For those who subscribe to such a view, Populism is most ‘unfair’ and ‘dangerous’ because it gives the majority both the power of volume and voice. To many Jews, Donald Trump is dangerous precisely because he is the Vocal Leader of the Voluminous Majority(though white numbers are fast declining as share of the overall US population).
If capitalists and leftist radicals have one thing in common, it is an hostility to populism. Capitalist entrepreneurs(especially the big ones) are vastly outnumbered by disgruntled workers and dissatisfied consumers, and so, it is in their interest to control the means of information to maintain some kind of balance. No wonder then that all the Big Media are owned by oligarchic powers like Gail Wynand(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). And even though Charles Foster Kane began as a millionaire populist, his empire eventually grows more cynical and elitist.
Though communists spoke of People Power and Social Justice, the fact is the majority of workers in most nations never wanted communism. As such, the radical left constituted an ideological minority in most societies. What they lacked in numbers, they hoped to gain with vociferousness. The Left had to shout louder, march harder, and make a bigger nuisance of itself to get people’s attention. They had to crank up the noise to be heard. And of course, Jews have favored both the elite commercial class(especially the Advertisers) and the Radical Left because both, in their own way, waged war on the Great Majority. And Jews also did everything possible to suppress Populism of both Right and Left. Nationalist Populism could mean a real challenge to Jewish Power. And Leftist Populism could mean strong opposition to Jewish capitalist elites. Thus, Jews have favored both elitist Right and elitist Left. In America, the elitist Right doesn’t speak for the People. It speaks for ‘low taxes’ and ‘liberty’ so that the rich can grow richer. And the elitist Left has, over the years, increasingly altered Progressivism from a broad movement to a fractured movements of various identities fired up by radical intellectual(often pseudo-intellectual in character) theories that have no hope of making much sense to most people. And even when a certain ideology gains support of the great majority, the effect is to favor minority-over-majority interests: Majority of Americans support Zionism and Homomania, but this isn’t Populism because it’s about the Majority being manipulated and goaded into supporting Minority Privilege and Supremacism.
Anyway, the Boomers who gained the most Power were those on the Left. There were several reasons for this. Jews, the most intelligent and ambitious group in the US, were overwhelmingly on the Left. Having Jews on your side in competition for Elite Power was like a sports team having blacks. Jews had increasing presence in media, academia, finance, and law. Another reason was that the American Consensus since the Great Depression was leftist-liberal for decades after WWII. Granted, what passed for leftism and liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s was different from their manifestations later, especially beginning in the 1960s, but a kind of proto-End-of-History outlook had set in during the FDR yrs and after World War II. Incredibly, FDR was elected four times, and even after Conservatives regained the presidency with Eisenhower, Congress was solidly in Democratic hands until the 1990s. With expanding federal power and vast government projects that came to be associated with social betterment, economic justice, necessary regulation(to prevent another Great Depression), and America’s role as World’s reluctant but necessary policeman, there was no going back to the Conservative or Classic Liberal ideal of ‘small government’. Even Dwight Eisenhower expanded government, which grew bigger still under Richard Nixon beginning in 1969. So, no matter which Party won the Presidency, the ideas of Keynes and Galbraith were deemed essential. Even though the Boomers rebelled against much of traditional Liberalism and Orthodox Leftism, the leftists among them were regarded more favorably by the Older Liberal Establishment. Even though moderate Liberals may have had more in common with moderate Conservatives, they tended to lean more to the Left than side with the center-Right. Part of this had to do with Leftists being more committed and passionate(even if delusional and foolish), a fact that made Liberals feel morally inferior due to their ‘bourgeois’ preference for moderation and compromise than total commitment to (the cult of)Justice.
