On the social trends and cultural fashions that have led us to posit the question of 'skankerpiece' as an aesthetic category.
It feels inappropriate to apply the term ‘masterpiece’ to the much degraded and depraved culture of our hedonic age. Over the years, one couldn’t help but notice that Popular Culture is the only culture left, at least one that matters. Not that ‘serious’ culture is no longer generated or high culture no longer appreciated; still, the only kind of culture that defines the moment, gains traction, and shapes trends is almost entirely generated in the sphere of mass culture. One would be hard-pressed to name anything ‘serious’ or ‘high’ in the past several decades that commanded the Zeitgeist or, at the very least, generated sufficient critical mass for cultural relevance. Even what remained of serious culture came to heavily rely on (mostly self-serving)promotional antics by figures such as Oprah Winfrey. Certain writers such as Jonathan Franzen(situated somewhere between serious literature and middle-brow sensibility), despite favorable hype by the media(as the new Steinbeck), hardly gained lasting currency. (Of course, it helps if certain books or subjects are made into films or TV shows, e.g. Cormac McCarthy’s relative renown in the public eye due to films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.) What remains of culture-defining ‘serious culture’ is said to persist in TV shows such as BREAKING BAD and other overrated drivel.
It’s hardly an exaggeration to say that HARRY POTTER novels by J.K. Rowling constituted the literary sensation of the new millennium. Not far behind were THE HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT, also targeted for young readers. One of the biggest successes among adult readers was FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, which began as a pervy fanfic spin on TWILIGHT. And some of the biggest cinematic cultural events of the 21st century were BATMAN movies and other over-inflated superhero blockbusters, like BLACK PANTHER.
While much of pop culture still steers clear of obscenity and depravity in the sexual or lifestyle sense, it’s rather perverse that the supposedly most advanced civilization is now mostly defined by triviality and tripe(often mistaken for treasure). Seriously, was the Rap Musical HAMILTON really worthy of the unanimity of praise and rapture? Even if not downright depraved, it feels retarded that something like a silly rap musical about the Founding Fathers is greeted as the second coming of Shakespeare and Mozart rolled into one.
The problem partly stems from the shamelessness and sense of ease, the fading of tensions and conflicts that had defined the earlier eras of modernism prior to the advent to the ‘post-modern’ eras that are largely ‘meaning’-free, so much so that people obsess over frivolous things in search of any meaning. In an earlier era, it would have been laughable for anyone to define himself or herself by stating his or her pronouns. “My name is John Ford, and my pronouns are he/him, and by the way, I make Westerns.” The culture went from tension to tolerance to apathy to emptiness to craving for meaning, except there’s only trash and triviality for most people to draw meaning from. No wonder that sanctifying a ‘gay’ dildo up a ‘rainbow’ homosexual’s anus is the highest ‘spiritual’ aspiration in our time. Even though tolerance led to this point, the sanctification of trash/triviality has devoured the very liberalism and culture of tolerance that made its emergence possible.
The prudish and priggish(and the prudent as well) could point to much throughout the 20th century that appeared(relative to the times) as corrosive, corrupting, perverted, filthy, obscene, depraved, dirty, and etc. There were controversies over the Jazz scene, Rock n Roll, nudity and obscenity in arts & culture, pornography, gory horror movies, potty-mouthed comedy acts, and etc. Still, decency standards were maintained on TV and Radio, that is until Cable and satellite broadcasting bypassed censorship rules. And then, the internet provided a direct pathway to all kinds of material, including easy access to pornography for the young ones.
Granted, with the passing of the older folks(with stronger inhibitions), the general erosion of resistance(especially given the ever increasing volumes of salacious material that finally topped the levee), stigmatization of shame & morality as ‘repression’ or ‘judgmentalism’, identification with & addiction to trashiness among vast swathes of Americans(including so-called ‘conservatives’, many of whom are now covered with hideous tattoos), considerable & undeniable talent committed to vulgar expressions, and/or fear of retribution by Jewish Power that insisted on Neo-Weimarization, the modern world grew accustomed to the decadence.
And of course, homosexuality and its narcissistic exhibitions took over entire city blocks months on end, and pop songs and music videos became racy and porny in style.
The siege on culture largely came in two forms: (1) Assault on normalcy & decency, whereby perversity, pornography, deviancy, crudity, and extreme forms of vulgarity were directed at anything resembling sanity, stability, and balance. (2) Assault on whiteness and/or national integrity, whereby even if the work was not flagrantly depraved or degenerate in style or manner, it was committed to ‘deconstructing’ whiteness or subverting national, cultural, or historical integrity, e.g. Christopher Nolan’s THE ODYSSEY as Negrodyssey that prominently features ghastly Negroes in the roles of Ancient Greeks.
Thus, one is likely to encounter two kinds of culture in the Post-Modern West: Shameless wallowing in filth and garbage, like Sam Smith as a repugnant satanic homo-bung-boy getting smutty on stage, or some respectable(and even ‘inspiring’) drama where Negroes are an obligatory presence(even if the historical/social evidence don’t bear this out). Surrender to perversion or uphold standards(but in miscegenation with the Negro or celebration of homosexuals as anal-angels). No wonder the ‘new conservatism’ in Great Britain is about elevating Magic Negroes to top positions in the Tory Party. But what’s the point of conservatism and tradition if the core demos are not preserved?
The complacency amidst the abnormality(its fat arse now firmly ensconced as the New Normal) is what makes the current depravity so pervasive and pointless. It no longer has to prove or explain itself, and it no longer generates pushback or backlash that would at least create a cultural dialectic and struggle for meanings and justifications(and counter-justifications). Take the drug culture of the Sixties in contrast to what we have now. New forms of drugs stirred up great controversy in the Counterculture years, with lots of young ones getting zonked on who-knows-what, plain to see in the documentary GIMME SHELTER about the Rolling Stones concert at the Altamont Speedway. Still, there was a need to justify the drug culture back then, thereby imbuing certain substances as pathways to transcendental meaning or some epiphany. There was social pushback against the drugs as dangerous and corrupting, backed by plenty of evidence(though often exaggerated or hysterical for propaganda purposes). Precisely because of widespread social disapproval and legal sanctions, the pro-drug camp took on the challenge of justifying certain drugs as something more than ‘recreational’ or escapist.
Similarly, given the widespread social misgivings about sex and violence in arts & culture, those in favor of greater expressive freedom argued in terms of creative possibilities in service to more truthful representation of reality, e.g. mimic reality more accurately so as to convey the true nature of violence(in all its manifestations from major wars to petty crime to familial trauma) or reveal the more intimate side of sexuality to delve into the darker aspects of the tensions between men and women(or simply to assert that sexuality is healthy and natural, nothing to be ashamed of).
Thus, sex and violence were argued in favor of and justified on grounds of deeper meaning than as mere sensationalism, just like the Counterculture defended drug use as a means to facilitate contact with ‘higher consciousness’ or even spirituality than merely to ‘get high'(as is the case with the fellas in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET). Even pornography, though difficult to defend from a moral or cultural angle, stimulated heady debates about constitutionality, i.e. even if ‘adult entertainment’ is meaningless and worthless(and even harmful) as a form of expression, its legalization was deemed necessary as a triumph of the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression. PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT made a similar case: True, Larry Flynt may be a scumbag and filth-merchant, and yes, his derogatory ‘satire’ of Jerry Falwell may have been nasty and ugly, but in a liberal democratic society(or libertarian-conservative order), free speech/expression trumps personal and even moral considerations. As long as there was a cultural dialectic, even the problematic could be rendered meaningful or be part of a meaningful debate.
But by the time the movie ANIMAL HOUSE came out, the culture had fundamentally changed. The new freedoms, once controversy-and-dialectic-generating, had either been accepted, tolerated, or overlooked(even if illegal on paper) in the synthesis of commercialized indifference. Thus, the sensational or salacious no longer had to justify itself. As such, it lost the patina of rebel-heroism in upsetting the apple-cart of respectable society or ‘bourgeois’ sensibility as no one really cared any more or resigned themselves to rising tide. (The so-called Reagan Era was useful to the ascendant boomers in wrapping the trashy and the obscene as the ‘new patriotism’ or ‘new conservatism’. Made glossy and slick, it supposedly represented the return to form and order following the chaotic Sixties and the lost Seventies. RISKY BUSINESS ‘conservatism’ or Ted Nugent ‘patriotism’.)
If anything, the society grew so accustomed to ‘indecency’ that fake controversies were periodically concocted to generate interest(or panic/passion). Consider madonna’s music video “Justify My Love” and her porny book SEX. In truth, no one gave a damn, but her antics were turned into mini-‘cultural events’ to hype her street-cred as an ‘edgy’ artist/performer. Or take the Robert Mapplethorpe controversy linking homosexual degeneracy as the bedrock of free speech. The talentless Mapplethorpe made into another ‘martyr’, as if his case bore any resemblance with the trial of Oscar Wilde.
Things got so dull and dreary in the post-controversial era that the West jumped on the Salman Rushdie controversy(concerning the Iranian Fatwa) with relish, turning it into a cause celebre. If no one cared anymore about blasphemy and outrage in the West, at least they still did in the backward Muslim world, opportuning the West to show and defend itself as a bastion of Enlightenment Principles. To be sure, the Rushdie controversy was a case of something-for-everyone: An opportunity for Western Liberals to show off their bona fides as unreserved champions of universal liberty and individual conscience, an opportunity for Western Conservatives to demonstrate the superiority of the West to the Rest, an opportunity for Zionists to portray the Muslim world as barbaric, an opportunity for white-cucks and Christ-cucks to suck up to Israel on account of those backward Iranians, and etc. (But then, any astute observer would have noted that ‘Holocaustianity’ and MLK worship were sacralized into quasi-religious dogmas in the West, transgressions against which could lead to career suicide and reputational shunning. Also, it was during the Rushdie ruckus that Political Correctness in media, academia, entertainment, and government really took off. And then, it wasn’t long before this supposedly free-speech-loving West pulled every dirty trick in the book to destroy the life and career of David Irving and went about purging American Conservatism of everyone but the most ardent cucks to Zion. Thus, the increasing tolerance, akin to Drug Tolerance, which initially led to apathy and indifference, eventually came to protect and promote certain controversies over others, in time transforming the protected/promoted controversies into new sanctities that demanded zero tolerance for ideas and attitudes running counter to them. The tolerance, which had once allowed for both extreme anti-homo and extreme pro-homo views, came to favor the latter, ultimately serving the homos to shut down the anti-homos, not unlike how the Zionists rigged the politics of tolerance, which disproportionately leaned in favor of Israel against its rivals/enemies, to eventually shut out the ‘Arabists’ from the discussion altogether.)
Meaning, like muscle, atrophies without use. Muscles unchallenged by resistance grow soft and flabby. Meaning that grows complacent gives rise to apathy. Just like muscles have to be exercised regularly, meanings have to demonstrate their worth. This is true of both conservatism and liberalism.
Conservatism without resistance turns lax and lazy, resting on its laurels. Or it turns into something akin to the living dead, succumbing to rigor-mortis-like dogma. Without being challenged as to why certain things and values must be protected and preserved, conservatives come to take things for granted. Likewise, warriors who never train for or engage in combat gradually forget how battles are fought and won, how the castle is defended. Soft muscle is useless, but so is muscle turned into rigor-mortis, stiff and dead, and the same goes for meaning that must remain both sharp and supple for continued relevance in a world defined by conflict and competition.
Liberalism faces the same danger. Without challenge and pushback, it grows irresponsible, infantile, and frivolous. In eras past, liberalism had to resist the real forces of conservatism and fought intellectually, morally, and ideologically to champion its causes for more individual liberties, even in areas of questionable morality. Surely, even the champions of the various ‘liberations’ understood the downsides, the negative consequences of increased permissiveness. Still, the liberals argued either that the positives outweighed the negatives or that the negatives were the unavoidable and bearable price of running the business of a free society.
When the forces of both conservatism and liberalism were hardy and energized with conviction, they strengthened and improved the other. The conservatives felt compelled to focus on matters that were truly worthy of conserving and preserving instead of falling back on lazy kneejerk responses and unquestioned assumptions. Smart conservatism conserves what is good and sheds what is demonstrably bad(as a whole or in excess); it accepts changes that improve society. Thus, the liberal challenge sharpened the best aspects of conservatism. (In contrast, the swinish fat-ass style of conservatism embodied by Rush Limbaugh the gluttonous pig encouraged conservatives to be a bunch of mindless ‘dittoheads’, with dire consequences that led to the Bush II era of right-tard moronism.)
Healthy conservatism thrived from meeting the liberal challenge, and vice versa. At every turn, it was under constant pressure(like athletes during the playing season) to justify its argument and demands. And when smart conservatives countered with their own proposals, they had to prioritize what mattered most, like a hiker keeping this body lean and fit, shorn of excess fat and senseless gear. Given the challenges, liberals had to be focused and essential-minded as well, selecting the most inspired battles instead of indulging every fancy that popped into their heads.
Just like a boxer needs a real opponent to maintain his skills — shadowboxing alone doesn’t cut it — , cultural and ideological meaning is sustained through a dialectic between conservatism and liberalism. Along the way, conservatism learns to rid itself of dead weight to meet the challenge, and liberalism learns to hone its sense of navigation against obstacles. It’s been amply demonstrated that ‘Wing Chun’ and related flowery martial arts cannot stand up to the battle-hardened-and-reality-proven MMA style. Kung Fu and related martial arts styles make impressive but extraneous motions that are actually useless in hand-to-hand combat whereas MMA fighters master a set of skills proven time and time again inside the ring.
In many respects, the cultural climate was healthier in the first half of the 20th century with a livelier debate between tradition and innovation, between the right and the left, between religion and secularism, and among the various nationalities and ethnic groups. Even though the post-war landscape was in many respects freer and more libertine, it was also burdened with more taboos(or super-taboos with quasi-religious aura). In the post-war West, especially beginning with the explosion of youth culture in the Sixties(with roots in the Fifties of course), individuals were freer to express themselves culturally and explore new lifestyles with sex, drugs, and pursuit-of-happiness, not least because the economic expansion allowed for greater consumption and choices in goods and recreation. But, despite all the burgeoning freedoms in lifestyles and consumerism in the spirit of liberation, certain topics became increasingly rigid in ‘sacralization’ and/or unquestioned as a matter of official consensus.
It was especially evident on the subjects of Jews and blacks, with the later addition of homosexuals(and to a lesser extent the immigrants as embodiment of ‘Diversity’). In the first half of the 20th century, there was far more honest discussions on race and racial differences and the Negro Problem. And it was far more permissible to address the Jewish Question when it came to theology, sociology, politics, and economics. Winston Churchill himself at one point named Jewish Radicalism as the poison seed of Bolshevism.
Granted, some of the critical voices on blacks and Jews were extreme or over-the-top, but there were many honest, factual, and trenchant observations as well, and such voices were indispensable in pushing back against the excesses of liberalism, the Jew Flu, and the Black Attack.
