christian monk retreats into a monastic cell, he prays to God and begs forgiveness and seeks detachment from the fallen world. When a Buddhist meditates, he seeks Nirvana, the portal to eternal extinction. When a Taoist contemplates The Way, he seeks oneness of the universe. Hindu yogis detach themselves from society and pursue their own idiosyncratic truths. In contrast, when a Chabad Rabbi concentrates his mental energies in his study or a Kosher deli, he counts the ways in which Jews are superior and holier than the rest, thereby justifying the manipulation of goyim into dumb dogs and cattle so that Jews can live like ‘effendi’. Given the mercantile nature of Jewish spirituality, it isn’t so far-fetched that a good number of Rabbis are invested in porn and related industries. If OnlyFans is good for the Jews and if Judaism is the concentration of spiritual power to control the world, why not bless pornography as just another instrument of the Covenant, the centerpiece of Jewish Thinking, the idea that God chose Jews as the rightful master race? ‘Semitist’ spiritual thinking is fixated on worldly outcomes, namely the messianic domination of the Jews over the goyim.
‘Aryanism’ is overhanded supremacism, whereas ‘Semitism’ is underhanded supremacism, therefore all the more frustrating in its concealment of true intentions. Both are anti-humanist, but whereas ‘Aryanism’ freely and openly admits it is so, ‘Semitism’ morphs and shapeshifts into a strategy for all seasons, feigning ‘humanism’, ‘liberalism’, ‘universalism’, ‘democratism’, ‘patriotism’(with various goy settings), and etc., all the while feverishly working to compromise and subvert all such -isms.
Its Houdini-like flexibility, along with the tragedy that befell Jews in World War II, led many to believe that Jews or Judeo-Semites are to be regarded as victims of supremacism(with Nazism as the most rabid and virulent kind that ever existed) than as practitioners of supremacism themselves. This misconception, arguably more than any other, has led to the possibly irreversible decline of the West. Within this mindset, everything Jewish or Philo-Semitic is assumed to contribute to human progress while anything ‘Anti-Semitic’ is summarily dismissed as ignorant and irrational, demeaned as pathological and demented.
A clear illustration of the madness is the rise of snake-oil Neo-Weimarism as a panacea for mankind. Because National Socialism developed in reaction to decadent/degenerate Weimar Germany in which Jews wielded considerable intellectual/cultural influence, the post-war intellectual elites were partial to the thesis that the evils of political tyranny, war & destruction, and mass hysteria & genocide were the result of fascist repressions of the Weimarian spirit, i.e. if a society allows for nonconformity, celebrates deviant lifestyles, promotes freaks & marginalized groups, unleashes Dionysian energies to the hilt, loosens sexual mores, and so on, the culture will be defined by freedom and liberation at odds with authority and political pressure, the stuff that leads to tyranny, war, and genocide. According to this view, fascism was the product of repressing ‘healthy’ and ‘natural’ urges and channeling them toward a cult worship of Der Fuhrer and the state. (And according to the Frankfurt School, Stalinism led to tyranny because of its fascist-like moral puritanism and ideological conformism.) So, even if Weimar Germany did have its excesses and ugly side, it stood against the concentration of power that could lead to something like Nazi Germany and its monstrosities.
A pop cultural distillation of such a worldview is the movie SMALL SOLDIERS by Joe Dante where the ‘heroes’ turn out to be the bad guys and the ‘monsters’ turn out to be the good guys. The G.I. Joe-like ‘good guy’ soldiers turn out to be quasi-fascist bullies and mass-killers while the freaky monsters turn out to be peace-loving victims worthy of our sympathy. Neo-Weimarian ‘woke’ politics promoted by Jews favors the freaks and ‘monsters’ against the Normal, which is associated with the ‘far right’, ‘white supremacism’, and ‘fascism’. There are endless parades in celebration of GloboHomo and tireless campaigns to render every washroom as ‘inclusive’ of all ‘genders’, all fifty of them. They are spun as bold assaults against ‘fascist’ tendencies, the kind of evil that gained a foothold in Interwar Europe and ignited the biggest conflagration of all time.