Another reason why the Leftist Boomers were advantaged was due to the WWII Narrative and problem of Race in America. The main villains of the war were deemed as the ‘far right’: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. The Allies were Liberal Democracies and Soviet Union. Also, Japan was no ordinary enemy but one that ambushed the US navy at Pearl Harbor. And Nazi Germany wasn’t just an authoritarian power(as in WWI) but an evil empire led by a psychopath under whom some of the most ghastly crimes-against-humanity had been perpetrated(especially against Jews). This gave a huge moral boost to the Left in the US, even more so in Europe. Granted, the Cold War and anti-communism aided the Right, but the Soviet Union wasn’t recklessly aggressive like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For one thing, the Soviet empire was already vast, and they last thing they needed was more land. Also, communism’s role in the Third World was morally ambiguous. On the one hand, it meant another part of the world falling under Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship, but on the other hand, it meant the hope of National Liberation & resistance against European Imperialism or American ‘Neo-Imperialism’. Thus, Cuba and Vietnam turned out to be a net moral negative for the US. Fidel Castro, for all his tyrannical whims, was seen as the proud Latino who’d stood up to Yankee-CIA-mafia imperialism. Anti-communism also led the US to support or even install(via CIA dirty tricks) brutal right-wing regimes that used any-means-necessary(even 'death squads') against ruthless radical insurgencies. US alliance with Shah of Iran and right-wing juntas in Latin America sullied its image around the world, not least among the influential intelligentsia.
And the Vietnamese came to be seen around the world as martyrs who stood up to US militarism. Also, many anti-communists were generally intellectually inferior to the thinkers and activists on the Left, and the media-and-military complex eventually found a way to bring down Joe McCarthy. Soon thereafter, Jews and Liberals in the media spun an elaborate hyperbolic Narrative that made those suspected of communist-espionage-or-sympathy as the prima donna victims of the ‘Red Scare’. This was especially important to Jews as their kind were disproportionately involved in spying for the Soviet Union and spreading radical leftist propaganda via media, academia, and government. To discourage any honest probe into Jewish role in radical politics, Jewish Narrative cooked up a wild hysteria about how the US under HUAC and Joe McCarthy had been rabidly and virulently hallucinating about communists-under-every-bed. By focusing the Narrative on the most ludicrous examples of Red Scare, Jews gave the false impression that the bulk of anti-communism had to do with paranoid fantasies when, in fact, there had been incredible amounts of pro-communist espionage and activity especially under FDR. (Not that FDR himself was pro-communist, but he was naive about Stalin and many people around him were either sympathetic to communism or even had ties with the USSR.) Another reason the Leftist Boomers were favored had to do with the Race Issue that came to the fore under Eisenhower and then totally exploded in the 1960s, especially under Lyndon B. Johnson. Billed as the Civil Rights Movement, it became the defining Moral Issue of the Decade(and thereafter). There was no denying the history of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and of course, blacks bore the brunt of it because they were by far the most numerous minority. On the black issue, the Left was totally committed, and Liberals very much committed. On the Right, the attitudes ranged from moderate support to outright hostility. Granted, by the ‘Right’, it wasn’t necessarily a Republican vs Democratic affair because many Republicans back then were ‘moderate’ Eastern Establishment types and many Democrats were Southern Dixiecrats who were hostile to ending Segregation and granting blacks more rights. Even though the Left’s position on the Civil Rights Movement was either naive or cynical — the Left often supported any cause or movement that might subvert the nation, thereby preparing the US for the eventual Revolution — , it was presented as a coherent and forceful argument: Equal Rights for blacks. Against this, the Right could only mutter about State’s Rights, which was a weak moral argument because it basically meant States could deny certain people Constitutional Rights on the basis of race. There was a compelling argument against Racial Integration and Attempted Equality between whites and blacks — BAMMAMA Factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular and More Aggressive, thereby a threat to the physical and psychological well-being of whites — , but excessive White Male Pride prevented the white race from spelling out the understandable fear that Southern Whites had of blacks. Failing to address that fact, all confrontations between whites and blacks, especially in the South, was framed in terms of helpless innocent blacks asking for justice versus white ‘racists’ and ‘rednecks’ who just liked to call people ‘nigger’ and act like hooligans in front of the TV camera.