Liberalism that was sympathetic toward blacks and Jews was understandable and valid to a degree. Blacks had been enslaved in the US and exploited. And under Constitutional guarantees, legal justification of segregation and other forms of racial discrimination was problematic to say the least. And there had been violence toward the Jewish community throughout Western history and certain prejudices and stereotypes against Jews could be construed as excessive, even rabid and virulent at times.
Still, there was a real problem with blacks at the biological or racial level, a truth ignored at one’s own peril. Blacks did evolve to be more muscular, more aggressive, more jivey-and-funky-ass, and more ‘jigaboo’-ish. Blacks weren’t simply white people with black skin(like certain Hindus of Indo-Aryan background). John Ritter(of THREE’S COMPANY) in blackface would still be a ‘white boy’, and Mike Tyson in whiteface would still be a ghastly Negro or ‘groid’. Given America’s history of racial discrimination against blacks in the aftermath of enslavement and exploitation, liberalism’s sympathy for the black struggle for liberty and dignity was understandable, even laudable.
However, in the absence of a pushback and racial dialectic, there was the real danger that liberalism could become mushy, naive, and hoodwinked(by its own utopianism) on the race issue. In order for liberalism to remain useful and sensible on the race issue, it had to be reminded of the ‘jiggity’ nature of the Negro, and this was where conservatism and race-ism were essential.
Thus, liberalism that argued, “blacks were historically wronged and are deserving of redress”, would have been tempered by race-ist conservatism against pushing things too far and too fast.
Then, a smart liberalism might have been possible, one that came to realize, “It’s wrong to call blacks ‘niggers’ but there’s something in Negro genetics that drives many blacks to act ‘niggerish’ and wreak havoc on society.” Consequently, a smart liberalism would not only have admonished whites to stop referring to blacks as ‘niggers’ but also insisted upon blacks to restrain their ‘niggerish’ drives. “You whites, stop referring to Tyrone Jackson as a ‘nigger’, and Tyrone, try not to act like a crazy nigger.”
Social policy based on such a foundational balance of principled idealism and cautionary realism would have been far more constructive. Ideologues need pushback from ‘realogues’ to avoid hardening into dogmatism. In the first half of the 20th Century, ‘anti-racist’ liberal good-will on the Negro Problem had real pushback from race-ist data and/or conservative consternation on the matter. The effect was to knock some sense into the liberals(rendering them less starry-eyed) and/or pressure them to propose more sensible solutions or compromises. (In time, however, especially with the rise of mass electronic media, the ideologues and activists came to rely less on reasoned debates & factual data and more on emotional appeals & manipulation via storytelling, pageantry, and iconography, presumably on the basis that certain causes are SO IMPORTANT that even lies in their favor are preferable to facts against them, in the process transforming liberalism from a secular rationalist ideology into a neo-theology.)
If radical ‘racism’ led to the biggest war and the worst tragedies of the 20th century, radical ‘anti-racism’ seems to be the undoing of the West in the 21st century.
In the second half of the 20th Century, however, the conservative pushback dramatically dissipated and then vanished altogether on the Race Issue until both so-called Liberalism and so-called Conservatism were united in the dogmatic consensus that the Civil Rights Movement was 100% correct and good, its opponents were 100% incorrect and evil, and MLK was the greatest American ever, even bigger than god and jesus.
The social impact has been one unmitigated disaster after another. How odd that a society that became so much more libertine and free in most respects became downright neo-theocratic and dogmatic in others, destroying anyone who even hinted at the real truths of the Black Problem.
Even though the second half of the 20th century was freer and more libertine(and peaceful and prosperous) in many respects, it also enforced a set of taboos in absolutist ways that prevented honest discussions of certain ideas and realities, especially pertaining to Jews and blacks, thus either unhealthily favoring one side in the debate or wastefully diverting social interests and resources toward ‘fixes'(or studies) invariably doomed to be peripheral or irrelevant to the actual situation.
The New Taboo not only mucked up the Black Issue but, arguably and more importantly, the Jewish One. Once the Holocaust was consecrated akin to a neo-religion, it became reputationally jeopardous and even illegal in parts of Europe to honestly discuss Jewish Power and its problems lest one be labeled an ‘Anti-Semite’. This wouldn’t have mattered if Jews were poor, weak, incapable, and uninfluential, but silence befell the Jewish Question just when Jews were taking over the US, the most powerful country during the Cold War and then the Lone Superpower upon the implosion of the Soviet Order.
Even as people felt freer to use obscene language, indulge in a wider array of drugs, consume either porn or increasingly pornified culture(even down to the kiddie level as the sexualization and then the homosexualization of children gathered steam), listen to deranged gangsta rap & demented heavy metal, and so on, they found themselves summarily dismissed, denounced, stigmatized, blacklisted(or ‘schlacklisted’ or blacklisted as schmucks by Jewish Power), or ‘canceled’ in the supposed ‘liberal democratic’ order that guaranteed freedom of conscience/speech. (In westernized Japan, people can get off on endless pornography and violent video games and trashy horror movies, but there’s hardly any discussion of its continuing status as the mama-san whore of the Zionist-led US. Frivolous freedom to corrupt and distract but hardly any substantive freedom to understand and resist.) In the US, the main targets of silencing weren’t over obviously offensive or outlandish expressions like ‘Heil Hitler’, ‘Gas the Jews’, or ‘All Niggers Must Die’ but well-reasoned and factually-based positions on controversies concerning the agendas/abuses of Jewish Power or the destructive impact of black crime and pathologies; it was far more convenient for Jewish Power to allow the airing of Neo-Nazi or KKK morons who discredited themselves on air, especially on trashy talk shows, than to handle those, such as Joseph Sobran, who critiqued such phenomena as Neoconservatism with wit and flair.
Neo-Nazis and KKK leaders, banned or not, could never be a real threat as being outwardly loathsome was part of their shtick; indeed, they were periodically rewarded with airtime exactly for their outrageousness, with groups like SPLC sometimes working underhandedly with the KKK by urging its members to do outdated stuff(even for the Klan!!!) like burning crosses. The real threat came from arguments backed with facts and reason. Charles Murray, a milquetoast figure at best, was physically assaulted by ‘woke’ mobs at a college campus, discouraging any future invitations to such voices, and got virtually zero support from the very institutions claimed to be committed to free inquiry and free debate on all manner of subjects.
As the supposed Western ‘liberal democratic’ model became ever more censorious of voices critical of the Black Problem and Jewish Question, social and political degradation of society followed and grew apace. The US, with its large black population and ascending/assertive Jewish elites, was reluctant to call out and take action against the destructive and/or subversive impacts of black behavior and Jewish agenda. As black blight and pathologies spread from city to city, the discourse in academia, media, and politics resorted to mealy-mouthed talk of ‘inner city’ despair and later ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. And all black problems were chalked up to ‘racism, racism, racism’, as if blacks are innate saints capable of nothing but love and wonder BUT for the fact of historical trauma. Thus, for all the talk of free speech and transparency in the ‘liberal democratic’ West(as opposed to in tyrannies or autocracies), the West became the Land of Lies.
And it became de rigueur to pretend that Jewish Power never did wrong and, even if it did, the blame was pushed on everything and everyone but the Jews, even at the macro-historical scale: Why were so many Jews experts at crooked financial schemes? Because they weren’t allowed to farm potatoes and turnips in Old Europe. So, Jewish victimization of goyim is recast in terms of Jewish historical victimhood. If Jews had been allowed to grow carrots, they wouldn’t be hoarding all those karats of gold.
Frustrated with mass immigration and the Great Replacement, aka White Nakba?
What are you, a ‘racist’, ‘white supremacist’, or ‘xenophobe’? Even in cases where the anxiety is partially addressed instead of summarily vilified, the rule is to blame the darkies but never mention the outsized Jewish role in pushing for ‘Diversity’.
Notice the HinJew Alliance(whereby the white managerial class is replaced by Hindu neo-brahmanic caste) has been the brainchild of Jewish Power, but it’s only permissible to dump on the ‘Jeets’ but never on the Jews.
To add insult to injury, pretend that Jews are helpless victims who need to be protected from the large waves of ‘Anti-Semitic’ non-white arrivals despite the fact that Jews (1) have been the main facilitators of the Cult of Diversity and (2) have done most to indoctrinate and recruit nonwhites as allies against whites as scapegoats for all woes.
Just like a doctor who is incapable of diagnosing the patient honestly(either out of incompetence or fear of authority) cannot combat the disease, a society that cannot call out obvious problems is ultimately doomed one way or the other.
Balance is the key to sanity. It’s why the Ancient Greeks had gods of different powers, purposes, and temperaments to balance one another out. If the Greeks only worshiped Apollo, they might have become stuck-up and ‘anal’ in their obsession with order and stability. But if they only worshiped Dionysus, they might have been into “I Wanna Rock n Roll All Nite and Party Everyday”.
Dionysian energies without Apollonian checks-and-balances result in something like the Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Speedway in 1969. Unfortunately, the deluded only find out the hard way, as when a baffled Mick Jagger pleaded for peace, love, and calm when a shoddily planned free concert attracting masses of druggies overseen by Hell’s Angels(hired as beer-guzzling security) and invoking the Devil(as an object of sympathy) spiraled out of control. Bewildering? Only for the willfully blind as any sensible person could have predicted the train-wreck from a mile away. But that was on the Stones, still in their youth and inexperience during a time of radical recklessness. In contrast, what transpired in 2020 with BLM riots and Covid hysteria was on the powers-that-be themselves, perhaps the greatest mass lunacy instigated by the rulers since Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
The problem in the West partly stems from the totalizing influence of the Jewish-Christian worldview where the One God or the One Truth must define everything. In TEN COMMANDMENTS, the Ancient Hebrews split into two camps: The moralistic prigs around Moses beholden to the Law and the hedonistic pigs who abandon themselves to the Golden Calf. It’s binary-thinking, the one or the other with little possibility for moderation or balance.
Even today, many in the West, though post-religious, are trapped in a similar mindset whereby the truth-of-the-moment has to be the Only Truth. The Anno Sodomini Globo-Homo worshipers of the Bunghole Eucalyptus aren’t satisfied with a society that is reasonably tolerant of sexual deviancy. No, they idolize homos & trannies and seek to compel every square inch of society to believe that the redemption of humanity must be through the portal of the ‘gay’ and ‘pride’ anus and that we must accept trannies not only as ‘real women’ but even superior ‘women’.
The same goes for Globo-Negro and Globo-Shlomo, and indeed, Globo-Homo-Negro-Shlomo constitute a kind of neo-trinity among the globalist degenerates and the deracinated, though cracks are finally beginning to appear with the overreach with the tranny thing and Gaza thing. And there is the factor of Negro Fatigue, the result of blacks acting badly regardless of adoration showered on them by white cucks. Cucked whites, indoctrinated into believing that everything wrong with the black community stems from the history of ‘racism’, still act as if the Race Problem could be solved by whites making yet another(ad infinitum) effort to expunge their souls of ‘racism'(and ‘systemic racism’). It’s like someone being convinced that hurricanes are caused by his happiness and success in life, therefore, the only way to reduce their fury is to chip away at his well-being. Another hurricane? He’s made to think, “It’s MY fault.” We don’t know to what extent man-made Climate Change poses a threat to nature and humanity, but its hysterical aspect is clearly a means by which the elites try to control the guilt-mechanism of the people. How easier to control the populace from doing or not doing something on account of their actions(or inaction) destroying the whole planet! Notice so many documentaries blame just about everything on ‘climate change’. If the elites don’t want you to do something, they can always invoke ‘climate change’. If the elites want you to support a certain agenda, same thing. The onus is placed on you, the guilty masses who won’t obey the all-wise elites(who were oddly totally silent about the blowing up of the Nord Stream Pipeline that released tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; yes, the same elites that said Covid will kill you all… but then said it will spare those who come out en masse for BLM protests).
Any idea, if totalized into monomaniacal excess, can only lead to harm. It was no less true with the ‘Aryanism’ of Adolf Hitler and the like. The historical Aryans of old had respect for other cultures and hardly regarded themselves as the sole creators and arbiters of civilization. They learned from other peoples and cultures and in turn taught them with their own innovations. In contrast, the kind of ‘Aryanism’ approved by National Socialism insisted on the ‘Aryans’ as the ONLY creative race capable of building high civilization, and such blindness led to narrowness of vision and a culture of contempt that encouraged poor judgement and planning for the system as a whole, especially in the total war on Russia.
Nazism is gone, seemingly for the good, but the West, especially its elites, has come under the totalizing monomania of Jewish Supremacist ‘Semitism’, with the cuck-collaborator goy-elites of the US and EU(and their satellites) endorsing or cheering on just about every Judeocentric agenda, however mad, inhumane, or downright evil. And the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ has been changed from ‘irrational hatred of all Jews’ to even the slightest criticism of Israel or the Jewish supremacist globalist agenda. Jewish Power went from demanding that Jews be treated no worse than any other people to commanding that Jews be treated as the all-wise and totally-perfect gods whom the goyim must obey at all times.
Culture War has the dynamics of a combat war. In both cases, it helps to neutralize the defenses of the other side, thereby making the assault far easier. Consider the fall of Syria. The economic degradation led to collapse in morale and confidence, and so, the weary and demoralized Syrian Army stood down while Jolani’s ragtag troops backed by Turkey-West-Israel took over city after city. Likewise, the back deals between Zionist-controlled Trump administration and the traitor Delcy Rodriguez guaranteed no Venezuelan resistance to the US assault and abduction of Maduro. If the defenses are neutralized, even minimal force can accomplish the agenda or mission. If the defenses are in place, even an all-out campaign may be repelled.
What goes for military operations goes for mental operations as well. Once white society’s defenses were neutralized with taboos against ‘racism’(mostly involving blacks) and ‘antisemitism’(and later ‘homophobia’), whites became anxious and afraid to push back against accusations and charges lobbed by Jews, blacks, and homos.
In the end, Jews(and homos) were less committed to an order defined by tolerance than one defined by insistence, whereby certain groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks would be offered special protections, privileges, and opportunities, allowing them to incessantly insist that things be This Way or That Way, thereby wearing down the opposition(that had already been neutralized in its immunity against attacks from Jews, blacks, and homos).
In a Culture of Insistence, those who endlessly gripe and demand will eventually gain the upper-hand over those mellowed and softened by the Culture of Tolerance. Whites weaned on Tolerance were exposed to their rivals & enemies; too occupied with tolerating others and accommodating their demands, they failed to insist on the primacy of their own identity and interests. Whites were told that anything pro-white or genuinely conservative was either bigoted or ‘judgmental’, and so, they had to constantly remind themselves to be more tolerant lest they be ‘divisive’, even ‘hateful’. If you’re too busy catching or dodging things thrown at you, you’re unable to throw anything back.
