Friday, April 16, 2021

American 'Conservatism' practices a Critical Race Theory of Its Own that boils down to Jewish Power Uber Alles — The Myth of American Conservatism's defense of Color-Blind Individualism

The dirty secret of America is that 'conservatives' have a Critical Race Theory of their own: Philosemitism and Hypocritical-Cuckery or Hypocruckery. 'Conservatives' will say that, unlike the 'left', they are not obsessed with race and committed to seeing-and-treating people as individuals with agency and responsibility. So, the 'left' is all about Identity Politics(usually anti-white), whereas conservatism is about colorblind treatment of all peoples as individuals deserving of equal respect and protection.

But this is utter BS. 'Conservatives' don't believe in equal treatment and dignity for all peoples, to be judged as individuals. No, they bleat about how Jews are so special in history, culture, values, ability, and etc. and therefore, Jews as an Entire Group are deserving of more respect, support, sympathy, praise, protection, favors, love, awe, and etc. Just ask any Palestinian or Syrian if American 'conservatism' is about colorblind treatment of all as equals.
In a way, 'conservative' version of Critical Race Theory(premised on Jews Uber Alles) is worse than the 'leftist' counterparts. Ironically, the so-called 'leftist' ones are actually more right-wing, i.e. they are based on tribal pride and empowerment. For blacks, CRT means more pride and power for blacks. For Jews, it means more pride and power for Jews(as if they don't have enough). This can be said for other non-white groups as well. It's about OUR interests vs YOUR interests(usually white-whatever).

In contrast, 'conservative' CRT is a wussy version of liberalism, or wiberalism. It's about white people suppressing white pride and rejecting the concept of white power so as to meekly appeal to Jews, blacks, and nonwhites to adopt colorblind individualism. This might be viable IF Jews, blacks, and nonwhites showed any interest in adopting colorblindness for themselves, but there's no such sign. Thus, it is utterly useless.
But it's far worse. If, at the very least, 'conservatives' truly promoted colorblind individualism for all, they could in good faith argue that they are opposed to the dynamics of Critical Race Theory, i.e. they defend the rights and liberties of all individuals regardless of color than promote one group at the expense of others. But even this isn't true given how American 'conservatism' favors and sucks up to Jewish Power uber alles. When have 'conservatives' been about colorblind equality between Arab-Americans and Jewish-Americans? And in foreign policy, when has American 'conservatism' been about treating all nations with equal respect? No, the GOP foreign policy has been about defaming, demeaning, demonizing, alienating, and even invading/destroying other nations at the behest of Zionist Jewish Supremacists. If 'leftist' CRT is about Jews, blacks, and nonwhites propping up their own pride at the expense of others(especially whites), 'rightist' CRT is about whites suppressing their own power/pride and cheering on Jewish pride/power as the apex of Western Values, rather funny given that Jewish Power has been most effective in destroying whatever is left of Western Civilization.

So, if 'conservatives' claim to oppose Critical Race Theory on grounds that it favors certain groups at the expense of others and rejects dignity premised on colorblind individualism, they have failed miserably with their own words and actions that clearly favor Jews and Zion uber alles. Consider the cuck-governor Abbot of Texas. He claims to be for free speech and against Big Tech censorship, but he cucked to Zionists and waged war on GAB as an 'antisemitic' platform even though the site offers free speech to ALL groups. So, in other words, GAB is evil according to Abbot the 'cuckservative' because it offers free speech and equal time to both Jews/Zionists and Palestinians(and detractors of Jewish Power). According to American 'conservatism', free speech means JEWS GET TO SAY WHATEVER and those who dare to be critical must be silenced with Censchwarzship. And was Donald Trump any better? Even as Jews spat on him and smeared him with feces, all that the orange buffoon ever did was suck up to Jews and demean Palestinians.
And even on the Dissident Right, there is a tendency to name-drop prominent Jews in the hope that, gee whiz, maybe the superior race will see the light and join with whites. It's all so pathetic the non-stop swooning of how such-and-such Jew is a Fellow Conservative or Fellow Patriot when most Jewish Conservatives are for Jews Uber Alles at the expense of whites. David Mamet is a good example. He claims to be a libertarian who sees the wrongness of statism, but he's totally for the US using all its might for Jews Uber Alles and Zionism; and his kind of libertarianism is perfectly fine with Jews amassing tons of cash and using it for Jews Uber Alles. It's all a con-game on his part. It is time to put to rest the dichotomy of capital vs the state because, in the current climate, both deep pockets and the deep state are little more than the two arms of Jewish Power.