There was also the fact of Youth Culture, and even though much of this was just hedonism and not strictly political, it gave boost to the Liberals and Left because it was seen as part of the broader rebellion against The Man and The Order. Even though elderly Leftists were confused and even offended by 60s Youth Rebels(who seemed to indulge in the crass narcissism, hedonism, and materialism of Capitalist Consumerist culture), the Middle Finger of the Youth Movement was bound to offend the conservative elements of society more. Even though many of the key Rock figures of the 1960s weren’t particularly political or ideological, their neo-Romantic Dionysian immersion in revelry and ‘liberation’ endeared them more to the Left, which explains why the Left, far more than the Right, was so eager to recruit singers and other celebrities into the Movement. As with the English Romantics of the 19th century, the Boomer Dionysians were, in some ways, reactionary at least in the ecological back-to-nature sense. They were appalled by the excessive industrialization, materialization, and ‘plasticization’ of society. And as the war in Vietnam dragged on, the Antiwar forces gained greater traction and sympathy. Though originally a Democratic Party war, it came to be seen as Nixon’s right-wing military-industrial slaughter, especially as the war expanded into Cambodia and Laos in a big way. Though boomers were split 50/50 on the Vietnam War for most of its duration, the Antiwar forces gained greater validity as the war seemed unwinnable, America ‘war crimes’ sullied its image around the world(not least among its European allies), and men like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara came to be lionized even among Liberals as ‘freedom fighters’. (It is no wonder that Conservatives were so eager to re-fight the War in the Reagan 80s, not least with movies like RAMBO, HANOI HILTON, GARDENS OF STONE, HAMBURGER HILL, and UNCOMMON VALOR. John Milius’ RED DAWN even imagined American boys as the New Viet Cong resisting Soviet Occupation of the US. But then, the Leftist Boomers got the best of the Narrative when Oliver Stone appeared on the scene with PLATOON, followed up by BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. At the very least, Stone had been there, which couldn’t be said of Conservative revisionists who’d sat out the war with college deferments or strings pulled by their parents.)
Anyway, in the War of Boomers, the Left-Boomers won decisively over the Right-Boomers. In the end, men like Bill Clinton seemed far more impressive than people like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. Sure, Billy Boy Clinton turned out to be one sleazy slimeball, but he was a true political visionary with the foresight and skills necessary to turn the Order upside down. That said, most politicians of both Parties are pieces of turds, hardly impressive material. Where the Left-Boomers really won the war against Right-boomers were in academia, media, entertainment, and law. Those institutions not only create, shape, and control the Big Ideas but the Idols and Icons. Academia, Media-Entertainment, and Law constitute the church of secularism. Control those and you end up controlling even your enemies or at least their children. Consider the children of George W. Bush and how they’re all for ‘gay marriage’. Why? Because even if they grew up under an Evangelical father, they were bombarded with pro-homo Pop Culture(that idolizes homos and trannies) and were educated in elite institutions where over 95% of the professors are PC scribes and priests. If PC won’t get you, it will get your children who are impressionable when they enter school and easily made addicted to Pop Culture. Take someone like Bill Gates who grew up mostly apolitical and only cared about technology and geeky stuff. Why did he turn ‘leftist’? Because the media that he relies on for information is controlled by globalist Jews.
Even if we were to suppose that many business majors in the 60s and 70s were on the Right(and pro-capitalist), business only teaches people how to make money. It doesn’t teach people about the higher meaning of life or true path to justice. Capitalism is essentially about how to maximize profits. So, even if many ‘rightist’ pro-market types were to succeed in business, they must seek moral and spiritual meaning elsewhere. In the past, they might have belonged to a Church or an ethnic community, i.e. Irish Catholics who cared about their own kin and culture. But in a deracinating, de-spiritualizing, and atomizing America, there was no longer a traditional faith or community to hold onto. So, where was one to find the higher meaning? And this is where the academia-media-law complex came to constitute the new holy trinity. Since Liberals and Leftists controlled most of it, even the successful ‘rightists’ and their children were bound to be gradually molded into the ‘leftist’ way of thinking. Is it any wonder that so many on the Right don’t question the basic assumptions of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’ but accept them as legitimate and then try to argue that the Other Side comprise the ‘real racists’, ‘real sexists’, and even ‘real homophobes’? (Supposedly, the Liberals are the ‘real homophobes’ since they welcome Muslims who might throw men who boof off the roof.)
But on the other hand, it is almost pointless to speak of the triumphant Left because what passes for the ‘left’ today bears hardly any resemblance of the Left of yesteryear, even of the 60s and 70s. There’s a common gripe on the Right that American Conservatives merely trail American Liberals by ten to twenty years, but it is worth asking if the Left has gotten more leftist or less leftist? Didn’t the Left abandon socialism? Didn’t the Left abandon the Working Class? Didn’t the Left welcome the Deep State, militarism, capitalism, consumerism, Wall Street, gambling, culture of narcissism, ‘xenophobic’ paranoia(about Russia especially), and etc.? So, even as the Right seems to be following in the footsteps of the Left, the Left seems to have been following in the footsteps of the Right. Clinton reached out to Wall Street, Trump reached out to the Working Class. What is going on here? In this sense, even though the Left-Boomers won, the leftist idealism that had fired up their youth seems to have evaporated over the years, leaving only a naked greed for power, prestige, and privilege.