But, did Jews, blacks, and homos practice tolerance on their part? No, they went into the mode of Insistence, constantly harping on Whites and conservatives to be more sensitive to the SPECIAL and the more-equal-than-others concerns of Judeocentric Semitism, Afrocentric Negritism, and Homocentric ‘Assitism’.
Just like the brick-wall-like WASP father in THE HEARTBREAK KID(directed by Elaine May) was worn down by the unceasing insistence of the Jewish suitor(Charles Grodin), White America relented to the demand-after-demand-after-demand by the insatiably insistent Jewish Power, which is why the world is mired in the Ukraine War, Iran War, and the troubles all over Middle East and North Africa. It’s also why nearly all of Latin America became a gangsta paradise for Zion. Latinos can name the Yanqui or Gringo but they dare not name the Judio. Deep down inside, Latinos must sense that Yanquis or gringos, problematic and bullying as they could be, are open to criticism and pushback, whereas the Judios are total gangsters with no qualms about utterly destroying anyone or anything standing in their way.
In retrospect, it’s incredible that Jews were once among the biggest leftist and liberal critics of WASP-led imperialist policy in Latin America, using their media influence to present sympathetic portraits of Castroite Cuba and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua while exposing the ‘right-wing death squads’ employed by the CIA in Guatemala and elsewhere. Today, all of the media might as well be in the pocket of the once-disgraced NeoCon Elliot Abrams as they remain silent on Zionist-stooge Trump’s brazen threats against Cuba and the rest of Latin America, the US deep state’s blatant interference in elections to install ‘right-wing’ puppets, and Jewish gangster-financial takeover of countries like Argentina and Venezuela. It appears moral considerations had been secondary to the discrediting of WASP authority as a means to clear the path for Jewish domination, which, once achieved, was to be expanded and secured by unapologetic Zionist-Neo-Imperialism.
Following World War II, the left clearly gained an advantage over the right as the vanquished forces of evil, the Axis Powers of Germany-Italy-Japan, had been branded as far-right or radical right. Moreover, the far-leftist communist Soviet Union had been instrumental in the defeat of Germany. And World Jewry, mostly associated with political liberalism, had naturally rooted for the Allies of the so-called ‘liberal democracies’ of the West and the ‘socialist republics’ of the Soviet Union.
Given the extremes of evil attributed to the Axis powers, especially Germany with its genocidal intent and deeds, the general consensus was the irredeemableness of the ‘far right’ or ‘radical right’. In contrast, for a time at least, the leftist camp(including the far left) could bask in the glory of Allied triumph, especially with the Soviet Union having been an invaluable contributor to the victory.
Thus, the entire spectrum of the left, from center-left to the far-left, could air its ideas, vent its rage, and/or push its agendas, whereas the remnants of the right found themselves tip-toeing through an ideological mine-field in which rightism in general was on the moral defensive. Due to ideological constraints, the forces on the right could only weakly push back against the forces on the left, culminating in the rabid and virulent leftist tantrums and hysterics of the Sixties, most alarmingly in the May 68 riots in France.
But in the end, the problem was less ideological than idolatrous and ‘identitarian’, i.e. the end result wasn’t the triumph of egalitarian-universalism(of core leftism) but that of certain ethnic, racial, and/or special interests. Jews especially used leftism as a moral shield and sword to neutralize and weaken pushback from the White Right(historically and ideologically the most potent rival or enemy to Jewish Power), only to ditch the ethos of genuine leftism in favor of priorities centered on Hewbraic Hubris(in alliance with Holy Homo-Vanity and Negro Narcissism).
In a way, the demise of the real left was hardly surprising. For all its ideological and moral advantages stemming from the World War II narrative(with the radical right as the Evil Enemy), the Cold War seriously hampered the leftist challenge in the West. Even Liberals, though sympathetic to certain leftist ideas and/or partial to certain Marxian talking points, feared the Soviet Union and communism far more than the US and capitalism. So, by and large, even as leftist discourse was tolerated and certain leftist demands were met, leftism in the West was mostly talk than walk. So, certain strains of leftism thrived in academia(and even in parts of the media) but had limited impact on the sociopolitical core dominated by the ‘center-left’ and ‘center-right’ parties, with both parties keeping the radicals at bay.
In this endeavor, the center-right parties had an easier time because the radical elements of the right had been so thoroughly discredited and exiled from respectable society, whereas the center-left(especially in Europe) had to contend with the radical elements of the left that had earned considerable cachet due to the Soviet victory in WWII, the total defeat of ‘radical right’ fascists in World War II, and the fashionable Third-World-ism, especially in relation to the crises involving Cuba, Vietnam, and Algeria, with the capitalist West depicted as neo-imperialist powers. Thus, the center-left parties had to expend considerable energy to rein in the radical left elements, something the center-right hardly needed to worry about as Neo-Nazi types weren’t even allowed anywhere near respectable rightism(or mainstream politics).
The recent events of 2020 were a farcical and parodic replay of the tumultuous late Sixties and early Seventies. It was farcical because the supposed ‘new left’ hardly bore any resemblance to the classic or true left. Still, it had in common with the classic left and radical left of the Sixties the pedigree of legitimacy, even moral superiority. Whereas the GOP and Conservatism Inc. went out of its way to demonstrate that it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the ‘radical right’ elements of the Alt Right, White Identity ideology, the Charlottesville rally, and etc. — and soon Donald Trump and MAGA took the same stance — , the Democrats and so-called Progressives, at least in rhetoric and gesture, acceded to the ‘moral’ hysterics of those associated with BLM, Antifa, GloboHomo New Normal, ‘woke’ mobs, social-parasitism(as opposed to socialism), and DEI commissars. Thus, when the Democratic Party let the levee break with ‘radical’ rages in 2020 in the hope of drowning MAGA America, they soon found themselves in desperate straits as blacks and woke nuts turned mostly ‘blue’ cities upside down. Talk about blowback(or blowblack).
If ‘far right’ or ‘radical right’ ideologies became taboo in respectable quarters(and even in the legal domain) after World War II, ‘far left’ or ‘radical left’ ideologies became rather passe or niche after the Sixties and especially during the Eighties when the Cold War wrapped up with the communist world either turning to market economics(China most notably) or collapsing altogether(Soviet Union and its satellites). While the various schools of Marxism and Leninism(and even Stalinism and Maoism) remained within the realm of respectable or acceptable discourse, most people in intellectual and cultural fields stopped caring.
The card-carrying communist became a figure of myth, at best mythologized as a victim of the Red Scare or McCarthyism but mostly forgotten by new generations in search of meaning and commitment. The shift was more startling in Western Europe where Marxism(albeit strains often critical of the Soviet Union) became a secular substitute for Christianity, especially among intellectuals and artists(who took on roles as the new priesthood and oracles). The social eruptions of the Sixties proved to be Pyrrhic victories at best, eventually leading to ex-radicals or post-radicals sobering up as they matured and with mainstream society souring on the radicals whose program often proved to be unrealistic or destructive(and compulsory, especially with programs like forced busing) than liberating or meaningful.
Eventually, the West, be it center-leftist or center-rightist, moved to a consensus position that fused Reaganism with Clintonism, Thatcherism with Blairism. For a while, it seemed as Francis Fukuyama’s End of History thesis had a ring of validity, with the global future defined by rule of law, property rights, individual liberty, technocratic professionalism(or expertise based on merit), and democratic processes than hardcore ideology or dogma. The general idea was that West won the Cold War not by way of ideological fervor and radical dogma but by allowing greater freedoms, tolerance, and transparency that spurred on economic activity, innovation, reforms, and criticism(of undue concentrations of power).
For the mainstream liberal West, the very notion of ideology reeked of rigidity, a kind of secular medievalism(a time when those blinded by faith claimed to behold the only vision that mattered, resulting in socio-cultural hibernation weighed under sin and sanctimony). As the new decade/century/millennium dawned, any kind of unified theory of leftism fell by the wayside. From the perspective of traditional leftists, the evolution(or deviant mutations) of ‘progressivism’ led to intellectual impoverishment that favored frivolous fashion and trivial trends over deeper meaning and consistency. But the supposed ‘neo-progressives’ delighted in what might be called the ‘trans-left’ for its fleet-footed and mercurial qualities that could transition into just about anything at the drop of the hat.
To be sure, signs were already visible in the New Left of the Sixties when radical ideology fused with youth-centered popular culture, indeed to the point where John Lennon and Che Guevara(turned into a pop icon) became almost indistinguishable to the ‘hip’, ‘groovy’, and ‘far out’ agitators on the Left. The ideological commitment was rock-n-roll-ized into hedonic or nihilistic excesses, as if radicals sought to do with home-made bombs what Rock Stars were doing with guitars and drum kits. Make a lot of noise for the hell of it.
The Punk Scene of the Seventies, with full blessing of the armchair radical Rock Critic community, was a case of having it both ways: Radicalism and Rock-n-Roll-ism. While Rock n Roll had always been hyped(and cleverly marketed) as a form of rebellion(in accordance to the latest fashion, of course), the Left had been suspicious of its essentially capitalist means and motives. It certainly meant profits galore for the entertainment complex, and crazes like Beatlemania turned young ones away from serious engagement(as in the Folk Music camp) toward mindless fandom, easily exploitable by and manipulable to the powers-that-be. But then, Bob Dylan turned Rock Music into the defining cultural expression of the Boomer generation. Therefore, political movements of future relevance simply couldn’t brush aside the Rock Scene as ideologically suspect or heretical.
Instead, Rock was to be recruited to endorse or ‘bless’ certain agendas: Rolling Stones’ “Street Fighting Man”, Lennon’s political turn in the Seventies(that was more strident than the politicized Folk Scene of the early Sixties), antiwar sloganeering at the Woodstock Festival, the 1980s politicization of Rock to feed the famished in Ethiopia, protest apartheid in South Africa, save the family farm, raise funds for HIV-infected homos, and etc. When Clinton ran for the presidency, MTV went into ‘Rock the Vote’ mode. Some of these Rockers became humorless scolds even more insufferable than the Folk Movement sermonizers.
At any rate, the ultimate darling of the armchair radical critics was the Punk ‘movement’ for its fusion of Rock n Roll ferocity and puritan zeal. For the kind of leftists who worried that Rock Music was too fun, happy, pleasurable(or too flowery and pompous, therefore snobby and bourgeois, as much of ‘Progressive Rock’ was deemed to be), Punk was finally the answer. It had the energy of Rock without the ‘sinful’ pleasure. It distilled the most abrasive, nasty, unpleasant, and hostile elements of Rock into the bottle and left out the rest. It was a (anti)musical version of the Catholic practice of the mortification of the flesh or corporal penance. There was an element of self-flagellation in punk, as if it was somehow sinful for the various acts to ever be happy or blissful(like the Beatles with “Penny Lane”).
Unsurprisingly, despite gaining a certain cultural cachet — even today, people use ‘punk’ as a compliment than a pejorative, as if to mean something is edgy or ahead-of-the-curve — , it failed at mass appeal; but then, the very notion of conventional success was anathema to Punk culture that was built on a series of contradictions. Rock was part of mass culture, but Punk, despite being part of Rock, gave the middle finger to mass tastes. It was an intellectualized version of anti-intellectualism, one purporting to prize the purity of intuition and spontaneity over pompous artiness(Progressive Rock), bombastic showiness of hard rock, and retrograde return-to-roots tendencies(that captivated Rock in the early Seventies). As with the Dada movement, Punk’s heyday was short-lived but its spirit had a seminal impact on the future of Rock(and non-musical forms of popular culture as well), especially as the cultural discourse arrived at placing the Punk Moment at the center, i.e. Rock History is roughly divided into pre-punk and post-punk, with certain Sixties acts especially credited as the progenitors of Punk and with certain acts from Eighties onward characterized as ‘post-punk’, implying that even their movement away from Punk was part of a dialectical conversation, i.e. one is as defined by what one pushes away from as what one pulls toward. Unlike Folk Music that, despite its considerable impact on Rock Music(especially via Bob Dylan, Byrds, and etc.), wasn’t part of the Rock(n Roll) scene, Punk ‘music’, despite its ornery, problematic, and artificial(as its prestige owed more to critics than fans) place in Rock History, was undoubtedly part and parcel of the youth scene.
Punk ‘politics’, for all its conceit of commitment, was a sign of things to come. Unlike, for example, the Rolling Stones whose attitude was backed by artistic talent, most of Punk was just attitude. Stone’s attitude was a check that their butts could cash. Not so much with punk.
What exactly was the Punk attitude? Despite most Punk acts being ostensibly on the ‘left’, with some even given to Marxist or Maoist sloganeering, the energies were more anarchist(in the popular than philosophical sense) than socialist or communist. If classic leftism was about heartfelt camaraderie among workers and makers in a well-ordered community, Punkster anarchism wallowed in filth, obscenity, and chaos.
If anything, the Soviet camp found it more repulsive than did the capitalist camp, to which it was yet another manifestation of self-indulgent youth angst. The so-called leftist intellectuals in the West wanted to have it both ways. They regarded themselves as committed radicals(as opposed to the capitalist, consumerist, and/or conformist sellouts) but they craved the libertine freedoms absent in political orders dominated by leftist ideology. Punk exuded the bare-bones semblance of ‘leftist’ energy but without much in the way of overarching ideology and its demands. It was like Lennon’s “Instant Karma”, something like Instant Revolution devoid of the obligations of a real revolution.
With the fading away of leftist ideology, what remained was a lot of pent-up ‘radical’ energies in search of a cause, and in the post-ideological The-End-of-History moment, it could be just about anything, especially via the manipulations of the media, academia, and levers of power. (How else did we end up with 50 genders and the ‘body positivity’ movement extolling the ‘virtues’ of being a fatso?) And who controlled such industries and institutions? The shapers were a fusion of Big Capital and the so-called ‘Long March through the institutions’. Big Capital, largely Jewish, owned and funded the upper echelons of power and the major organs of dissemination. ‘Long March’ connoted that the Sixties radicals, under the tutelage of figures like Saul Alinsky, had gradually(and insidiously) wormed into the bloodstreams of power and influence, lying in ambush to take over the West in the name of Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, and maybe the Frankfurt School.
And so, the presidential election of 1992 set off alarm-bells of the bill finally coming due, with the Boomer generation led by Billy Boy Clinton all revved up to come out of the woodwork to radically transform the US into a radical socialist state, i.e. even though communism fell in the East, it was about to take over in the West.
As things turned out, the ‘long march through the institutions’, along with other factors(such as the fading of Soviet power, revelations about communist crimes, mundane facts of aging and maturity, professionalism and status-consciousness, rise of Zionist consciousness among Jewish leftists, and etc.) had mellowed out the former radicals or altered their worldviews or priorities. If Mao’s China itself went from hardcore collectivization to market economics, what were the chances that the Sixties radicals hadn’t changed along the way?
If anything, the fall of communism was a welcome relief for many of them as they no longer felt obligated to defend totalitarianism out of ideological affinity; instead, they could indulge in ‘leftism’(or ‘leftistics’) as a series of fun fads and fashions. Thus, the Long March turned into the Loud Parade with ever-shifting themes beholden to the usually manufactured exigency of the moment, no longer based on ideological foundations but mostly on identity-politics and/or idolatry of certain groups, especially blacks and homos(as guided by the Jews).