So, what is your cup of tea? Nazism or Weimarism? Of course, it’s a false dichotomy. It’s also bad history as events since the end of the Cold War have exposed the utter hollowness of Neo-Weimarism as a panacea of peace and progress. The Neo-Weimarian West has proven to be just as conducive to mass hysteria, conformism, war & destruction, genocidal tendencies, murderousness & tyranny, and brutality & nihilism. After all, the very Jews who do most to promote GloboHomo are also the biggest enablers and apologists of the Gaza Genocide. GloboHomo Neo-Weimarism, far from promoting world harmony and universal good will, has become the neo-imperialist instrument of the ‘Semitist’-supremacist West. Israel is said to be the ‘gayest nation on Earth’(as a middle finger to the ‘homophobic fascists’) but the great majority of Israeli Jews totally embrace ethnocentric supremacism, militarist imperialism, wars of aggression, and even outright genocide. Most Israelis are like ‘Weimazis’ or Weimar-style-Nazis. Countless Israelis indulge in cultural Neo-Weimarism but are fully onboard with the most ultra-rightist racial hubris and murderous death cult. ‘Gay pride’ and racial supremacism are compatible(but then Ernest Rohm and his SA homos could have told you that.) How was the Ukraine War sold to Neo-Weimarist ‘progressives’ in the West? The poster child of the war against Russia was some guy(‘Sarah’ Ashton Cirillo) recruited to masquerade as a tranny. Imagine that, the neo-Weimarist West, wallowing in decadence, degeneracy, and debauchery, in alliance with body-pierced-and-tattooed mondo-trasho ‘Ukro-Nazis’ funded by Jewish globalists in the name of ‘muh democracy’.
So much for Weimarism being a cultural and moral antidote to the repressive and authoritarian tendencies of Nazism. Today’s UK is utterly saturated with neo-Weimarist nuttery but a tyranny that arrests people for Twitter posts. Deviancy has become the New Normal, and normality has become the New Deviancy. Sodomy and population replacement are celebrated and welcomed while natural norms are ‘deconstructed’ and ‘heretical’ views are ‘canceled’. Neo-Weimarism has resulted in what Samuel Francis called ‘anarcho-tyranny’. The freaks, foreigners, and deviants, empowered and extolled by Jewish Power, are the new commissars. The neo-Weimarian Green Party of Germany is one of the biggest cheerleaders for more wars in the name of Diversity and GloboHomo. Of course, even as they tyrannize and invert all values, they play the victim. Our reluctance to acknowledge tranny freaks as ‘real women’ is decried as ‘trans-genocide’, which is just as demented as the inversion of protesting the Gaza Genocide into calling for the genocide of the Jews. Justice for Palestinians from ‘river to the sea’ has somehow been construed as the new Wannsee Conference. Even Southern White Segregationists weren’t so hysterical in their reaction; while opposing the Civil Rights Movement, they didn’t characterize it as White Genocide. The very Neo-Weimarians who cheered on Barack Obama’s push for nation-wide ‘gay marriage’ later endorsed his neo-imperialist destruction of Libya. They willingly swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the narrative about necessary wars or aggressions against Syria and Russia. Weimarism could learn to love war and genocide.
Whether Nazi-’Aryanist’ authoritarianism or Judeo-’Semitist’-Anal-worshipism, the result has been more hysteria, more wars, more mass-deaths, and more militarism. Whether under the ‘cuckservative’ GOP or ‘prograsshole’ Democrats, the US military budget has only increased, its foreign policy becoming more belligerent, its global attitude more arrogant. Neo-Weimarians throw tantrums about trannies left out of women’s sports but yawn about Trump’s criminal actions against Venezuela and Iran. The Paris Olympics ceremony of 2024 was Neo-Weimarism on full display, and those weaned on the WWII narrative might have assumed France is freer than ever. After all, if Nazism = authoritarianism = militarism = war and genocide, then Weimarism = liberation = tolerance = peace and harmony. But what is today’s neo-Weimarist France like? People are routinely fined and imprisoned for thought crimes, such as the idea that France should be preserved as a people and culture than undone by demographic replacement, the kind that befell the Palestinians due to endless waves of Jewish immigration. (The Nazi occupation was kinder to the French than is the current Jewish-Globalist domination that, by the way, is no less war-mad than Nazism ever was.) As in Germany and the UK, decent Frenchmen are hounded and ‘canceled’ for not bending over to GloboHomo. Its ‘ruling’ elites are fully onboard with the racial supremacist ‘Semitists’ and their imperialist war against Russia by way of Ukraine(whose population has been decimated as a result). These Neo-Weimarians cackled giddily about the attacks on civilian infrastructures in Russia. They’re mostly silent about the Jewish-led US war on Iran and do business with genocidal Zion. Changes like gays-in-the-military made the Neo-Weimarians only more supportive of Western Imperialism. Who cares if millions more perish in wars if in the service to the blessed sodomic ‘rainbow’? It is self-evident that Neo-Weimarian culture perfectly comports with tyranny, mass hysteria, ideological intolerance, idolatrous mania, warmongering, imperialism, and even genocide.