On the one hand, it is clear that the Left-Boomers, as they grew older, became more jaded about values & meanings and came to care only for power and status. In the end, they came to understand the true nature of power. It is always an elite thing, and you have to know the right people and have to be in the right places. Nothing else matters... if you want to be where the action is. In LOST IN AMERICA, a Jewish guy decides to give up his yuppie job and see rural and small-town America. He wants to Touch Indians and meet with regular folks. What he finds outside the Big Cities is just a lot of boredom, mediocrity, and stasis. In the end, being one of the regular people means working as a crossing-guard. He decides to return to the Big City where the action is. Where the ONLY ACTION that counts is. It was said that Hillary Clinton grew impatient and insulting when she passed through some Nowhere-ville. She didn’t see the point of appealing to such losers who had nothing to offer her but some piddling votes. She wanted to shake hands with the Powerful and the Connected.
In INSIDE LLEYWN DAVIS, the lead character is a folk singer, an artist who is supposed to be about the People, especially in folksy small towns and rural America. But his act is strictly an urban-bohemian affair. He knows who’s who in NY and Chicago but feels totally like an outsider and alien in the rural and small-town areas between those two great cities. And when the folkie joint finally presents a bonafide act from bumble-ville, he spews insults at the performer to the point of making her flee the stage in tears, unwittingly angering her husband who returns to punch him in the nose like George Bailey got in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE for having said mean things to a school teacher.
Anyway, the point is it would be foolish to think that the Triumph of the Left means true victory of Classic Leftism or even radical Boomer Leftism. Classic Leftism of Communism died with the Fall of the Soviet Union and with China & Vietnam’s shift to capitalism and market economy. And the New Deal Leftism also lost out to Free Trade and Globalism that came to be embraced by the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Even Bruce Springsteen, the supposed voice of Blue Collar America, came to perform mainly for yuppies and yap mostly about homos and trannies. When we say the Left-Boomers won, we mean as individuals and personalities, not as ideologues. In the end, their ideological conviction proved to be weak or shallow. What really mattered was their lust for power, and it didn’t matter how they got it as long as they got it. Because they began on the Left, they kept the ideological moniker, but their current political positions have almost nothing in common with what they’d once stood for as young idealists. In a way, their lives have been one of betrayal of ideals and dreams. But in another way, all the themes of the 1960s were actually in keeping with the spirit of unfettered power-lust that had defined the American Experience for a long time. It was a repackaging and a re-branding than a rejection of what was both the best and worst of Americanism.
Consider one of the big slogans of the 1960s. We were told it was all about Love. All You Need Is Love. Make Love, Not War. So, Love = Peace, and a Generation committed to Love would oppose the Generation made by War. Even if WWII was the Good War, it was the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex. Also, the pride of having won the Good War led to this idea that the American Way is the right way all around the world. Because War had been ‘good’ and necessary in WWII, there was the idea that War is the solution for all problems. Especially when it was reported that PATTON was the favorite movie of Richard Nixon, the Commander-in-Chief of the war in Vietnam, the idea crystallized that the conflict was between Love & Peace and War & Imperialism. So, the hope was that the Generation of Love would grow up to be different from the earlier generation whose mentality had been formed by Militarist Mentality of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, CATCH-22, and M*A*S*H mocked the War State Mentality of the Older Generation.