If the elevation of blacks and the celebration of homos tended to be brash and vulgar, full of carnival atmosphere, the veneration of Jews was a bit more dignified in style, with somber observances at Holocaust Museums, political sermons about Israel as the greatest ally of the US, and ‘serious’(albeit totally rigged) discussions on the apparently ineradicable ‘scourge’ of ‘antisemitism’(such as protesting the genocide in Gaza and condemning Netanyahu as a psychotic warmonger dragging the US into Wars for Greater Israel). It never occurs to many Jews that ‘antisemitism’ shall always be with us if (1) Jews act like cartoon Nazis (2) Jews redefine ‘antisemitism’ to mean any criticism of psychotic Israel. If Bob defines ‘Anti-Bob-ism’ as people calling him out for acting like a jerk as he insists on being a jerk, then ‘Anti-Bob-ism’ is surely here to stay.
As the primacy of ideology faded, the supposed contest between the so-called ‘left’ and the so-called ‘right’ steadily grew more farcical and useless. The ‘left’ merely turned into the flavor-of-the-month — slut pride, #MeToo, BLM & various black panics(or ‘blanics’), ‘tranny genocide’, Covid cult, support for Judeo-Nazi Alliance in Ukraine, and etc. — while the ‘right’ followed the rulebook of appease-the-Jews-at-every-turn and suck up to Big Money(even when it gives more to the New Clintonite-Obamite Democrats).
Of course, Jewish Power had its hooks sunk into both camps. Virtually every ridiculously faddish ‘leftist’ cause(with the exception of the Pro-Palestinian cause) was the brainchild of some Jewish activist, strategist, or funder. Even the Occupy-Wall-Street movement of 2011 was useful as a ‘socialist’ ruse that the problems of corporate greed were being addressed, though it was quickly shut down when things got out of hand.
Ever so envious of the favors showered upon the ‘left’ by Jewish Power and usually devoid of creativity and spark on its side, the craven corporate(and/or corpulent) ‘right’ decided its only chance to stay in the game(even as perennial losers or trailers lagging behind the trailblazers on the Democratic side, e.g. ‘conservatives’ eventually coming around to ‘gay marriage’ as an All-American value) was to win over more Jews, and that meant never alienating Jewish Power, an unconditional obsequiousness to Zion. So, if Jews used Diversity against whites and conservatives, blame the Diversity but never blame or even mention the Jews. If anything, make-believe that whites and Jews are brothers-in-arms sticking together against ‘Anti-Semitic’ Diversity. If Jewish Power, even on the Republican side, happens to be pro Globo-Homo, then either remain silent on the issue or spin ‘gay marriage’ as ‘conservative’ for promoting ‘family values’ among assboys. If many Jews are overtly anti-white, then react not with hostility-in-kind but with sympathy for their misguidedness in need of white conservatives to hold their hands and lead them to the light(that there are no better doglike pets to the Jews than the white cuck maggots).
If, however, the ‘right’ simply cannot win over the Jews on domestic issues(as Jewish attitudes are too deeply rooted in their hatred and resentment against white, Christian, and/or conservative America), then the last ditch effort at compensation is by trying to win over Jews on foreign policy issues, e.g. totally support the Gaza Genocide, be even more demented than the Democrats in vilifying Russian people and culture, and cheer on the War of Aggression against Iran(and cackle demonically at dead Iranian civilians from the US bombing while shedding crocodile tears over the hyper-inflated numbers of protesters killed by the Iranian regime, conveniently overlooking the fact that those ‘protesters’ were funded and armed by CIA and Mossad in yet another violent Color Revolution attempt).
Ideally, a serious left and a serious right, via contentious but honest rivalry and debate, can improve and sharpen one another. The symbol of fascism is a bundle of sticks but it could also be two or more knives sharpening one another.
But with the perversion of the real left and the corruption of the real right, the so-called ‘ideological’ discourse in the West has been about demented proglodytes and corrupted cuckservatives either being duped by or sucking up to Jewish Power. Why have the Labour Party and the Tory Party been so useless in the U.K.? Because when it comes to Middle East policy, Ukraine policy, immigration policy, Diversity policy, Anti-white policy, and etc., both parties submit to or hardly deviate from Jewish decrees and demands.
It explains why increasing numbers of people are disillusioned with both the Democrats and Republicans, the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum of Jewish Supremacist Semitism. While a serious left and serious right can sharpen one another, a trivial left and a frivolous right only dull one another, rendering each other dumb and dumber.
What is to be expected from an ‘ideological’ discourse between AOC & Hakim Jeffries on one side and Ted Cruz & Michael Johnson on the other? When the ‘gay agenda’ was shifting into full gear without any pushback from American Conservatism, you know the fix was in. It was going to happen because Jews wanted it to happen, and the craven ‘cuckservatives’ got the message. And so, Rush Limbaugh, who’d been poking fun at the ‘gay’ agenda, suddenly went mum on the subject and invited Elton John to perform at his umpteenth wedding.
The rising tide of criticism of Jewish Power and Zionism from both the remnants of the serious right and the sane left suggest a growing awareness of ideology’s secondary role in the current conflict. The real dialectic is about the power vs the powerless, with Jewish Supremacist or Semitist Power using both the bogus ‘left’ and the bogus ‘right’ to do its bidding by embracing/promoting agendas conducive and/or complimentary to Jewish Power, such as GloboHomo and white-guilt-baiting(mainly concerning Negroes), and/or by distracting the masses from the main source of their woes, e.g. even though the influence of the Israel Lobby and the Zionic Empire is the biggest threat to national sovereignty in both the US and European countries, the goy-ploy is to get the moronic masses all riled up about Russo-Soviet revanchism, Chinese yellow peril, or Iran’s supposed plan to nuke NY and LA. When the main dialectic in the West falls along the line of “Trannies are real women” vs “Red-white-and-blue Jesus wants us to support Gaza Genocide”, you know the system is beyond decrepit.
In the current order, what passes for ‘liberalism’ has corrupted the smarties, and what passes for ‘conservatism’ has corrupted the dummies. Liberalism, once the outlook of the educated classes who valued open-mindedness, tolerance, and free speech, has congealed into a censorious neo-theocratic idolatry of Negroes, Homos, and Diversity, leaving no room for dissent and discussion. It caved to the Proglodytes and the ‘woke’ in terms of ideas while sucking up to the far-right genocidal Zionists in terms of policy. So, we have ‘progressive’ activists worshiping George Floyd at the ‘grass-roots’ level, and we have the likes of Hillary Clinton shilling for Semitist Israel at the upper branches.
Not that conservatism fared any better. After conceding the intellectual space and elite educational centers to the Liberals and the Left, the conservatives still claimed to represent the humble American, the middle class and working class, the kind of people who may lack fancy credentials and degrees but instinctively knew right from wrong, the good from evil, i.e. they may be ‘dumb’ but they have heart, what Patrick Buchanan at the 1992 GOP convention called the ‘conservatives of the heart’. (No wonder Buchanan loved FORREST GUMP, a movie about a retard who knows nothing but feels plenty.) Anyway, the ‘libertarian’ wing of American Conservatism endorsed and encouraged every capitalist-consumerist attempt to vulgarize, degrade, and pervert Middle America with rampant spread of gambling, trash culture, and pornography. Meanwhile, American Conservatism endorsed the worst Christian elements mired in either stupidity, ignorance, corruption, cravenness, and/or various forms of nuttery in deference to Israel and Jews who privately loathed Christianity and held Christian dummies in contempt. Meanwhile, the GOP elites, while publicly clamoring to represent Middle American values, mainly served the oligarchic class, cutting more taxes and pushing for more ‘free trade’, and facilitating more mass immigration, thereby undermining the white middle and working classes.
Thus, if liberalism turned the American Mind into derangement, conservatism turned the American Heart into arteriosclerosis. The smarties and sophisticates under liberalism turned crazy(culminating in the BLM-Covid insanity in 2020) while the dummies and dimwits under conservatism turned trashy(culminating with MAGA-tardation under Trump).
In more ways than one, the historical drift since the end of the Cold War seems rather odd. Shouldn’t society have stabilized and normalized as the result of the so-called ‘End of History’? Didn’t ideological divides abate with the fall of the Soviet Union and the global consensus that the Western Model was the most ideal, if not perfect? And for a time in the 1990s, the future seemed rather bright. After all, Clinton and Blair, as Neo-Liberals, adopted the key economic programs of their ‘conservative’ predecessors, abandoned the vestiges of Sixties radicalism, and appealed to the broad middle. Clinton even enforced law-and-order policies, drastically reducing urban crime(mostly black), and adopted Republican proposals for welfare reform. A superficial observer might have thought the most sensible aspects of liberalism and conservatism were converging in the making of a post-ideological future.
In retrospect, the worst aspects of Republicanism may have been adopted by Clinton while the worst aspects of Democratism, though dormant, were steadily gaining momentum to push society over the edge with unprecedented levels of nuttery, mostly associated with ‘gender’-dysphoric craziness and ever more obnoxious expressions of Negro-Worship.
The elites of the media and academia endorsed the looming lunacy for whatever reasons. Perhaps, elite culture had become degraded along with the rest in a world where the hipster replaced the sophisticate as the model of cosmopolitan aspiration. Perhaps, the elites(especially Jewish) thought the various culture wars would distract hoi polloi(or goi polloi) from what was really going on: The Jewish supremacist takeover of everything. Perhaps, the boomer elites then in firm control applied their generational template onto the young ones, i.e. every generation needs its own cause, event, happening, crusade, ‘liberation’ demands, or ‘radical’ moment. Boomers projected their generational convulsions onto the younger ones, the difference being that, whereas the youthful boomers largely created their own values and culture, the older boomers shaped and manipulated the hang-ups and manias of the millennials, surely the most brainwashed generation ever. (Zoomers, having come of age when the boomers were aging out and less relevant, turned out to be a tad more independent-minded.) There was also the factor of boomer anxiety, the fear of being seen as ‘uncool’ if they ever expressed disapproval of new fads and fashions. The generation that turned on to the Rolling Stones to the disapproval of their elders didn’t want to seem out-of-touch to the younger ones.
How did the triumph of centrist politics lead to such extreme outcomes? For the same reason that dogs, though mildest of the animals, are also potentially the most fanatical. If hunters are encouraged to eradicate certain species, natural imbalance will be the outcome. A species that used to fill a niche in the ecological balance will be absent, allowing for other species to overgrow and wreak havoc on the environment. Then, hunters will have to kill large numbers of other species as well to maintain the balance artificially. Wipe out the predators by over-hunting or culling-eradication campaigns, and the herbivores will also have to be hunted in large numbers to prevent their over-population and resulting destruction of plant life.
The capitalist West did a homicide on the ‘radical right’ and then pretty much drove the ‘radical left’ to suicide. The End of History meant the prevalence of tamed dogs, the ‘centrist’ species amenable to human society. But precisely because dogs lack the natural autonomy of wild animals(possessed of the will to do their own thing), they are prone to being easily trained and manipulated into do the bidding of power. And if the Power happens to be extreme, the ‘centrist’ dogs can be trained to mindlessly and loyally serve extremist policies.
The Power in the West is with the Jews. Jews pretended to be ‘liberal’ or ‘neo-conservative’(that at one time meant moderate conservative open to certain liberal ideas, as personified by the likes of David Brooks and Bret Stephens contra figures like Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis), and Jewish Power presented itself as a rejection of both the far right(or ‘racist’ and ‘Anti-Semitic’) and the far left(or ‘communist’ or ‘Anti-American’). Neoconservatives presented themselves as trying to rid the Republican Party of closet-bigots like Buchanan in favor of a more tolerant and reformed movement. And the Neo-Libs associated with Bill Clinton presented themselves as grownups who rejected Sixties radicalism and adopted the best aspects of Reaganism. In other words, centrist Jews were coming together with moderate conservatives and moderate liberals to forge a new path of mutual understanding among the races, among the classes, and among the nations.
But, it was bogus, a bait-and-switch charade. Jewish Power was a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing or weasel-in-rabbit’s-outfit. At its deepest core, it was ultra-Zionist, Judeocentric, Semitist-supremacist, gangsterist, imperialist, warmongering, and even genocidal-psychopathic. From the perspective of this Power, centrist-goyim were most useful, just like dogs are most useful to the hunter-master. ‘Centrist’ dogs, shorn of natural autonomy, always obey and follow the master. Likewise, milquetoast centrist goyim, lacking genuine rightist/conservative convictions or genuine leftist/liberal principles, are prone to being easily manipulated and ordered about hither and thither by the Power. Is it any surprise that the center-left and center-right ‘leaders’ of the US, UK, EU, Canada, and Australia are such spineless and gutless cuck-dogs of their psychopathic Jewish Supremacist master? Lacking the rootedness of the real right and the idealism of the real left, the centrists are, down to every man and every woman, soulless and cretinous suits and automatons fully onboard with lunacies like the Ukraine War and Iran War.
It’s no wonder that the most stinging criticism of the Power comes from the remnants of the real right and the real left still defined by something other than milquetoast careerist-conformism to the Power(that feigns centrist moderation but acts on the most supremacist agendas and megalomaniacal impulses of Semitist madness). (Another problem could actually be the byproduct of the emergence of the independent-sphere via the internet. Though a positive development in allowing for countless voices and discussions unrestrained by corporate and establishment forces, it has also incentivized young personalities of talent and/or conviction to damn the torpedoes and speak theirs minds instead of toeing the line or moderating their views, thereby negating any real chance at recruitment by well-connected organizations, established institutions, and biggest industries. Their honesty and energy, fueled by youthful idealism and impatience, have made it easy to identify them as dangerous or ‘toxic’ to the powers-that-be. If people like Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran had the internet in their day, they might have held nothing back and become like Nick Fuentes the troublemaker, ruining any chance of being hired by ‘respectable’ parties. It was because their only chance at being heard was via acceptance into established media and political circles that they made themselves more-or-less palatable to the powers-that-be. They couldn’t be 100% true to themselves but could exert some influence from the inside. In our age, when many of the most idealistic, intelligent, and sincerely committed prefer to speak the truth than join the party or play the game, the possibility of their entry into the centers of power has been greatly diminished; as a result, the upper echelons are being filled with second-raters, flunkies, toadies, sycophants, cuck-maggots, doggy-wogs, bimbos, and numb-nuts who will do anything to be let into the Club.)