Since 1970, the US has grown more Jewish-dominated, more culturally decadent & degenerate, that is to say more Weimarian. And yet, it embarked on a sanctions-driven foreign policy that, according to a study by Lancet, may have claimed up to 40 million lives. Currently, the US is strangling desperate Cuba, but what is the primary concern of the Neo-Weimarians? More sodomic celebration. They’re unperturbed that the forces of tyranny and privilege — CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon, Congress, National Cathedral, Ivy Leagues, Wall Street, and etc. — are festooned with GloboHomo symbols. If tyranny stokes their vanity, all power to it. In their preening narcissism, they are flattered that the US empire now goes around bombing and destroying entire peoples to spread the ‘gayspel’, or ‘gay’ gospel. Needless to say, at the core of Neo-Weimarism is the rattish-rodentine supremacism of ‘Semitism’.
Atom Egoyan’s REMEMBER would have us believe that GloboHomo is the antithesis of Nazi mentality, but the Shlomo-Homo Alliance is fully approving of the Gaza Genocide and other Wars for Zion.
In some regards, Weimarism is worse than Nazism; whereas the latter was about piling up dead bodies in the name of civilization, the former is about piling up dead bodies in the name of perversion. Nazi-‘Aryanists’ murdered for health, Zio-‘Semitists’ murder for disease. If millions must be murdered, what would be the worthier goal? Adolf Hitler’s Germania or Barney Frank’s Analopolis? Nuremberg Rallies or month-long ‘gay pride’ parades? Granted, such is a false dichotomy as we must reject all forms of supremacism, whether in the name of beauty or ugliness. And mass murder, even for a ‘noble’ cause, is still mass murder. Besides, nobility built on a mountain of skulls is like a reputation based on fraud. Likewise, communists realized that justice built on the deaths of millions(or injustice) isn’t real justice.
Supremacism, even with nobly-stated objectives, must be rejected. Murdering for beauty is still ugly. Let’s suppose Hitler prevailed over Russia and realized his Germano-‘Aryanist’ Empire. And he built the magnificent city of Germania with Albert Speer. Suppose the results were truly awesome and staggering. It still would have been built on a tower of skulls, not unlike the Aztec Empire. In retrospect, what decent American feels good about the Atlantic Slave trade in the building of America? Some things, regardless of the ends, simply cannot justify the means.
Certain types are so tantalized by the Hitlerian vision of a mighty future that they lose sight of the human cost. It’s why they still wish the Germans had defeated the Russians. They figure, sure it would have been bloody and messy, but think of the bright new future for the Awesome Aryans! But at what cost? Wipe out an entire civilization in the dream of creating a better one? This is why humanism must trump supremacism, and nationalism must be humanist and reject the supremacist temptation. ‘Aryanism’ as a form of supremacism lost its way, and it’s about time the world recognized ‘Semitism’ as having gone bonkers with hubris and madness.
What lies in the future is anyone’s guess. ‘Aryanism’ was utterly disgraced and discredited by World War II, and ‘Semitism’, the way it’s going despite the wide-reaching tentacles of Jewish Power, is making more enemies than friends, and these ‘friends’ are increasingly cuck-goy-elites whose whorish loyalty is based more on bribery(or blackmail) than true commitment. It doesn’t portend well for Zion as the post-war Jewish ascendancy owed not only to rapidly expanding Jewish wealth and influence but the widely shared perception, among goy elite and masses alike, that the tragic Jews deserved a break after the traumatic events around mid-century. Over time, Jewish Power has abused the goy good will like the character of PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT used a slice of liver(if you know what I mean).