Even though 'conservatives' are most obsessed with Jews Uber Alles, they also practice a form of CRT with blacks. A black 'conservative' is treated like royalty on the basis of the person's race. What he says carries more weight simply because he's black. Kanye West has been a sick moron all his life, but he was praised to high heaven by 'conservatives' for donning a MAGA hat. Most 'conservatives' look the other way on the issue of black-on-white crime or black crime in general... unless it impacts Jews. Oh, Jewish Lives are so precious, and black violence must be condemned ONLY WHEN it hurts Jews. When blacks were attacking cities and rioting, Trump and Maga-tards were more likely to blame the white Antifa for most of the violence(as if innocent blacks were goaded to act badly by 'leftist' whites); it was just another variation of blaming bad black behavior on whites. If 'leftist' whites blame 'racist' whites, 'rightist' whites blame 'leftist' whites. Apparently, blacks have no agency to act bad on their own.

According to 'conservatism', it was an unforgivable sin for Americans to have discriminated against blacks, BUT it's totally 'conservative' to support Zionist apartheid, Jim Crowitz, and mass brutality against Palestinians. It's so obvious that 'conservatives' practice a group-identity politics when it comes to Jews. Even when 'conservatives' acknowledge that Zionists can act brutally, they justify such violence on grounds of History. So, Jews are not to be judged as individuals doing bad things to Palestinians but as a group whose tragic history justifies their harsh oppression of Palestinians and wanton destruction of Arab/Muslim nations(even though the Shoah was the doing of Germans, not the Arab-Semites and Persians). What's the difference between such philosemitic logic and the justification for black mayhem? You see, it's 'muh history'. Blacks are right to riot and loot because of 'muh history', and Jews are given license to wreck and destroy entire nations(and ruin millions of lives) because of 'muh history'. Apparently, crushing Palestinian aspirations for nation liberation is justified by the Never Again cult. But did Palestinians run the Treblinka camps? The notion that the Holocaust Card gives Jews-as-a-group license to commit countless acts of violence against the world is hardly different from the logic at the core of Identity Politics. So, any 'conservative' who claims to oppose and denounce CRT should look in the mirror and abandon his own Philosemitic version of CRT that says Jews as a group should be allowed to run amok as they please because... 'muh history'.

Financial de-regulation and national legalization of gambling have led to a massive Jewish looting operation. Insider Jews rig the game and rake in gazillions. And Jewish casino monopoly means goyim are turned into degenerate gamblers and hand over their hard-earned money to Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and others who used pressure to get Jewish crooks pardoned from jail. It's no wonder Jews support BLM. Jews get to loot the economy from the top, and blacks get to loot the economy from the bottom. Jews use their loot to finance black looting, and Jewish Power rubs 'white guilt' in all this mess. The understanding between Jews and blacks is Jews will fund and defend black pillaging IF blacks used their demigod status to support Jews and Zionism, thus providing moral cover for what Jews do to Palestinians. "Gee, how can Zionism be bad when Jews are allied with the People of MLK?" And of course, both are protected by 'muh history'. We can't denounce Jewish looting because it'd be 'antisemitic', and we can't denounce black looting because it'd be 'racist'. Jews are forever the holy holocaust people, and blacks are forever the sacred slavery people, as if genocide only happened to Jews and slavery only happened to blacks. But there it is, Jews have effectively monopolized genocide-sanctity and blacks have monopolized slavery-sanctity(with help from Jews, of course). So, whites are robbed from top and bottom, but what do white 'conservatives' have to offer? "Uh duh.... it's the communists and the Chinese! We must protect rich capitalist Jews from socialists!" "Uh duh... white Antifa are making good decent patriotic blacks riots and loot." "Uh duh, Joe Biden is an Anti-Semite because he might make a deal with Iran. Israel forever!" Ridiculous.