Just like the human body can do only so much — expending energy for one thing leaves less for another — , both the American Right and the American Left have wasted a good deal of their precious energies on manufactured or exaggerated crises. While the Cold War was true enough, communism posed zero threat to the US and minimal threat to Western Europe, and besides, the Soviets had their hands full keeping the lid on restive Eastern Europe(that resented Soviet hegemony). By channeling the bulk of rightist energy against the specter of communism, the American Right failed to address more pressing issues at home. In a way, it was the fear of grappling with thorny domestic problems, lest the Right be accused of ‘racism’ or ‘antisemitism’, that incentivized conservatives to focus on foreign affairs, usually by going Paul Revere about how the Red-are-coming! By having invested so much of its ideological credibility in combating the Commie Evil Empire, the American Right paradoxically found itself purposeless, even homeless, upon its greatest victory, the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s no wonder that American Conservatives(or cuckservatives) threw themselves into the new Manicheanism of the so-called ‘War on Terror’.
Even today, after two decades-and-half of wasteful expenditures in the Middle East, the GOP platform remains set on foreign policy alarmism about Russia-Russia-Russia, China-China-China, and Iran-Iran-Iran, all the while neglecting the truly ‘existential’ domestic crises pertaining to White American survival and well-being.
If anything, ever so servile to the Jews, the GOP is facilitating the Hindu-Jewish or HinJew Alliance project by signing off on the mass immigration of Asian-Indians as future replacements for white white-collar workers and professionals.
A body that depletes excess amounts of antibodies against non-lethal diseases from without will end up with a weak immune system against cancer growing from within. Conservatism Inc., like the US military, excessively involves itself in foreign affairs while overlooking the far more fundamental issues at home. Thus, the American Right has more or less been running on a false dialectic, exaggerating foreign threats while cravenly cozying up to the most ardently hostile group against whites/conservatives: Jewish Power. If you pick fights with people who don’t want to fight you while groveling before the man aiming to ram your arse and stab you in the back, you’re doomed(and deservedly so for such spectacular stupidity and cowardice).
But the American Left has been just as stupid and useless in its own ways. It went from demanding basic equal rights for all Americans and critiquing great wealth & special privileges of the upper-crust to endless hysteria about ‘white supremacism’, boundless fervor for neo-tribalism centered on key demographics, mindless adulation of deviancy(especially sexual-related), and habitual falling back on white-male-scapegoating.
There was once a time when the American Left championed poor whites, the white working class, and the white middle class. During the Civil Rights Movement, the American Left grappled with the thorny issue of the White Working Class being economically left-leaning(or pro-Democratic or pro-Labor) but socially right-wing(especially when it came to the black issue and crime). It was a difficult matter, and the American Left increasingly ignored economic issues in favor of racial, social, and cultural ones.
The American Left came to favor the affluent and privileged whites(who could afford to preach proper ‘progressive’ values) over the have-less and have-not whites who came to regarded as Archie Bunkers or the ‘deplorables’ (For rich and privileged whites and Jews, racial integration meant rubbing shoulders with the Obamas, not dealing with street thugs resembling Mike Tyson. It meant favoring fancy-pants homosexuals who catered to the rich & powerful than negotiating with workers calling for increased wages and benefits.)
Over time, with the MLK cult and Negrolatry as spiritual touchstones, white billionaires(with the ‘correct’ attitudes) were more highly considered in ‘leftist’ circles’ than underclass whites struggling to make ends meet(on account of their being less up-to-date, or ‘less evolved’, with the latest ‘moral’ crazes). Just as some working class whites favored social-cultural issues over economic ones in their voting for Republicans(as the supposedly socially conservative party), many on the ‘left’ came to favor the rich, privileged, and elite-educated whites over the poor, working class, and/or lower-middle-class whites remaining skeptical of the cult of Magic Negro and Anno Sodomini.
Of course, this was great for Jewish Supremacist power. As long as it feigned ‘progressive’ values and funded(and effectively bought off) the commissar class(trained to enforce ‘wokeness’), it could go on fleecing the entire world, lend support to ultra-right genocidal-imperialist Israel, and wage more Wars for Global Zion(like in Ukraine). Incredibly enough, it’s no exaggeration to say that the ‘progressive’ support for Ukraine has largely hinged upon the neo-crusader dream of conquering Russia for the glory of the ‘gay rainbow’.
Needless to say, this kind of numbnuttery left has almost no resemblance to the leftism of old. Classic Leftism could be faulted for fanaticism, puritanism, and dogmatism in its utopian universalism & egalitarianism on economic issues, but it was not retarded, degenerate, and looney-tunes. Likewise, Christianity in its theocratic and/or puritanical manifestations has been deeply problematic, but it is nevertheless a great religion worthy of respect(even by the unfaithful). Indeed, the sacral glue that holds the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, along with the religious and the secular, together is the shared reverence for Noble Negroes & Holy Homos and the united demonization of white identity as ‘white supremacism’.
Today however, whether in the secular sphere or religious sphere, the ‘woke’ influence has elevated blackness as godliness and sodomania as holiness.
More often than not, the left spent decades wasting its finite energies on nonsense while dropping the ball on the cancerous growth of Jewish Supremacist power, wealth, privilege, and madness.
No doubt, Global Zion wanted it this way, with idiot ‘progressives’ on college campuses hyperventilating about the KKK(the version concocted by Hollywood) or Neo-Nazis in South Dakota(sensationalized by ACLU & ADL via NPR and corporate media), as if the main threat to the global order is posed by smatterings of ne’er-do-wells saluting a Hitler poster. There was the amusing case of ‘KKK-sighting’ at Oberlin University where students were giddily panic-stricken upon mistaking a blanket-wielding student as a Grand Wizard — anything to kill the boredom, I guess.
It’s gotten to the point where the most megalomaniacal, genocidal, hateful, contemptuous, and ultra-rich-and-privileged Jews(who support murderous Israel and endless Wars for Global Zion) only need to cry ‘white supremacist’ or ‘nazi’ in order to direct the bulk of ‘progressive’ energies away from the true tyranny taking over the West and by extension the world, that of Jewish Supremacy. While the idiot ‘left’, like hound-dogs, were sniffing and tracking for the KKK, the West was being taken over by JKK, or the Jew Klux Klan(served by the White Cucks Clan).
The foolishness and the failures of both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ have resulted in a society of depraved satiation. The dearth of real ideas and true values has led to a hollowing out of seriousness in academia, media, and culture at large.
Though far from an ideal combatant given his limited imagination and narrowness of views, Patrick Buchanan was perhaps the last conservative who addressed and engaged in the Culture War. For the most part, American Conservatism ran or hid from positions requiring real courage and conviction. Republican America became Evasion-Nation, the modus operandi of which was usually cuck or duck: submit and go along or pretend the issue doesn’t even exist and fume over far less challenging/controversial issues.
In general, Con Inc. opted for soulless libertarianism, arguing that the future of the Exceptional Nation lay in unfettered capitalism, mainly associated with gambling and other vices monopolized by ethno-maniacal Zionists.
The notion of the Silent Majority once implied that Middle America, consisting of good, decent, and patriotic folks, was in urgent need of inspired leadership and guidance based on the bedrock values of civilization. In other words, the majority of the masses may be silent(for their lack of access to media and representation in the ivory tower of academia), but the leadership must be loud and clear, sounding the alarm and prepared to fight the Culture War.
In time, however, the Silent Majority was represented by the (even more)silent leadership of American Conservatism that muted itself lest it offend the all-important Jews with unlimited money(via control of finance) and the haloed status(stemming from the Holocaust Cult and demonization of ‘antisemitism’). The danger to America wasn’t ‘fascism’ but cashism(of Zion).
There’s the notion of Conservatives as ‘beautiful losers’, but nothing can be further from the truth. They didn’t lose because they stood on virtue and principles against their ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ foes who had zero scruples about pulling every trick in the book. The myth has the conservatives losing because they’d stuck by the rules as sticklers to fighting fair and square, i.e. the shameless libbies bit the ears, gouged at the eyes, and went for low blows whereas the upright connies played by Queensberry Rules.
In truth, the so-called ‘conservatives’ were pitiful losers because they betrayed all their values, principles, and virtues in the hope that doing so would ingratiate them with the all-powerful, all-rich, and all-awesome Jews. And Trump and MAGA are no different, selling the last scrap metal of American Conservatism down the river to win a few doggy biscuits from the Zionic gangster class. Con Inc. and even MAGA never cared for the nobility of the lost cause, as they were far more invested in distorting and corrupting conservatism in any shape or form into a commodity acceptable to Jewish Supremacism. They’ve been hardly different from the cretins who melted down the General Robert. E. Lee statue, recasting the molten metal into objects of Negrolatry. The priceless gold of American Heritage has been cracked apart and remolded into just another gold bar for Zion.
As for the ideological left in the aftermath of the Cold War’s end, it faced uncertainty with shallow partisanship, fashions in idolatry, and neo-liberal justification for wealth and privilege. As the new millennium dawned, the Left had long ago achieved its noblest goals and been disabused of its worst excesses. Through Big Labor, Civil Rights Movement, grassroots activism, and various liberations, it had brought about basic equality of rights and protections for everyone in the West. And the Left had no choice but to confront the fact that communism had been a gigantic disaster, one that wasted a lot of intellectual potential on the progressive side in service to what turned out to be a totalitarianism that couldn’t even stock the shelves.
In various reformist modes, the left won many victories; in its single-minded revolutionary zeal, its greatest apparent triumph, the Bolshevik Revolution(along with its imitations), turned out to be a total bust.
The Sixties were likewise a checkered period for the Left. While an exciting moment of cultural ferment and social transformation, it was also marked by willful naivete, excess, stupidity, and recklessness.
The left became associated with both the best and the worst of the Sixties, whereas the right, though being less blamed for the bad, also received less credit for the good. (Given the media control by Jews and Liberals, of course the positives of the Decade were emphasized over the negatives, thus favoring the Left over the Right.)
To be sure, given the rise of youth culture and its association with the left(especially the anti-war movement), as well as its consumerist hedonism and culture of vanity/narcissism, it became increasingly confusing as to what constituted the left. Socialism? Then, what about the centrality of consumerist Rock culture among the youth? But no matter how much Rock Culture pretended to be leftist or revolutionary, it lived and died by the metric of the all-important Billboard charts. And Rolling Stone magazine and such ilk, for all their ‘radical’ attitudinizing, relied almost solely on corporate advertising to keep running.
Even though the Left was relieved to be unburdened of the legacy of Marxism-Leninism(and especially its Stalinist and Maoist excesses), the fading of the Big Unifying Idea rendered the progressive movement increasingly hollow. Marxism, for all its problems, had provided heavy-duty intellectualism, a macro theory that wove together the threads of history, science, sociology, morality, and a new kind of ‘spirituality’. Even for many intellectuals, artists, and activists in the capitalist West, it provided a framework for thinking about history, the world, and the destiny of mankind.
Given its gravitas, it discouraged frivolousness and triviality from seeping into the movement, at times overly so(as a bit of levity serves as welcome lubricant). Even those who’d deviated from the Soviet line and favored heterodoxy, such as the Frankfurt School, were neo- than anti-Marxist.
The fading of the centrality of Marxism(and other serious leftist political philosophies) and the absence of new ideas of comparable heft to take its place ultimately exposed the Left to every new fashion, trend, cult, hysteria, and/or mania-of-the-moment.
Even those still claiming to be ‘Marxist’-oriented or ‘socialist’ lack the old conviction, much like current Mainline Christians are more into holy homo than the Holy Bible. No wonder both the globo-socialists and globo-christians offered no resistance to the bunghole penetration by GloboHomo into their spheres. What the life of Jesus or the vision of Marx has to do with the celebration of homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting is anyone’s guess, but such became the new ‘progressive’ expressions of christianity and marxism.
Without core tenets, a credo or movement dissipates into childish idiocy(obsessing over ‘micro-aggressions’, ‘trigger warnings’, and milk-and-cookies at colleges to soothe the nerves of boo-boo-babies who can’t handle election results). True, the dogmatism of Christianity and Marxism historically suppressed much that was dynamic and innovative, but there was also the salutary effect of keeping it real, serious, and dignified. It is one reason why some people prefer the Catholic Church(for all its problems) over Protestantism; its centralized authority has been more resistant to fickle fashions(whereas Protestantism soon fractured into denominations obsessed over who-knows-what, even hatching something as totally nutty as Mormonism). For Catholics, their spiritual formula found the middle-ground between the overly reactionary & moribund archaism of the Orthodox Faith and the overly restless & eccentric sectarianism of the Protestant Faith.
Even as Marxism-as-dogma in communist states became an ideological straitjacket, it did prevent the theory and practice from spiraling out into petty fetishes, usually of no real threat to the capitalist oligarchic class, which actually seemed to be prefer a non-threatening ‘progressivism’. (Too vain and educated to be lamely ‘square’ and ‘conservative’ but too rich and privileged to welcome revolution, the elites crave a futurism in which they hold the purse-strings, if not the key.) Unsurprisingly, the kind of ‘progressive’ ideas and causes that gained the most traction happened to be the ones showered with funding and promotion by the Wealth-and-Power-Complex. Why did GloboHomo become the new face of Mainline Christianity and the ‘woke’ DEI cult? Because super-rich Jews funded and promoted it. Why did BLM hog the limelight in 2020, along with the Covid Hysteria and the Cult of St. Fauci? Because Jewish Power wanted it that way, not least to oust Donald Trump. The Left of Steel was replaced by the left of plastics.
A Left bereft of foundational principles can be molded into just about anything, and it’s debatable as to whether the current left is really leftist.
The right has similarly been detached from its roots and connective threads, from community and tradition/heritage, from the particularity of identity(especially if white). It’s no wonder MAGA-tards can so easily be swayed into believing white is black and black is white. The very fools who voted for Trump as the anti-war candidate are now cheering on his warmongering. Nine times out of ten(or maybe ninety-nine times out of a hundred), the GOP sets its watch to Israeli time, its agendas premised on their efficacy to Zion.
Respect for authority and hierarchy has been a feature of rightism, but its downside has been countered by adherence to roots and deep values. So, rightists may be more reverential toward the king but will refuse to obey him if he betrays the core values of the civilization, spiritual and moral matters deeper than political and temporal power.
The current right retains the enthrallment with power and wealth, authority and hierarchy, but without the groundedness in deeper convictions. Patrick Buchanan, one of the true conservatives, swam against the current of the GOP in the 1990s, because his nationalist and socially-conservative convictions were stronger than his respect for power and wealth. But, Conservatism Inc., drained of core values and perennial truths, is only about submission to authority and hierarchy and as such willing to go to any length to appease the Empire of Zion as the ultimate power.
If the rejection of the grand all-unifying worldview(especially Marxist) characterized one aspect of the post-Cold-War Left(and led to the fracturing of ‘progressivism’ into petty interests and idolatries), the other aspect of leftism gravitated toward nostalgia-peddling despite diminishing returns(and sometimes destructive consequences). It’s one thing to bask in the positive victories of leftism/progressivism but quite another to keep replaying the ‘struggles’ as if history is an endless ‘groundhog day’ of fighting ‘injustice’.