And yet, was Love really the answer? Isn’t love a passion? Isn’t passion violent by nature? Also, even if we were to define ‘love’ as selfless & generous as opposed to ‘lust’ that is defined as selfish & wanton, is there a clear line between love and lust, especially when it involves boys and girls? Take THE GRADUATE, the most popular of all Boomer movies. It is about lust and love. Lust makes Benjamin Braddock act irresponsibly, having sex with the wife of his father’s law partner. Surely, surrendering oneself to sexual passions is hardly a way for peace and harmony. Next, Braddock goes into Love mode, and he goes totally insane, so much so that he lies, trespasses, and pulls all sorts of tricks to finally go Tony Montana and crash a wedding and run off with the (married)bride. It was sold as entertainment, but if one thinks about it, Braddock’s Quest for Love was mad, pathological, and violent. Braddock didn’t shoot up the wedding like some kids are doing at schools these days, but the mentality wasn't all that different. After all, Elliot Rodgers and other ‘Incels’ seem to be killing out of Love(or lack of it, which goes to show that Love isn’t ‘fair’, ‘democratic’, or ‘inclusive’). Anyway, it was Elaine or Bust for Braddock. He had to have her or else. He was willing to go to any length. Thus, the theme of Love in THE GRADUATE is a lot darker than might have been assumed. Love can be blind or blinding. Its ‘purity’ of passion makes one believe anything is justified in its quest.
Then, is it surprising that the Boomers who believed in the Power of Love ended up as such warmongering lunatics? Their idea seems to be that anything is justified IF they do it out of LOVE. So, if they want to invade or destroy any nation, just invoke some love of justice, democracy, or some humanitarian values. Want to restart the ‘cold war’ with Russia? Invoke the Love of Homos. How dare Russia remain cold and frigid to the ‘rainbow’ Love colors of Homomania?
Let’s consider some other Love-themes Boomer-favorites of the 60s. BONNIE & CLYDE came out in the same year as THE GRADUATE, and its message was that the gangster duo is justified in their mayhem across the ‘fruited plains’ because... they Love each other. Well, there you go. Love justifies everything? Want to justify ‘gay marriage’ and wage total war on morality and decency? Just say that homos want to get married out of Love. GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER was also made in the same year. In it, a ghastly Negro wants to wage racial-sexual war and colonize the womb of a white woman. He enters the scene yapping, "Where da white women at?", but this act of racial-sexual war is supposed to be Okay because... he be Loving a white ho. Another big favorite among the Boomers was Franco Zeffirelli’s version of ROMEO AND JULIET. It too was sold as a redemptive story of Love, but then Shakespeare, being a true artist, knew better. The story is ostensibly about the power of love between two young babes from families that hate one another. On one level, the lovers are inspiring, and their love redeeming of the bad blood between two families. On the other hand, love makes them totally blind and even mad. They are so mad with Love that they put its interest before all else, ensnaring so many people into complications that even lead to deaths of two men, followed by suicides of the two lovers. So maybe, Love isn’t a cure for all problems after all. Even though the two families were divided by blind hate, things hardly got better with blind love between the kids.
And indeed, US foreign policy got most messed up when America fell in blind love with certain peoples. Its blind love for Jews has led to supporting Wars for Israel and Oppression of Palestinians. Universal Love is impossible. The couple love Elsa the lioness in BORN FREE, but that means setting it free to kill warthogs and other creatures. If you love a deer, you want to kill coyotes that might hunt it. If you love a coyote, you will want it to hunt deer to survive. If you love your cat, other animals will have to die to feed it. When Lawrence falls in love with Arabs, it means he must learn to hate Turks. Sadly, it is when Joe Buck(in MIDNIGHT COWBOY) tries to save his beloved friend Ratso that he turns to violence that ends up killing a man, one of the few decent people he met in NY. Likewise, whenever the US has fallen in love with a certain people, the blind love also led to blind hate. America’s love for Jews has blinded it to its mad hate for Palestinians, an innocent people. Worse, whenever US wants to destroy a nation, it can invoke Love as the reason. So, why did the US mess up the Middle East? Oh yeah, out of Love, to bring ‘liberal democracy’ to all those ‘ragheads’ yearning to be free. Why should the US subvert the Iranian regime? Because Americans, being full of Love, want to liberate all those poor wonderful Iranians from an evil regime.