TUCKER CARLSON CALLS OUT JEWS FOR HAVING DOUBLE STANDARD ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND IMMIGRATION

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Parallels between China from 1962 to 1966 and US from 2016 to 2020 — What Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Jewish Deep State's Cult Revolution have in common — How the Control of Gods profoundly impacts Politics on the grandest scale — Trump's stardom lost to Jewish divinity

The Derek Chauvin case in Minneapolis is a pawn in a much larger power struggle, and in a way, Chauvin is in trouble because even Donald Trump and white populists have succumbed to the same gods controlled by the Jews. When Jews control the gods and when Jews dole out the money(to all the whores, of which there is never any shortage), the US 'power-brokers' are essentially in the hands of Jews.

This whole George Floyd thing wouldn't have gotten so out of hand if it weren't for the Jewish-run media pushing a certain narrative based on false perception and for the Jewish-run state giving the go-ahead to the entire nation to go full throttle on Negrolatry. Now, blacks being blacks, even had the media been responsible and restrained in their coverage, there would have been riots and the like. But it would have been contained.
Now, who gave the go-ahead to turn a local event into a national and then even a global one, what with BLM protests spreading across EU and even in parts of East Asia? It was the deep state that takes orders from Jewish Supremacist Central. And why did Jews do this? To hurt Trump with black voters and to boost 'white guilt' to counter the rising tide of white populism. These Jewish Supremacists are truly awful people. Not long ago, they sought to clean up cities and hired more cops to get tough on black crime. Jews supported more incarceration and policies like stop-and-frisk. Jews pressured US police departments to take cues from IDF and Israel security forces that deal harshly with Palestinians. But, when Jews needed black votes(and electoral fraud) to unseat Trump, they pushed the Narrative that innocent blacks are killed by 'racist' cops in Trump's America. Really? Who's been controlling Minneapolis forever? MAGA folks? That's about as believable as Jussie Smollett's story of being jumped by two MAGA-hat wearing thugs.

To better understand what happened between 2016 and 2020, there is something we can learn from 1962 to 1966 in China. Of course, there are vast differences between China then and US now, but there are certain general patterns in history that match or resemble one another. For some time, it's been duly noted in some quarters that the US under PC has undergone something akin to the Cultural Revolution in China. But overlooking who've been behind the US version would be like taking Mao out of the equation in the Chinese upheaval(which was more like a 'downheaval', or an event ordered from above, or a youth 'rebellion' orchestrated by Mao and the Gang of Four). In other words, despite the seemingly spontaneous mass-gathering and uprising of Chinese youths, it was actually coordinated by Mao and his cohorts. If Mao hadn't called on it, there would have been no Cultural Revolution in China. Indeed, when Mao and the military had just about enough(and the usefulness of Red Guards had passed the expiration date), the mass movement suddenly came to a halt, and many young ones were conveniently deployed to villages to 'learn from the peasants', thus no longer able to destabilize cities. Likewise, BLM2 or Floyd-Mania couldn't have happened without the go-ahead from the Jews. However vocal and violent the riots would have been without blessing and encouragement from above, it would have been a much smaller event. Jewish Power fanned the flames and turned a local fire into a national forest fire. Just like Big Tech companies coordinate their censorship policies, big city Democrats(and some RINOS) also acted together to use the insanity as political weapon against Trump and the populists. But then, why were Trump and his supporters so hapless and ineffective in combating this lunacy? Well, Jews control the gods, and both sides worship the same gods.