Recently, one of the most ridiculous was the hysteria over the ‘lynching’ of some black woman, except that the perpetrators were all black males. The narrative has been so fixated on redneck-racists-lynching-every-other-Negro-in-the-South that even a case of black-on-black violence was spun to evoke narrative myths. As for all the cases of black-on-white violence that have claimed many more victims than the entire history of the KKK and such ilk, never mind.
Or consider the hysteria in 2020 when some Starbucks manager called the police because several black men occupied a table without purchasing anything. It had NOTHING to do with their race, but the incident was somehow conflated with the denial of service to black customers in the segregate Old South. Even though the black non-customers were at fault, it was spun as yet another Civil Rights moment.
Rodney King was beaten up by cops, but he was hardly an innocent victim. He was a lout and punk who provoked the cops into violence, but the L.A. Riots narrative had him as a man of peace calling for calm, “Can’t we get along?” From a guy who spent his entire worthless life not getting along with others and causing havoc wherever he went. Things got even worse with the O.J. Simpson case. Or take the Jussie Smollett case where the insipid jive-ass Negromo(Negro-homo) donned a noose like a necktie as the Negro Victim of the Month. Or, how the Jewish-rush NYT endlessly invokes Emmett Till while overlooking all the nonblack victims of black thuggery all across America.
The world has drastically changed, but the narrative is still stuck on the same drama-trauma. But then, fish rots from the head. Jews, the ruling elites of the West, are no different in routinely crying ‘antisemitism’ despite being in racial-supremacist mode, using the West to wage endless wars(that have killed millions), and carrying out an all-out genocide. Israel has 200 nukes aimed at Iran that has no nukes, but Jews play the victim of a potential nuclear attack!
It’s no wonder so many panics, hysterias, and outrages of late seem so manufactured and fake, strained and bogus. Do Zionists really believe that the critics of Israel belong to the We-Saved-Hitler’s-Brain cult? Were blacks really serious about the Michael Brown(the Clown) “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” outrage? Does anyone really believe there’s such a thing as ‘tranny genocide’? Do opposing illegal immigration and deporting the invaders really constitute a form of ‘Nazism’? (And all this time, we thought Jews were trying to flee from Nazi Germany, not enter it, illegally or otherwise.)
But then, the kind of ‘woke’ nuttery so prevalent on the ‘left’ isn’t absent on the ‘right’, with the likes of Michael Johnson pushing the Oct 7 Jewish-Victim narrative of babies being being beheaded or baked in ovens and of the mass-rape of Jewish women. Very likely, proponents make an extra show of being ‘outraged’ to suppress their private doubts about the narrative. Just like liars preempt by screaming and throwing tantrums lest someone expose them for what they are, today’s hysterics are surely in large part the result of desperate attempts to perpetuate the ‘narrative’ that the ‘left’(and some on the ‘right’, especially the scum-suckers of Zion) have grown addicted to.
In certain cases, the bogus morality-play may be an attempt to suppress genuine but complicated and confounding moral questions on the issue. Take the case of unlimited and unconditional abortion-on-demand that feminist types claim to champion on moral grounds when it is completely devoid of moral considerations. Virtually nothing is all good and entirely justifiable, which is why all laws come with conditions and caveats. By feigning moral absolutism on controversial issues, the advocates desperately(morally if not politically as they may have the wind of power/influence on their back) try to bury an issue fraught with troubling questions. While some nihilists honestly(albeit grotesquely) exult in their amorality, the moral tradition and the innate moral nature of mankind gravitate against pride of demonism, satanism, and various forms of depravity. Thus, it isn’t surprising that what was once regarded as decadence/degeneracy(to be tolerated but disapproved in a free society) was morally whitewashed into the New Normal and even sanctified as the Secular Sacred. Consider how homosexuality went from a distasteful lifestyle choice or ‘sexual’ orientation to the defining culture of the West and the main theme of Mainline churches.
Even in cases where the moral justifications are pushed aside as the agenda progresses, there remains the pretense of political moralism, disingenuously affected by the depraved who affirm their immorality as a newer or higher kind of virtue, as indeed is the case with the abortion issue. Obviously, even the pro-abortion types in the past understood the grisly and ugly nature of the procedure where a human lifeform developing inside a woman’s body is sucked out and torn to pieces. Therefore, the original proponents of abortion made compelling(even if unconvincing to many) cases in favor of abortion with conditional checks: Some women were raped, some women were abandoned by fathers, some women were too poor to raise children, some fetuses were likely to grow into retardos, some fetuses had severe physical disabilities or malformations, and/or some countries suffered from overpopulation & poverty, certain pregnancies posed risks to women’s health, teenage girls were too young to take on the responsibilities of motherhood, and so on. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the arguments, they defended abortion as a necessary evil, i.e. the world would be better if not a single unborn life was aborted BUT reality is fraught with complications.
But over the years, all such arguments fell by the wayside, leaving only one rationale: “cuz we feel like it”. So, never mind if the woman is affluent, the unborn has no defects, if the child inside the womb is nine months old and perfectly healthy, and the woman is married to a responsible husband who wants the kid. If she feels like killing the kid, it should be allowed because ‘muh choice’ is the highest priority and nothing else matters; instead of stigmatizing the pathologically shallow demon-wench, society should praise her for being ’empowered’. Such an absolute abnegation of moral responsibilities is sold as the New Normal in morality.
Total convenience and ease of choice as exercises of female self-aggrandizement are deemed as worthy values. There’s no longer any moral, emotional, or spiritual struggle associated with the issue of abortion for most globalist urbanites. Indeed, the constant invocations of THE HANDMAID’S TALE are a sure sign of the utter bankruptcy of nihilist-feminism. It goes for strawman targets in the absence of any rational or sensible justification of a worldview solely focused on ‘I, me, mine’. Apparently, according to these nutjobs the slightest limitation on abortion is akin to neo-puritan and ultra-patriarchal subjugation of womanhood. These practitioners of skankarchy, slutarchy, bitcharchy, castriarchy(invested in castration of the moral man), and egoarchy(or my ego uber alles) can only react with hysterics because they’re incapable of holding a balanced view of life. It’s like blacks howling ‘racism’ in response to any criticism of bad black behavior or Jews fulminating about ‘antisemitism’ whenever their abuses come under scrutiny. To Zionist Jews, noticing Israel’s crimes against humanity means you must want to gas six million Jews. To the nihillist-feminist ‘castriarchs’, keeping abortion within limits or conditions of any kind is akin to chaining them to the kitchen and forcing them to bake cookies all day. It doesn’t even occur to these wenches and witches that THE HANDMAID’S TALE scenario is actually practiced by affluent globalist homosexuals. In the story, the wombs of young women are used to birth children to be raised by older women who aren’t their natural mothers. Today, wombs of women worldwide are being commoditized and rented out by homosexual men so that these perverts can pretend that THEY had a baby together. Those into homo-fecal-penetration, a gross act that never produced a single lifeform, have turned women’s wombs into commodities for rent. But notice there’s zero pushback from feminists, and why? Because since the Sixties, feminism was totally taken over by Jewesses(with the backing of Jewish male supremacists in the media and academia), and their #1 priority was to turn white women into soulless harpies at war with goy white males and to blame everything on Christian ‘patriarchy’. White feminist brains are putty in Jewish hands, just like white male testicles are mush in Jewish fists.
There’s something about conflict, the drama of struggle and resistance, that lends an aura of virtue(or some positive qualities) even to the bad, destructive, corrupt, wicked, and/or depraved. The gangster anti-hero was grudgingly given his due because, for all his criminality and sociopathy, he had the cojones to go against the system. As Tuco(Eli Wallach) the bandit in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY explains to his sanctimonious priest brother, it was more difficult to risk the rope than don the robe in the world they came from. Tony Montana if SCARFACE is a scumbag but also bold and courageous; it takes big balls to do what he does.
The cult around Marquis de Sade was built around his ‘martyrdom’ for his ‘faith’ in and devotion to perversion. A bad man can possess the qualities of conviction and commitment sorely lacking in many a good man, like the townsmen in HIGH NOON who dare not do what they should do out of cold feet.
In a way, there’s a kind of moral paradox in the dynamic of goodness and badness. Good people are less likely to do bad things, but their very nature, mild and domesticated, is less likely to take a stand or go up against something, even that which is deemed wrong or evil. In contrast, bad people are plenty bad, but their nature, being innately rebellious and defiant, is more likely to be bolder and brasher. The good tend to be castrated, the bad tend to have big balls.
Generally, a community of mild and decent folks maintains order and stability by suppressing the troublemakers. But there are times when good folks must do something out of the ordinary, step forward and take a stand. However, such ballsiness is more prevalent among the bad than the good. And so, there’s the Western gunslinger archetype who stands as a kind of contradiction: He is the rare man who is good of heart but ‘bad to the bone’ in guts, thereby having the balls to stand up for what’s right. He’s a kind of hybrid of dog and wolf.
While good people want to be decent folks, their mild and tame nature often manifests as lack of vision, weakness of nerves, and/or inertia of action. Like the Japanese people or the British middle class in general, they just want to go along to get along. They outsource moral meaning and political direction to others deemed to be more intelligent, capable, and worthy of leading and guiding society. Even though they are ‘good’ in the sense of being less vicious and aggressive in temperament, their sense of morality is rather shallow; conformism and need for approval define their social priority and psychological profile.
Therefore, when the ruling elites of society turn vile & rotten and push forth the New Normal that inverts values, e.g. elevating homo-fecal-penetration as a sanctity while denouncing aversion to ‘gay’ stuff as a clinical sickness called ‘homophobia’ and a spiritual sickness called ‘judgementalism’, many of the good folks are likely to just go along as sheeple.
Even those who remain skeptical of the New Normal are likely to shut up and submit because social approval/status trumps all other considerations. In some cases, they may even go hardcore in embracing the moral inversion in order to suppress the resistant element within them, one whispering into their ears that they’re too chickenshit to stand up to the elite purveyors of filth; it’s like Trump goes extra-hard with the Wars for Israel to convince himself(and the world) that he’s a tough guy acting on his own when it is really to cover up his utter servility to Zion that has Netanyahu ramming him in the arse.
As a measure of how depraved even American Conservatism has become, consider the controversy over Bo French’s X(or Twitter)post over Hindus and Mindus(Muslim-Indians, as well as some ‘Chrindus’, or Christian-Indians) taking over the Lone Star state. On surface, the outrage was that even a state as ‘red’ as Texas was undergoing profound demographic replacement, even with the stamp of approval from Conservatism Inc. At least, Mexicans take menial jobs, thus limited as an economic threat. In contrast, Hindus and Mindus(and some Chrindus) come to compete with the white middle class, upper-middle class, and ultimately the upper class. But if the middle and upper-middle classes feel the brunt of stiffer competition, upper class whites(as well-connected flunkies of Jews) have ways of making deals with the HinJew Alliance to “get what’s mine”, i.e. they are handsomely rewarded for betraying the members of the white race below the upper class level.
Anyway, the real shock of the photo of Hindus and Mindus(and some Chrindus) donning cowboy hats at the football game reverberates far beyond the topic of demographic replacement. It’s the sudden awareness of how far the whites had fallen, indeed even prior to the influx of Hindus and Mindus(and some Chrindus). It’s easier to recognize the significance of one’s station in life when another play-acts it or takes its place. For example, someone resigned to being a slave or servant is so accustomed to his routines that it feels mundane, almost natural(like the sun rising and setting day after day). But if someone else takes over his place, the demoted or displaced slave is keenly made aware of the role’s true meaning and purpose. For example, an Irish servant to an English aristocrat becomes aware of the indignity of the position when a Negro either takes his place or is hired as co-servant. The Irishman’s initial gut-reaction is resentment toward the Negro but followed by the dawning realization that the role had always been demeaning. Consider the moment of realization in BABY IT’S YOU when the Sheik’s delusional vanity evaporates the moment some other loser takes his place.
The startling sight of all those Hindus and Mindus cheering at a college football crystallized the fallen state of whites, especially white males. What were those Hindus and Mindus doing but cheering for Negro jock-stud-athletes who run roughshod over white males(mostly reduced to bench warmer status) and hump lots of white girls? They weren’t taking over something noble, dignified, and respectful but something ridiculous, laughable, and pathetic. They were merely mimicking white males who, castrated by Jewish anti-white ideology and black athletic prowess, have been reduced to shrieking pussyboys who wet their pants over their Negro Thug heroes. What was pathetic enough when white males did it has now been made doubly pathetic with Hindus and Mindus imitating white males, and what’s even more pathetic is that white males are now envious of Hindus and Mindus replacing them in the ritual cuckery to blacks. “Hey, that Negro dick is mine to suck, you dirty Hindu. So, move aside and let me do it as a proud white male Heritage American, USA! USA! USA!” Things cannot get more depraved than this.
‘Good’ people, often derided as milquetoast ‘bourgeois’, have been mocked by all sides. The Left often accused the good liberal types for lacking the spine to go all in on revolution and radical change. Reformism, from the leftist perspective, was compromise-with-injustice(bordering on betrayal) of good gutless liberals trying to have it both ways, appearing as do-gooders while cutting a deal with the wrong side of history. Jesus said a rich man has less chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle. He said so to a wealthy but compassionate merchant who was in Jesus’ eyes what a Social Democrat was to Marxists in the late 19th Century: Settling for compromise with the powers-that-be to maintain their respectable bourgeois existence. Bolsheviks believed in the absolute necessity of total revolution, but such pathological levels of fanaticism tended to attract individuals of extreme character, some of them psychotic and/or criminal. Stalin procured a good deal of funds for the Bolsheviks by robbing banks and the like. He was a bandit-gangster-revolutionary.
In part, the appeal of Donald Trump in 2016 was having the big balls to take on milquetoast Conservatism Inc. and the GOP establishment that had become career paths for gutless flunkies and cucks. These mainstream conservatives seemed nice, moderate, and decent in the clean-cut and white-bread manner favored by the National Review crowd, but they were spineless and ballless, always invoking ‘principles’ that never amounted to anything but bending over to power and privilege. They were like well-trained neutered dogs, reliable and obedient, in service to their globalist masters with nary a care for the national masses. Trump was never in his life regarded as a man of sound character, certainly not a virtuous saint. He came across as a ‘gangsta’, the ‘bad guy’, but that very aura made him appear bolder and tougher, the lone wolf howling for the masses among the dogs barking for their masters. The shtick was like Tony Montana boasting he always tells the truth, even when he lies.
MAGA hoped that Trump would be like a John Wayne character, the rare crypto-good guy possessed of the saving grace of the bad guy, the boldness factor. If the decency of good people and the boldness of bad people can be distilled and combined while leaving out the spinelessness of the good and the heartlessness of the bad, the world might be a better place. As it happened, Trump turned out not to be Will Kane but Frank Miller(who, by the way, was preferred by the town’s merchant class in HIGH NOON).
Most people are dogs and prefer the security of domesticity, but something within them is stirred by the howl of the wolf. (No wonder the popularity of werewolf movies. And, one of the most influential bluesmen went by the moniker “Howlin’ Wolf”, and black music to whites had the effect of a wolf’s howl that alarms but excites a pack of dogs that are safe but confined.) The bad-to-the-bone howl signals danger but also the spirit of freedom and being truly alive.