Love also produces blindspots. America’s delusional love for Magic Negroes has blinded it to the truly wretched way of Real Negroes. It’s like the blind love in FAREWELL MY LOVELY. The love for the noir bitch blinds men to how wicked she is. Love not only blinds but spoils the object of love. Catherine in JULES AND JIM is showered with love by men, and she turns into a self-centered bitch. Jews are addicted to being Loved by dimwit goyim and seethe with rage at anyone who won’t show the Love. Antisemitism used to mean Hatred for Jews, but nowadays, it means Not Loving Jews, Not Trusting Jews, Not Obeying Jews. Excessive Love for Jews has spoiled them like the excessive mother’s love that spoiled the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
LOVE STORY(followed by OLIVER’S STORY) showed how Love could lead to emptiness and bitterness. Not only does Love create an unfortunate rift between father and son in LOVE STORY but Jenny eventually dies of leukemia, and Oliver is left feeling empty and bitter for the rest of his life. Applied to politics, such emotions mean wounded bitterness among those who don’t get things their way. We saw this in the loss of Hillary Clinton. Her supporters didn’t just react like their candidate lost an election but as if the object of their love was murdered. And the delirious fans of Obama were in Love with him. Imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had lost in 2008 or 2012. We wouldn’t be human without the capacity for Love, but Love is not some bright shining thing but a passion with as much darkness as radiance, as shown in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the kid-robot’s undying love for ‘mommy’ turns into something brooding and grotesque... as is the sickly lesbian love in MULHOLLAND DR.
And this is why the story of Jesus Christ is so troubled. How do you Love humanity that is divided among so many tribes? If you love the Jews, you must hate the enemies of Jews. If you love the Romans, you must hate the enemies of Romans. If you love the Persians, you must hate the enemies of Persians. If you love the Celts, you must hate the enemies of Celts. Also, if you love your family and kin, you must put their interests above those of others. Love binds one to a certain person, certain group, a certain tribe. Love necessarily makes you hate those who threaten the object of one’s love. Jesus wanted to transcend all that and love all of mankind, but how is this done? Christians believe He found the answer. Non-Christians believe He was seriously deluded, even mad.
Anyway, given the true dynamics of Love, it couldn’t be the formula for peace and harmony in the New Order. If anything, the Boomers who came of age in the Summer of Love developed impassioned blindspots of their own. Worse, once the romanticism of love faded over the years, there was only lust. Billy Boy Clinton embodied this side of Boomerism all too well: Lust for power, lust for women, lust for money, lust for privilege. In this sense, Philip Roth’s PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, which was more about lust than love, became more prophetic than THE GRADUATE. We ended up in the Age of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneiderman, and Donald Trump, the president who once paid a trashy porn performer to have sex with him. Love can be a positive force, but it can also be blinding, impulsive, stupid, neurotic, and enraged. Weinstein forced himself on those who wouldn’t give into him. He was one more Jew who wouldn’t take No for an answer. Not to give into his ‘love’ was like being an ‘Anti-Semite’ who won’t love Jews. It’s not enough Not-to-Hate Jews in our age. You must Love Jews like Winston Smith learned to Love Big Brother. And when Weinstein raped women, the fault was with them for resisting his Love. But this is Boomer US foreign policy in a nutshell. You see, the US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation that is full of Love, and if it wants to invade or interfere with any nation, it has every right to do so because it is all about Love. The fault is with the nation that says NO to US intervention. How dare it say NO to America as the Don Juan of the World?
Incidentally, if THE GRADUATE was about the mad romanticism of Love, the biggest franchise of the 1960s, the 007 James Bond movies, was about the Nihilism of Love. 007 is so smooth, cool, and handsome that he has the license to do just about anything. The Bond series may have had a special appeal to the more Conservative types(despite the sexual licentiousness), but again, Love, far from being an agent for peace and harmony, is a prize and trophy of power and mastery. You must kill and win to get the ladies.
And of course, the Vietnam War wasn’t just about US soldiers killing tons of ‘gooks’ but humping millions of ‘gookettes’. It was as much about making Love as well as War in Southeast Asia. In a way, the open Libido of the Boomer generation made it more uninhibited in its aggression. The Freudian-Frankfurt theory that American aggression was the result of pent-up sexual frustration never made much sense. While it’s true that Nixon was sexually conservative, Lyndon B. Johnson was a major Mr. Rhinestone Cowboy when it came to donging and whoring around. And Billy Boy Clinton’s many philandering didn’t stop him from moving NATO up to Russia’s borders or instigating the War on Serbia. And Donald Trump, who loves to talk belligerently and is now raising tensions with Iran, sure humped lots of women throughout his life. We should know from the examples of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan that ‘healthy libido’ is hardly a preventive cure from excessive war-making. If anything, through most of history, wars were usually about ‘get the womenfolk’ as well as ‘get the land and loot’. In SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, it shows how womenfolk have a dual effect on the fellers: they both barbarize and civilize menfolk. Upon seeing womenfolk, menfolk go ‘boing’ and want to act like Chechen bandits and run off with women-as-trophies. But then, it is the duty of womenfolk to teach menfolk some manners and not eat like pigs when served stew and biscuits. (Of course, today's women are often just as barbaric as the men.)