This is where what happened in China is useful to our understanding of what happened recently in the US. But first, a brief summary of what happened in China. In the late 50s, Mao was full of arrogance and impatience. Especially with the death of Josef Stalin and with Third World liberation movements sprouting all over, Mao regarded himself as the new leading light of the worldwide communist movement. He believed the East Wind was prevailing over the West. He also thought that China could transform into a first-world economy within a decade with mass enthusiasm and sheer power of numbers. Like Adolf Hitler on the eve of Operation Barbarossa, Mao saw himself as a Man of Destiny. He felt an aura of invincibility. As if to demonstrate this, he embarked on one of the most ambitious projects in human history: The Great Leap Forward. It would turn peasants into steel-producers overnight. Harvests would double, triple, quadruple within years. China would soon catch up with the UK and then even with the US. The will of the Chinese people, orchestrated by Mao, would make anything possible. Mao's East Wind would indeed prevail over everything. But in fact, the whole thing turned out to be ill-conceived and ill-planned. Despite all the enthusiasm of the populace swept up in the fervor, it not only undermined the industrial sector but wrecked the all-important agricultural sector(in a nation that was overwhelmingly agrarian). What ensued was the biggest famine in history, losing anywhere from 25 to 40 million lives to starvation. It proved to be so calamitous that it endangered the authority of Mao, a godlike figure at the time. While the criticism of the Great Helmsman was tempered in most quarters, the very fact that some dared to criticize him at all was deeply unsettling to Mao. And in a way, there was a silent semi-coup of sorts. Mao kept his prestige as the great ruler of China, but the day-to-day operations ended up mainly with Liu Shao-Chi and righthand man Deng Xiaoping. Indeed, Mao began to resent that he was ignored and not informed of what was happening in the affairs of the government. He still held the title but felt more like a national symbol than an actual ruler. It seemed most people in the state took cues from Li and Deng; they hardly had any use for Mao whose reputation was discredited within the state(though no one dared to say it out loud). Now, Liu and Deng publicly deferred to Mao as the one-and-only ruler of China, but they held more operational power and made most of the key decisions on matters related to economics and culture. Mao suspected they wanted to turn him into a ceremonial figure.
And Mao knew why Li and Deng held certain key advantages. Despite Mao's great prestige, he was associated with the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. While the masses were fed the usual official lies and propaganda, those inside the state knew Mao was most to blame for the failure that affected countless lives, millions of whom perished in horrible conditions. Just like there is inside information(for the elites & connected) and outside information(for mass consumption) on finance and government even in the 'Liberal West', it was even more so in China. To keep the nation together, Mao was hailed as the one-and-only unifying symbol of China despite the disaster of the Great Leap(the failures of which were conveniently blamed on the weather or the Soviet Union's withdrawal of aid) for public consumption, but in the inner circles of the Chinese state, many knew Mao had grown imperious, impetuous, erratic, and unstable over the years. Whatever sterling qualities he had exhibited as a wartime revolutionary on the path to communist victory, he proved himself a dangerous ruler of a nation that required stability, order, or patience to modernize and bide for time in a hostile environment. So, even as almost all Chinese officials praised Mao in speech, they lent their ears to Liu and Deng for advice and instructions. Mao felt that it was only a matter of time before he would be completely robbed of power except as something akin to a 'constitutional monarch'. (A similar pattern in the US would be that it was well-understood that black thuggery and criminality did most to destroy cities and communities. And so, tough measures were taken by Neo-Liberals beginning with Bill Clinton to lock up record numbers of blacks and implement law-and-order policies to control black behavior, such as stop-and-frisk. This did wonders for safer streets, at least in communities on which Section 8 blacks weren't dumped. These policies were based on what was understood, but this understanding was never articulated into a Narrative. If anything, even Neo-Liberals whose policies were based on Willie-Hortonology pushed the Narrative that the Bush campaign had run an outrageously 'racist' ad, and Bill Clinton took every opportunity to appear the 'first black president'. Neo-Liberals used increasing 'anti-racist' rhetoric and Negrolatry to cover up their tough race-ist policies premised on facts of black criminality and thuggery. So, while the nation was made safer by clamping down on blacks, blackness was placed ever higher on the pedestal. Even as white urban progs enjoyed safer streets as the result of the war on black thuggery, they were even more taken with 'woke' rhetoric and idolatry about the Noble Negro. They lived one reality while believing in a rhetoric that ran counter to the reality. This explains the insane contradictions of the BLM moment from 2016 to 2020. In China between the end of the Great Leap and opening of the Cultural Revolution, even as the state moved drastically away from Mao's radical policies in actual policy, it continued with Mao Worship as the neo-religion of the state. Something had to give.)