Given that civilization, though ideally constructed and ordered as a stable community of good people, often falls to corruption and succumbs to boredom/apathy(and the weariness of routine) and relies on conformist repressions/pressures by various means(ranging from draconian to legal to social to psychological), the call of the wild may take on the ring of freedom & justice.
When society was sufficiently conformist, authoritarian/autocratic, and repressive(especially of youthful energies), even people and things of dubious nature with deleterious social impact could appear to be ‘good’ in some way: heroic, bold, daring, defiant, liberating, individualistic, and/or courageous. Take Lenny Bruce. A foul-mouthed stand-up comedian, his irreverent obscenity was bound to have a baleful impact on society. However, his act was daring and defiant in its time, and it took some courage to push the envelope as far as he did. It made him a pioneer of sorts. It was vice ‘ennobled’ by courage and daring, qualities lacking among most good decent folks who prefer the narrow lanes of routine and predictability.
Of course, Bruce wasn’t alone in his era. The legendary aura of the Sixties owes to the fact that each act of ‘liberation’, good or bad, had to be fought for and won. Even in defeat, the rebels reveled in the romanticism of the struggle, like in the song “I Fought the Law”(but the law won).
The risqué attitude made the Rolling Stones charismatic and exciting. It was a time when their songs and antics could put them in the hot seat. The provocations and transgressions, however outrageous, depraved, or disturbing by the standards of the time, radiated with pop-heroics and captivated an entire generation due to a combination of factors — post-war economic boom, burgeoning youth culture, Civil Rights Movement, profitability of fashion, ever-shifting middle class status anxiety, intellectual restlessness, and etc. The Boomers were convinced that meaning and value derived from authenticity that embraced the struggles for liberation from repression and conformity, defining the dynamic Sixties in stark contrast to the supposedly static Fifties.
Because even depravities had to be fought for and won, they took on a cachet of virtue. It’s no wonder Michel Foucault became one of the most cited intellectuals from the era. The man was a pervert and a degenerate whose influence could only be negative, but the struggles were framed as radical acts of rebellion and freedom. Likewise, homosexuality, a ‘sexual’ deviance that should at best be tolerated in a free society, gained the semblance of moral credence through incidents like the Stonewall Riots. You see, these ‘gays’ took risks and paid the price in taking to the streets for their rights and freedoms. What they soon did with their ‘hard-earned’ freedoms was incredibly depraved and led to outbreaks of disease, but there was a moment when they took on the mantle of crusaders for freedom and justice.
Struggle has an ennobling effect even on ignoble or stupid things, like when Paul Newman’s character in COOL HAND LUKE attempts to eat 50 eggs in less than an hour. It’s ridiculous, a totally useless endeavor, but an uphill challenge nevertheless, and so, it gets everyone excited(and admiring of Luke who, upon achieving the feat, lies prostrate on the table in Crucified Christ pose).
Much of arts & culture, especially high or low, was justified on account of their devil-may-care effrontery to respectable society and conventional mores(associated with social repressiveness and cultural blandness). The tricks was to be BOLD and hold nothing back(though that too was soon commoditized).
The reason why middlebrow culture or ‘mid-cult’ art/entertainment was disdained by snobs and slobs alike had to do with its compromised nature. So, if the avant-gardists who came to dominate the highbrow end of Modern Art pushed subversion & anarchist agendas to the hilt and if the vulgarians who wallowed in lowbrow entertainment were relatively uninhibited in their exuberance & mischief, the middlebrow types combined the less abrasive or ‘offensive’ elements of the high and the low, rendering the end-product ‘generic’ and ‘respectable’ for the middle classes who were neither sufficiently intellectual and/or radical to embrace avant-gardism nor sufficiently wild and free to go monkey-ass-ape.
One reason the critical community clung desperately to the Punk moment was because Rock music had lost its derring-do edginess, its sense of danger. By the late Sixties, Rock was firmly ensconced as mainstream music. And with the likes of Dylan and the Beatles, even plenty of older people had come to appreciate the new scene(which was no longer just about screaming teenyboppers).
In time, Rockers were admired for their talent but no longer seen as pioneers or rebels. The Rock Rebellion had thoroughly won, and the once-rebels became the cultural royalty. If anything, profit-and-pleasure-centered capitalism proved to be most accommodating to the ever shifting trends and fashions that passed the crown from one craze to another.
Of course, from its inception Rock n Roll was corporate-capitalist music(therefore anathema to the leftist Folk Movement), but the generation gap and racial anxieties in the Fifties were real. Older folks were alarmed about young ones going ape-shit over ‘race music’. Girls were losing their minds and wetting their panties before Elvis Presley the White Negro. White boys were going bananas over what some called ‘nigger music’.
And then, the Sixties made Rock relevant in broader ways as an instrument of personal expression, with Dylan as the ‘spokesman of his generation’ and the Beatles(among others) as the Pied-Pipers of the Summer of Love. It represented the New against the Old as the-times-they-were-a-changing.
However, by the early Seventies, Rock culture had conquered all, even conservative-leaning youth. Young kids grew up with it, and parents had long made peace with it. And the new crop of boomer parents grew up with it and imparted it to their children, thereby precluding the kind of generation gap that had existed between boomers and their parents whose formative influences were markedly different.
As such, the only way to maintain the rebel stance in Rock was to turn Rock against itself. Instead of Rock-around-the-clock, Rock-against-the-Rock. Punk claimed to reclaim the raw and pure energy of Rock n Roll and fuse it with either radical politics, anarchism, or knee-jerk confrontationalism, setting itself against pompous & arty Progressive Rock and hokey & comfy Regressive Rock and other pat concoctions of corporate capitalism.
Punk never resolved the contradiction between rawness and purity. Rawness is at odds with purity, which requires refinement and distillation. Punk presented itself as natural, intuitive, spontaneous, and down-to-earth, all the while processing the music to contain nothing but the most nasty, anarchic, and abrasive qualities. It was like food processing designed to retain only the most unpleasant and inedible contents of the source Refinement in service of defilement.
As corporate mass entertainment favored well-crafted professionalism, Punk self-consciously favored rank amateurism as authentic and spontaneous. But it was an act of desperation or contempt as no one(except nerdy armchair radical Rock critics and cultural activist-scholars) really cared one way or another.
As such, the Post-Punk concept came to matter far more in the long run for adopting some of punk’s flashy sensibility while rejecting its limitations.
Whatever one thinks of the Sixties(and Modernism in general), the fact is the key figures had to be hunter-warriors. Like in The Who song “Baba O’Riley”: “Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals…” Hunt means adventure, struggle, and danger for a well-earned reward. Even an apex predator must fight tooth-and-nail for its meals. There’s a kind of beastly nobility in that.
In contrast, tigers in zoos take their meals for granted. They lie around lazily until lunch is served. Eating is eating, but the hunter is the prouder beast for risking life and limb for survival. Likewise, a trophy handed to just anyone lacks the aura of one hard-fought and deservedly won by a dedicated team.
To the extent that the Rock pioneers and other cultural revolutionaries were pushing boundaries and staking claims(and often met with cultural resistance, rebuke, and mockery, even threats of legal sanction), they were like hunters, adventurers, and discoverers. Today, anyone can get on a plane and travel anywhere in the world with creature comfort. But imagine the will and determination involved in Columbus’ voyage of discovery. Notwithstanding the ensuing tragedy and the dark legacy, surely even the harshest critics cannot deny the courage and vision of the men who ventured into the unknown. Thus, even the history of conquest, slavery, and genocide is perceived to have been partially redeemed by the epic scale of the unprecedented feat .
In a similar vein, even cultural depravities came to be defended, admired, and/or celebrated for their sheer novelty, their breaking-the-sound-barrier stunts of daring. It’s no wonder the transgressive homos came to be so highly prized as the final sorties of Late Modernism. Boundlessly vain, shameless, narcissistic, and exhibitionistic, their Foucaultian manual fueled ever new ventures into the outrageous(like Drag Queen Story Hour for children) that, once accepted as the New Normal, incentivized the perverts to look for yet more barriers to demolish and so on and so forth, with the ultimate utopian or ‘buttopian’ or ‘slutopian’ objective being to normalize open orgies between adults and children.
In the realm of culture, the Modernists and then the Personal-Populists(especially of Rock music and Cinema) had an aura about them as rule-breakers, barrier-busters, and explorers of new frontiers in creative possibilities, social attitudes, and cultural sensibilities. But once their transformative effects either lost their shock-or-thrill value or were absorbed by mainstream society, it felt as if virtually all cultural boundaries had been crossed & mapped and as if virtually all artistic possibilities had been exhausted, with the only field of innovation being technology, which may explain the centrality of video games and electronic music in our time.
It’s one reason why depravity, though normalized and accepted, had been rendered worthless. It is now dumb and dull depravity without even the saving grace of the bold claim, “Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals.” The Marquis de Sade who suffered and struggled for his perversion seems ‘nobler’ than his hypothetical clones born into the New Normal where decadence and degeneracy are the prevailing cultural currency. In our time, depravity is lazy and laid-back, satiated and entitled, a piggish wallowing in filth that has become the mainstay of culture grown gluttonous and ‘buttonous’(with fat black butts ‘twerking’ at all waking hours). And the fact that the utterly worthless Chantal Akerman has been elevated to the Film Pantheon is a clear indication that radicalism has grown decadent and entitled in a system in which a flaky, solipsistic, self-absorbed, and self-indulgent mental case is showered with praise and attention for navel-gazing; of course, it helped that she checked the following boxes: Jewish, lesbian, feminist, leftist, radical, ‘Marxist’, and etc.
Society wasn’t bought on the idea that pornography was good, but its legality was nevertheless defended on the basis of a higher principle: The First Amendment and Free Speech… though one could argue that pornography, as a filmed sex-for-money, is a form of prostitution with the flimsiest relevance to Free Speech. There was a time when prominent figures such as William F. Buckley and Alan Dershowitz had heated but heady debates on the subject, with the libertarian wing of American Conservatism favoring the First Amendment, i.e. even offensive and harmful ideas and expressions must be defended in a free society. Over the years, however, pornography has grown pervasive and even kiddie fare has been ‘pornified'(or overtly sexualized). What some feminists once denounced as exploitation of women that should be prohibited, with the rest of the sisterhood barely tolerating it on the basis of free speech, has become the darling project of the ‘new feminism’, the bulk of which dwells on the ’empowering’ possibilities of sexual exhibitionism and experimentation, like persuading men to be ‘pegged’ by women with strap-on dildos. If Buddy Holly were alive today, his signature song might be “Pegging Sue”, about a girl who rams her beau in the arse with a sexual toy.
When countless young women are encouraged to be amateur porn performers via ONLYFANS and the like, a smug form of depravity has become the boring and lazy norm. It’s a strange combination of infantilization of culture and hyper-sexualization of society, and perhaps it’s no wonder that the sexual culture(especially the quasi-pedophilic homosexual kind) is now being peddled to children at the youngest age possible, with graphic sex featured in school books, homosexual prancers invited to perform before students, and trannies presented to kids as ‘rainbow’ angels.
Amidst all this, what is the central message of the supposedly ‘conservative’ Republican Party? We must appease the Jews, the funders/promoters of GloboHomo filth, we must support the genocide in Gaza, and we must play the slots at Las Vegas.
In a culture lolling in depravity that is never met with resistance or the need to prove itself(at the bare minimum as a middle finger to the system), depravity becomes doubly depraved, all the more so as people hardly notice it. Consider the acceptance, indifference, or resignation of most people to the conspicuousness of ugly tattoos, nose rings, cartoon-colored hair, and homo symbols.
In the film HUNGER(directed by Steve Fat Negro McQueen) about Bobby Sands, the martyred hero(though some would take issue with such characterization) smears his feces all over the prison walls as a protest against the British government(reviled as occupiers in Northern Ireland). The act is totally foul, gross, and, yes, shitty, but carries significance as defiance against tyranny. But imagine someone smearing shit all over the hallway like a turd-flinging monkey just for the hell of it and the occupants of the building being accustomed to the filth. That’d be some bad shit.
But, that’s where we’re at. When Miley Cyrus the clown whore put on a skank-ass act some years ago, it was seen as ‘been there, done that’(by a long parade of skanks before her). One had to labor to feign outrage in a culture where ‘extreme’ this or that had become the daily fare.
Cable TV facilitated the wide distribution of cultural depravity as, being a paid medium than a publicly operated network, it could sidestep obscenity guidelines and public censorship. As Cable became mainstream, more depravity entered into every household, and most parents didn’t bother with filtering racy material.
So, the millennials grew up with stuff like Lena Dunham’s GIRLS that finalized the normalization of sluttiness among ALL girls, i.e. ‘sluts’ were no longer a category of disreputable behavior but the New Normal of growing up, i.e. all girls should act at all times like bitches in heat. In other words, millennial teenagers grew up with easier access to skankery in the comfort of their living rooms, bedrooms, or dens than adults did in the movie theaters in the 1970s.
Depravity is ground out like endless rows of sausages to complacency & sleepy amusement(among those who approve) and to passivity & mute resignation(among those who disapprove).
So, now that we’re done with introductory matters, we are left with the question: Can anything of worth arise from a culture of narcissistic and shameless depravity(of Jabba-the-Slut)? Anything that is remarkable, even rising to the stature of a masterpiece?
Now, talent, brilliance, and/or genius can be manifested in myriad and unexpected ways. A decadent homosexual composer who’s into fisting and various bath-house antics can nevertheless come up with an enchanting tune. A crazy drugged out (self)destructive Rocker can churn out a mighty song. The slasher movie genre, one of the most loathsome ever invented, did produce the amazing and highly effective HALLOWEEN(by John Carpenter). And THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, with one of the most insane movie ideas and made on a shoe-string budget with second-rate actors, proved to be a horror classic for various odd but undeniable reasons. (To be sure, a distinction should be made between a depraved person in private life who nevertheless rises to the occasion to create worthy art AND a depraved person whose ‘art’ wallows in the very filth of his existence. One uses the struggles with private demons to fuel his creativity whereas the other succumbs to the private demons and celebrates them as the end-all of life.)
Still, the term ‘masterpiece’ is too august and dignified to be applied to mere talent, originality, expertise, and/or imagination, remarkable and astounding as it may be. Consider the music video “Take On Me” by A-ha, which is a pop culture gem, perfect for its kind, but too ‘bubblegum’ for the designation of ‘masterpiece’. While one may argue that any song is too short and limited in scope to deserve such an honorific, a term more applicable to albums with wider breadth of expressions, few would object to some of the greatest songs of the Classic Rock era classified as mini-masterpieces: “Visions of Johanna”, “A Day in the Life”, “Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane”(taken together), “Proud Mary”, “Who’ll Stop the Rain”, “Stairway to Heaven”, “The Weight”, “Light My Fire”, “Purple Haze”, “Bridge over Troubled Water”, “Ruby Tuesday”, “Reach Out, I’ll Be There”, “Good Vibrations”, “Don’t Worry Baby”, “Stop In the Name of Love”, “Wichita Lineman”, “Suspicious Minds”, “What’s Going On”, “Tumbling Dice”, “Baba O’Riley”, “Wish You Were Here”, “I Say a Little Prayer”, “Year of the Cat”, “Brandy”, “Hotel California”, “Sweet Home Alabama”, “Quicksand”, and etc.