One of the themes of Americanism was the unfettered reach of going all the way, having it all, and living the dream. The sheer immensity of the wilderness to be tamed filled Americans with over-sized ambitions. The positive side of this was the spirit of adventure, enterprise, and experiment. The downside was the obnoxious and infantile sense that it is so very unjust if things don’t go one’s way. And this was made worse when radical Jewish psychology infected Americanism. Jewish radicalism made American reform-style socialism far nastier. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy radicalized American individualism to the point of near-psychosis where the hero of THE FOUNTAINHEAD in effect becomes a terrorist and blows up an entire Housing Project out of his purist insistence that it be his way or the highway. And Love-American-Style became something gross. It’s like what Tony Montana says in SCARFACE: "This town is like a big fat pussy just waiting to get fuc*ed." He sure read Americanism correctly, especially in the trashy city of Miami.
And in THE GRADUATE and THE HEARTBREAK KID, we see this infantile Americanism(mixed with Jewish neurosis) that must have it his way or it’s the highway.
So, not only was Love NOT the answer but Love-American-Style, outsized and vulgar, wasn’t going to save the world as the Boomer generation took over the seats of power. Their idea of making love to the world was to rape it with their crude, ugly, and infantile agenda of New World Order that was far more sinister than one envisioned by the WWII generation.
Another big thing among the Boomers was, of course, Rock culture. Like Love, indeed along with Love, Rock Culture was supposed to promote youthful idealism, freedom, and liberation. And even justice and truth. After all, while the military was training young people to be killers with guns, Rock culture was encouraging young ones to be free and have fun with guitars and drums. Better to be at Monterey or Woodstock grooving to Rock music than to be in the jungles of Vietnam killing people you don’t even know. While the military was about repression, discipline, hardship, and death, Rock Culture was about liberation, openness, ease, and life. And while warmongers made the "Ballad of the Green Beret" a hit, the Antiwar crowd was more likely to dance and get all funky with Santana and Sly & the Family Stone. Besides, plenty of Rockers sang against the War. John Lennon sang "Give Peace a Chance". Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Fortunate Son" and "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" The Animals sang, "Sky Pilot". HAIR the musical was blatantly antiwar. Antiwar politics divided the world between old men like LBJ and Nixon in business suits AND young people in colorful dress and into Rock music. The idea was that repressed traditional men in government took out their aggressions by waging war on other nations. In contrast, young counterculture people who let it all hang out were at peace with themselves and nature, therefore, they had no reason to blow up some other part of the world to feel good about themselves.
And yet, the Vietnam War(and American militarism) and Rock Culture had something in common. They were both predicated on powerlust. After all, what was the main appeal of Rock n Roll? It was about the animal aggression of conquest and domination. Elvis, channeling the Negroes, turned white girls into willing sex slaves of the King of Rock n Roll. At his concerts, young girls peed their pants to his music. Elvis was the middleman performer between the Negro dong and their white poons. As the White Negro, he made possible in musical fantasy what was forbidden in life. (Of course, there is no more need for white sexual middlemen between Mandingo and white girls because we now live in Age of Rap and pornification of culture, whereby white girls are celebrated for going with Negroes.) So, Rock n Roll exploded on the scene as a form of sexual-imperialism. It was the music of the burn-and-slash rape-and-pillage. Boys loved it because a part of them wanted to play the pirate. And girls loved it because, as so many Romance novels show, women fantasize about rape by pirates and bandits. So, Rock n Roll expressed animal drives and urges. It was a form of Jungle Imperialism, along with Negro takeover of sports. Even though Muhammad Ali came to be admired as an idol of resistance and social justice, the only reason he became famous was because he beat up other men and called himself the ‘greatest’. Sports is a form of war. It’s about domination, conquest, and humiliation. It is about beating up other men and humping lots of women. This could happen within the race or across races. In the US, as black men won in sports, it meant they defeated and humiliated white men into cuckdom and claimed and conquered white women. Because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination, the release of wild Negro energies(and their channeling by white performers) was justified and even romanticized as a form of moral advancement and historical redress. But apart from such contextualization, the influence of Negro sports and Negro music was to spread aggression, thuggery, domination, and war-lust. Even though Jimi Hendrix is considered as part of Counterculture, the fact is his music goes well together with footage of the Vietnam War. Some may argue that his music was a dark commentary on the crisis of the times, but the sheer violence of his music runs parallel to the violence meted out on Vietnam. Its effect is utterly different from sober folk songs of the early 1960s that protested War and militarism. Even if Hendrix and Santana were sympathetic to the Antiwar crowd, the fact is their music unleashed violent energies of mayhem and domination. Their music worked like demon possession like in THE EXORCIST. Consider Steppenwolf's music to the footage of the Vietnam War.