So, Mao decided to strike back. But how could he? After all, his name had been sullied by the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. Most people in government switched their main loyalties to Liu and Deng who seemed professional and responsible. They seemed rational players as opposed to the radical romanticism of Mao who treated history and humanity as the stuff of myth. After devastating famines that wiped out so many people, Liu and Deng restored the economy(with limited market reforms), and the Chinese people were, at the very least, no longer starving. The worst was over in China managed by Liu and Deng, and most people in government believed the nation was headed in the right direction under the more techno-bureaucratic minded elites. So, even as most bureaucrats said all the 'correct' things about Mao — how awesomely great he is and so on —, few would have switched their real loyalties from Liu & Deng back to Mao. They believed China needed peacetime builders and managers, not a wartime revolutionary who embarked on economic policies as grandiose campaigns against nature, real and human. They wanted pragmatism and expertise, not hardline ideology and radical passion. They wanted predictability and consistency in the rulers, not the tempestuous style of Mao who drove history like a Chinese man drives a car. So, Mao knew that it was nearly impossible to win back his authority by calling on those within the government and state institutions. This was a huge disadvantage in a country where the state was everything and there was virtually no power outside the state.

But Mao's one advantage was huge, and it had remained intact because those who'd pulled the semi-coup against him chose not to defame it(in the manner Nikita Khrushchev had done with Stalin's cult of personality, though after the great man died, to be sure). Now, sustaining Mao's lofty reputation wouldn't have mattered had he died before the Cultural Revolution. Indeed, even when Deng moved dramatically toward market economics in the 1980s, he didn't go all out in attacking Mao. He said Mao made 'serious mistakes' and innocent people were hurt; but, he maintained that Mao was still 80% good and only 20% bad, and besides, much of the blame was dumped on the Gang of Four. But as Mao was dead with no Maoist heir-apparent around, China in the 1980s could use Mao as a symbol and not worry about another Cultural Revolution; if anything, the great Tiananmen Square movement owed more to influence from the West than anything owing to Maoism.
At any rate, Mao was alive and well in the early 1960s and very much wanted his full power back, not least because his vindictive egotism could hardly forgive Liu and Deng for having bested him in the power game. After all, he didn't become the Great Helmsman in the first place by being a slouch in the game of power politics. Mao had few cards in the game but the trump card. Because the Liu-and-Deng faction had dared not discredit Mao in terms of prestige, Mao not only continued to control the gods but was the god himself in China. He was still the one-and-only Red Emperor even if his underlings in the state bypassed him and went to Liu and Deng for instructions. Because he was still the god of China idolized by many millions, especially the impressionable and restless young, he had a magic bullet against Liu and Deng. Masses of violent youths invoking his name could exert tremendous pressure on the state, especially as the state officially propped up Mao as the one-and-only great leader. One other thing Mao needed was the support of the military, and he secured this by recruiting Lin Piao who, for personal and other reasons, was at odds with Liu and Deng. So, Mao, backed by masses of youths whose violence was tolerated and even protected by the military, could deal a serious blow to the Liu-Deng faction and the bureaucracy as a whole.