If ‘Semitism’ finally burns itself out with overweening arrogance and recklessness, what would be the next big challenge? ‘Indo-Aryanism’ or the Hindu combination of the worst aspects of parasitic ‘Semitism’ and predatory ‘Aryanism’ with qualities unique to lunacies associated with the monkey-vaishyaic or ‘Haplorhindic’ worldview? Whatever the case, there will surely be new takers in the next historical trend for the simple reason that Power usually attracts the worst kind of personality traits, the kind of people most fixated on greed & vanity on the one side and on toadyish servility & suck-up sidekickery on the other side. Or, the kind of people who want to be masters or dogs, pimps or whores, which is why the political system is filled with gangster-types and willing flunkies.
At one time, ‘antisemitism’ did have characteristics of sickness for the simple reason that even medicine in extreme doses becomes poisonous. While correct in addressing the JQ and diagnosing problems unique to Aryan/Semitic tensions(arising from two largely incompatible and mutually repellent cultures that somehow grew symbiotic and interdependent due to finance and shared sacred texts), ‘antisemitism’ in some cases turned pathological, either by blaming Jews for just-about-everything or seeing nothing good about the Jews. It’d be like saying someone’s like a pig(which may be true in his gluttony and obesity) and then insisting everything about him is swinish with no redeemable qualities. Nazi propaganda wasn’t wrong about the ‘rodentine’ facets of Jewishness but then went about demeaning everything Jewish as rat-like. That’d be like saying, because gangsta rap sucks and has had a most pernicious impact on society, Smokey Robinson sucked too and did nothing of value. ‘Antisemitism’ could have been a useful vaccine against the pathological tendencies of ‘Semitism’. From the perspective of the 21st century corrupted and diseased by Jewish chutzpah/hubris-gone-wild, all of humanity needs to be inoculated with immunity against the Zionic plague. Still, there are sane ways to go about it and there are insane ways, the kind that kills the patient along with the disease. Anti-‘Aryanism’ ultimately did more harm than good because, ironically enough, it became excessive like the most rabid forms of ‘antisemitism’. Because Nazi Germanic supremacism was bad, it was assumed or implied that anything associated with whiteness, European identity, Western culture, and/or traditional Christianity must either be bad or very suspect as a form of quasi-Nazism, crypto-Nazism, neo-Nazism, ersatz-Nazism, Christo-Nazism, or etc. Just about everything on the Right became associated with the ‘authoritarian personality’ with ominous overtones, and so, the post-war forms of conservatism rejected and even denounced all traces of white identity, unity, and pride. Bill Buckley’s THE NATIONAL REVIEW came to justify itself as the flagship of cucking to the Holy Jews. The anti-Aryan campaign threw out the baby with the bathwater, unfortunate because a sane and balanced pro-Aryan worldview could have been the most effective pushback against the darker tendencies of ‘Semitism’. In totally eradicating the cats for being too mean to the mice, the rat population exploded and gnawed on everything and spread disease all over. Look at the world today. The excessive Anti-Aryan agenda was like the mass culling of cats in Medieval Europe and Mao’s China. Superstitious Europeans regarded cats as witches’ companions, and the Red Guards(or Tards) saw them as ‘bourgeois’ pets(though the French had been there first). The result in either case was the Kingdom of Rats.
Similarly, it’s one thing to counter the theocratic tendencies of religions(that could bring about Neo-Medievalism) but quite another to wage total war on all religions and smash churches, mosques, and temples, like what the early Bolsheviks and the Red Guards went about doing in their most virulent phases. We don’t need Richard Dawkins’ radical anti-religious crusade to keep religion in its place. Besides, the modern era has shown that we can vanquish religions but not religious nature, with the result that the supposed secularists have erected new gods to worship, like Holocaustianity, Negrolatry, and Anno Sodomini.