And even though CCR’s song "Fortunate Son" condemns the hypocrisy of the warmongers, its energies aren’t much different from the aggression of soldiers. It is militant and furious in its anti-war stance, so much so that it makes aggression sound fun and thrilling. In the end, the real appeal of the song is less its message than it sheer fury. If one didn’t know English, one might almost believe it’s a pro-war song about how "we should go there and kill all them gooks." Message is often buried or overwhelmed by the music in a song. Take "Born in the USA" that many people heard as a patriotic anthem of the Reagan Decade when, in terms of lyrics, it was a bitter commentary on how the System invokes patriotism to make young men go fight in wars that serve no purpose. Springsteen made this very point, but he too was deluded because when you play a song like that before 50,000 people with a big-ass Negro Clarence blowing into a saxophone, it essentially functions as a celebratory anthem. Again, if you didn’t know the lyrics, it would sound like an aggressive and violent gung-ho pro-war patriotic song. Just as Sam Peckinpah was deluded when he claimed the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was meant to be anti-violence, Springsteen was fooling himself when he thought irony could work with a song like "Born in the USA", especially when played in concert in a crowd of tens of thousands along with other songs like "Born to Run", "Sherry Darling", and "Bobby Jean".
It is then no wonder that the Rock Generation grew up to be powerlusting nihilists and killers. And it is no wonder that "Rock the Casbah" became the anthem of the US military as it blasted Baghdad to smithereens. And let’s also remember that Rock Culture wasn’t only part of the Antiwar movement. The US military allowed tons of Pop Culture to enter into Vietnam. US soldiers were encouraged to have fun when not fighting. Away from the jungle, they were into Rock music, sex, drugs, and all that stuff. It’s no wonder that "The End", "Satisfaction" and "Suzie Q" go so well together with the war images in APOCALYPSE NOW. Rock music is about domination and release of animal drives. In essence, it is closer to hunter-warrior outlook than saint-sage mindset. When one listens to Hendrix’s version of "All Along the Watchtower", one gets the impression of a psychedelic tiger lurking in the jungle to pounce on an ox. When one listens to "Gimme Shelter", it sounds like how cool it’d be to napalm entire villages. Sure, there are lyrics about ‘love’ and all that, but the music itself, especially with a Negress howling like a gorilla in heat, is totally wild and crazy.
And despite Punk music’s supposed ‘political consciousness’ and Rap music’s ‘social commentary’, both were essentially war music of derelicts, bandits, and thugs. They were barbarian hunter music or savage warrior music. A song like "Fight the Power" pretends to be a call for justice, but the music is really about, "Gonna whup your ass, honkey" and "Where da white women at?!"
Then, it is no wonder that Rock music, which was billed as the sound of happy liberation and youthful idealism of peace, became so useful to the Boomer Warmongers who, with a military filled with kids steeped in Rock warrior-hunter culture, were more than willing to Hendrixize and Clash-ize entire nations with Shock and Awe. It is telling that the music video for "Rock the Casbah" shows an Arab and a Jew sharing a ride and raking in all the money and goodies. How prophetic in an idiot-savant way. Today, we have Israel allied with the Saudis messing up the entire region with the full backing of the US that has Elvis-as-President in Donald Trump who has, among his fans, Kanye West who’s been admonished by Jay-Z who supported Hillary Clinton, the badass bitch who done wasted Libya, sheeeeiiiiit.
No comments:
Post a Comment