It also applies to the greatest songs of the 80s: “New Year’s Day”, “Every Breath You Take”, “The River”, “Dancing in the Dark”, “Drive”, “Come on Eileen”, “Boys of Summer”, “Big Country”, “Against All Odds”, “Invisible Touch”, and some others. Most of these songs came with the immediacy of pop appeal but also originality, personality, passion, aura, and/or redeemable qualities, something generally lacking in the music following the mid-80s. As such, they were something more than industry products, with themes far beyond ‘muh booty’ or ‘muh apathy’.
But once depravity permeated mainstream culture as the New Normal, the term ‘masterpiece’ felt absurdly out-of-place, either too dignified and venerable to be wasted on appraising trash or too stuffy and pompous to dig the hipster paradise. Granted, the problem haunted the entire history of the late modern era. The traditional upholders of high art disdained much of modernism and populism. Modernism often came across as ugly, disturbed, disjointed. Populism was regarded as either dumbed down for the masses or vulgar trash for the unwashed. (There was a modicum of respect for folk art, a patronizing condescension for the sincere and humble expressions of little people.)
Even so, modernism was intellectually challenging and opened up new horizons, therefore acknowledged as worthy of serious study and discussion. And popular culture at its best showed that entertainment had room for striking originality(equal to that of the avant-garde modernists), emotional expression, and complex themes, perhaps best exemplified by Alfred Hitchcock. And if early Rock n Roll was notable mostly for its thrill and excitement, the later Rock Culture produced genuine personal artists of remarkable scope and range. Therefore, despite the hesitancy on the part of elitist, conservative, or leftist-dogmatic circles, the general cultural discourse hardly suffered from the inclusion of Jazz, Rock, and Classic Hollywood into serious discussion. One could justifiably bestow the title of ‘masterpiece’ to Bob Dylan’s BLONDE ON BLONDE, John Coltrane’s LOVE SUPREME, and Alfred Hitchcock’s VERTIGO. The overall culture, far from being impoverished from doing so, was enriched by a broader appreciation of art.
Even though originality, talent, and craft are indispensable to art, what they’re in service to is no less crucial. It is why all the filmic talent in the world has tough time turning a third-rate script into a good movie.
While worthy subject or good material badly served by deficient talent fails at art, it’s no less true of considerable talent and originality-of-style in service to nonsensical material or dumb subject. Classic Hollywood, Jazz, and Rock, for all their limitations, did bring together talent & originality with worthy themes, complex emotions, and human experience. From the best songs of Bob Dylan and John Lennon, culture critics/scholars can delve into what was on their minds as private individuals as well as what made them tick as creative forces.
But increasingly over the years, despite the prevalence of talent and knack for novel expressions, the themes have become mostly threadbare. A music scholar today weighing the works of Dylan, Beatles, Stones, CCR, and Pink Floyd would be engaged in a challenging endeavor worthy of time and effort. But can one imagine some ‘scholar’ forty years from now writing about rappers whose entire shtick is anti-empathy and anti-curiosity and all about ‘muh bling, muh gun, muh dick’ or about pop-idol ho’s whose entire worldview is limited to staring into the mirror that, when not reflecting their over-painted faces, shines back with fat ‘twerking’ butts?
Even if one makes the case for originality and craft in Rap, the themes are too idiotic and stupid for serious discussion. This is also why Heavy Metal never got the respect of Classic Rock, hard or otherwise. If the creative maelstrom or dark visions of the Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, and Jimi Hendrix sprang from a deep well, Heavy Metal guys merely took the loudness and turned it on like a hose.
Look around today, and we mostly get good material done badly(usually by the ‘woke’ playbook) or bad material done well. Christopher Nolan’s THE ODYSSEY had the best possible material but was trashed with wobbly technique(that went against his instincts and natural forte) and ‘woke’ garbage. Same goes for the musical HAMILTON, a fascinating subject turned into jiveass tomfoolery. Then, there are those works done with considerable craft, even ingenuity, but empty of substance and meaning. It’s either “What a waste of material” or “what a waste of talent.”
As such, ours is mostly a debased culture, a flotsam in a sea of sewage, the filth and stench of which most people have grown accustomed to, much like Asian-Indians take it for granted that the Ganges River, despite its spiritual significance, is in reality a never-ending flow of rot and garbage. Can anything floating in this cesspool be a ‘masterpiece’?
Perhaps, no work epitomizes this predicament better than the song and music video of Rihanna’s “Umbrella”. It is undoubtedly a skanky work by a skank-ass-ho, but it is one of a kind, very possibly the best of its kind. Its musical core consists of standard pop conventions with hip-hop and soul elements tossed into the mix, and yet, there’s a surprising degree of suppleness and subtlety, even sophistication, in the structure of its hooks, curves, and swerves in the way it winds and unwinds, pushes and pulls, nods and nudges, teases and pleases.
And despite the undeniable skank factor, it stands apart from the usual bitch-ass-ho drivel by way of its hide-and-seek seductiveness and innuendos instead of flat-out pornification(like Nikki Minaj’s ‘muh fat butt song’ “Anaconda” or Miley Cyrus’s 2013 MTV Music Awards performance with Robin Thicke). It makes graceful work of something disgraceful. “Umbrella” in masterly high-heel fashion walks the tightrope between the all-you-can-eat-muff-buffet messaging so pervasive in pop music AND the sexy-and-seductive style mastered by performers of the past, such as Diana Ross and the Supremes, Donna Summer, and Marvin Gaye. Billy Paul’s “Me and Mrs. Jones” twists and turns around the subject of passion and adultery, at once lustful and tortured, which allows for emotional complexity and sensual friction. As such, it has some class, which cannot be said for later black music, mostly gangsta rap and neo-R&B with their shameless booty-calls. Billy Paul’s classic can be construed as a soul ‘masterpiece’, but even the most amazing sonics premised on suck-muh-dick-and-fuc*-yo-ass, however original and imaginative in rhythm and rhyme, is at best worthy of a different kind of recognition.
But, if we coin the term ‘skankerpiece’, it may usefully acknowledge the higher achievements in the current Mondo Trasho, those marked by qualities of inventiveness and expressiveness, while not losing sight of the fact that it’s mired in depravity and devoid of substance.(‘Swankerpiece’ may be useful for fabulous trash that isn’t outright depraved. RESIDENT EVIL movies, for example. ‘Skunkerpiece’ might apply to “What’s Up” by 4 Non-Blondes, an obnoxious but undeniable stunner performed by the ugliest hags ever assembled in a studio.)
Personally, I’ve little use for most music made after the mid-80s, which turned out to be the Halcyon Days of Rock. If the Sixties were the golden age, the Seventies were highly uneven, but it was downright awful in the early 80s, with acts like Journey, Styx, Air Supply, Toto, the Knack, and worse saturating the air waves. It was when Olivia Newton-John had a number one hit with the abysmal “Physical”. But then, something miraculous happened. Up to the mid-80s, the better acts of the 1970s began to hit their stride or get a second wind, with reaching their absolute peaks. And new acts(bundled as ‘New Wave’) injected freshness and excitement to the scene. Michael Jackson, Police, Bruce Springsteen, the Cars, Phil Collins, and Talking Heads exceeded all expectations and had their biggest successes in this period. And key figures like Prince, U2, and REM were unique and original in their own right. There was also a joyous preponderance of acts that proved to be short-lived or less-than-stellar but nevertheless good for an album ort two: Eurythmics, Culture Club, Cyndi Lauper, ZZ Top, Van Halen, John Cougar Mellencamp, Huey Lewis & the News, Billy Idol, Tears for Fears, Suzanne Vega, Big Country(underrated), Go-Go’s, Bryan Adams, New Order, The Outfield, Asia, Bangles, and etc. And then, there was a whole slew of one-hit(or two-hit) wonders whose overall impact cannot be dismissed because many of these songs were outstanding with seminal impact. It was also a time when some of the has-been acts of the Sixties had their final moment of glory. Tina Turner comes to mind with the album PRIVATE DANCER. David Bowie’s last first-rate album was also in this period with LET’S DANCE. And Paul McCartney had one of his best solo hits with “No More Lonely Nights”. Paul Simon had his last hurrah on the Billboards with GRACELAND in 1986.
For a while, it seemed so promising, as if the Rock scene had shaken off the doldrums of the late 70s and early 80s. But as it turned out, those one-hit wonders proved to be just that. And the Cars and the Police soon disbanded. BORN IN THE USA turned out to be Springsteen’s peak as artist and star, and his later successes were modest by comparison and mostly irrelevant. Post-THRILLER Jackson was a story of gradual slide and then steep fall, his aura more that of an eccentric scandal-riddled celebrity than a creative force. Prince grew increasingly solipsistic and self-indulgent and mainly survived as a brand. The Smiths, a most promising band, soon fell apart.
While certain acts continued to thrive and carry the mantle of Rockdom, especially U2 and REM, the music scene grew thinner by the day, with the clownish likes of Guns n Roses & Bon Jovi spewing formulaic high-volume drivel. And the tic-riddled so-called ‘Indie Rock’ genre of the 1990s was mostly anemic and derivative, droning on and on in bummed-out apathy or with whiny petulance. And then, Rap came to prominence and turned the culture even dumber and more formulaic. Things got so bad that ugly and hideous Grunge(exemplified by Nirvana) was hailed and hyped as the savior of Rock, which is like saying sewage overflow is the answer to the drought. (Granted, Kurt Cobain was not without talent and his band did present a novel blend of punkish and metal elements, but how utterly deranged it was. Just as Punk culture corrupted the British working class into ‘yobs’, the Grunge culture of the Northwest infested youth culture with dementia and retardation.)
Of course, the cultural nadir, the absolute worst by far, proved to be madonna who would have done the world a whole lot of favor by fading away after her stint as pop star, like Cyndi Lauper did. She was genuinely fresh and fun for about two years, but her music was strictly for teenyboppers, and she had no business sticking around after her day in the sun. But, knowing all too well of the fleeting nature of stardom, the vain madonna constantly ‘reinvented’ herself to remain relevant with the full support of the Jewish-run entertainment industry and media. And the clownish side of Camille Paglia over-interpreted madonna’s shtick to be far more significant than what it was. For the hedonistic profit-driven industry, she(along with Paglia) was a useful tool against the more neo-puritanical strains of feminism that endlessly harped on popular music as ‘male chauvinist’ or ‘sexist’, and the cult around her resonated with younger generations of feminists who’d grown weary of the Older Sisters gone ‘stalinist’ on sexual matters.
For the interracists(especially Jews), madonna’s jungle fever turn was useful in promoting the Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs and white-male-cuckery.
For those nostalgic for ‘liberation’ politics, they could make believe that the culture war was ongoing, with madonna as a pioneering figure smashing yet further barriers of social repression, even though, if anything, her antics had the full backing of the most powerful, well-funded, and influential organs of the system. They welcomed her blurring the lines between popular culture and pornography, i.e. popular culture had long been sensual without being overtly pornographic but increasingly became a softer extension of pornography. It went from a moral culture with room for sexuality to a sexual culture with no room for morality.
It also helped that madonna was an arch-globalist surrounded by homosexuals, thereby useful as an ‘icon’ for the Empire of Zion with its agenda to sodomize the world.
There used to be the Madonna/Whore Complex in the West, but in the new order, it was the madonna-is-whore complex. Just like the villains in Fritz Lang’s METROPOLIS replaced the virtuous Maria with the villainous ‘Maria’, the Jewish-run Western Entertainment Complex, as the new vatican of revamped ‘spiritual’ standards, replaced Madonna(the mother of Jesus) into madonna-the-skank, laying the groundwork for the transformation of countless churches into temples of GloboHomo where the ‘faithful’ fantasize that jesus was a tranny who had homosexual orgies with the disciples(with mary magdalene lubing their anuses for endless rounds of anal pummeling and fisting).
As such, madonna-the-skank became the ultimate cultural herpes, a global infection that simply wouldn’t go away and clung to the New Normal where HIV(and other STD’s), far from being a stigma of ignominy(acquired through excessive and perverted behavior), became a badge of honor. So, if homos were dying from diseases caused by pathological indulgence in sexual deviancy, we were to look upon them with compassion and adoration, almost akin to Holocaust victims. And we were to remind ourselves that they didn’t die of diseases spread by gross behavior but of insufficient ‘love’ and ‘caring’ by the rest of us. And so, is it surprising that homosexuals, with the full backing of the Jewish-run media and institutions, made the term ‘pride’ almost exclusively the domain of homos and trannies?
Anyway, as I was saying, little of Rock/Pop music beginning in the late 1980s well into the 21st century captured my fancy, though, to be sure, there were some good, even great, songs in the mix. Cranberries, for example. It can’t get any better than lilting “Linger”. Still, there wasn’t enough happening for sustained interest. If my awareness of 1990s pop music was vague at best, it was nearly non-existent for the new millennium.
And so, some years back I looked into the biggest hits and the most highly esteemed songs of the 21st century. One such source was Rolling Stone’s pick of the 100 best songs since 2000. True, Rolling Stone is mostly crap, but it does have its finger on the pulse of the industry, though it’s more part of the industry, more an advisor and cheerleader than a critic or objective observer. While most songs were so-so, there were some good ones, and few great ones(though not as captivating as the best of Rock’s classic era). Among the standouts was Rihanna’s “Umbrella”, not only the song but the brilliantly crafted music video. Too silly and salacious to take seriously but too well-crafted and exquisite to be dismissed. If not a masterpiece, then at least a ‘skankerpiece’?
It sure beats “It’s Raining Men Weather Girls” by the Weather Girls.
Now, it could be that Rihanna’s “Umbrella” is just about the ONLY skankerpiece. Knowing nothing about her, I checked her other songs/videos, and they range from acceptable to abysmal. Beyonce, for all I know, may have been an even bigger star, but upon perusing her stuff, only “Irreplaceable” did it for me; still, it’s no ‘skankerpiece’.
One that almost comes close to skankerpiece status is Sia’s “Chandelier”, a song about a hook-up girl who boozes and parties all night and gets wild and crazy. Totally trashy but a mighty song just the same, indeed titanic in its unbridled and bipolar outbursts of highs and hangovers. The song is a blast, possibly worthy of ‘skankerpiece’ consideration, but the music video totally sucks. Given how image and movement have become integral to music culture, the poverty of Sia’s music video disqualifies it from skankerpiece contention. So, the question of the moment in current culture is “Is Rihanna’s ‘Umbrella’ the only skankerpiece?”