Now, why couldn't Liu and Deng fight back? One reason was they didn't have the iron will and utter ruthlessness of Mao. Also, they lacked imagination and refused to believe(until it was too late) that Mao was capable of something so insane to destroy with his enemies, real and imaginary. They knew Mao could be erratic but couldn't imagine him waging war on the state itself and destroying his closest collaborators in service of his own ego. But, more importantly, they'd stuck with the idolatry and narrative of Mao as god-emperor of China and World Revolution. So, whatever they'd done(against Maoism) in day-to-day affairs of running the state, they'd spoken up for Mao Zedong Thought as the greatest thing since steamed buns. So, what moral or ideological argument could they have against the millions of Red Guards who were rabid in their passion for all-things-Mao? Indeed, the sad and pathetic thing is Liu, even as the walls were closing in on him, did all he could do to appease Mao and the Red Guards by hunting down 'class enemies' and 'capitalist roaders' when, in fact, the main target of Mao was none other than himself. So, even as Mao was making him out to be the devil to destroy, he acted as if Mao was the god to appease.
Things would have been different if, following the disaster of the Great Leap, a proper coup had been pulled off against Mao(like the one against Khrushchev who was not only toppled but disgraced). In contrast, Liu and Deng weren't willing to bite the bullet and go for total removal of Mao from power. Whether Mao still had too much power/support or Liu & Deng lacked the iron balls to go all in, Mao was allowed to keep his throne and prestige as the Great Helmsman, without whom the sun doesn't rise in the East. So, even though Mao lost much of the power-of-man, he kept the power-of-god. He was still the object of worship, whereas Liu and Deng, though having the authority of the state, weren't objects of veneration.
It's telling that Mao understood this dynamics in regard to Khrushchev. When Khrushchev fell from power, Mao mused that Khrushchev's position had been vulnerable due to his failure, unwillingness, or inability to cultivate his own myth. Those around him in the Soviet State could remove Khrushchev because he was regarded merely as a political leader than the god of the nation. Had there been a cult of personality around him, the Soviet state would have thought twice about removing him so suddenly and unceremoniously. In contrast, precisely because Mao held onto his quasi-divine status, even Liu and Deng(and their supporters) who'd done much to reverse Maoist policies nevertheless professed undying fealty to him in their official capacity. They could quietly do 'no' to Maoism but had to loudly say 'yes' to Mao-Idolatry or Maodolatry.
But this made them vulnerable and defenseless against attacks when the Cultural Revolution came charging right at them. If indeed they professed to be adherents of Maodolatry, why had they acted as 'capitalist roaders' with their 'reforms'? Why did they act like the 'bourgeoisie' in creating a bureaucracy that acted independently of Mao's knowledge and approval? At best, they were hypocrites who claimed to revere Mao but pushed anti-Maoism, and at worst, they were crypto-capitalist agents who'd planned all along to subvert communism and set China on the path to 'reactionary' capitalism. So, even though Liu and Deng had much of the CCP government behind them, they were ineffective in pushing back against the Maoist tide because both sides(indeed all sides) had to be pro-Mao. Mao's side hailed Mao as all-knowing, wise, and awesome ruler, and Liu's faction(though having gained power by sidelining Mao in day-to-day running of the state) also praised Mao as the great and tremendous ruler. But if both sides were agreed that Mao is so supremely superb, then the side that fudged even a little bit on Mao Worship must have been at fault. After all, if both A and B are agreed that C is awesomely awesome, B could be in hot water if it says C is 99% great than 100% great. Why the 1% of doubt when C is awesomely awesome? Shouldn't one be 100% for C and aspire to be 110%?

Even though Liu and Deng had gained at the expense of Mao in the CCP, neither developed a counter-cult of their own. Even with expanded political power, they allowed Mao to own all the mythic aura. Liu had political authority but Mao kept the divine authority. Liu had loyal humdrum bureaucrats, but Mao could muster up millions of rabid devotees and crusaders willing to do ANYTHING in his name. So, even when Mao's red crusaders came knocking on Liu's door to berate him, rough him up, and remove him from power, his only defense was that he'd been a loyal and stalwart supporter of Mao. When Mao waged a campaign against him, he didn't dare wage a counter-campaign against Mao but only tried to demonstrate his utmost devotion to Mao. Even after he was brutalized and lay in prison rotting away to a miserable death, his side presented no argument against Mao but only maintained that it'd been misunderstood because its support for Mao had always been unwavering. Deng's family was also attacked, and Deng himself was put under house-arrest, but his defense was always pro-Maoist, willing to confess errors in having deviated from the Maoist line that was of course infallible.

Now, what parallels can we draw between what happened in China from 1962 and 1966(when the Cultural Revolution exploded on the scene) and what happened in the US from 2016 to 2020(when the Deep State coup against Trump took off in earnest with Covid hysteria and BLM riots)? Even though the problems faced by Americans in the era of globalism pale in comparison with the horrors of the Great Leap Forward, many Americans, especially since the end of the Cold War, have felt that the massive transformations have benefited the cosmo-urban elites at the expense of everyone else. Many Americans, especially white ones, don't feel this is their country anymore. Not only did the US lose a lot of working class jobs but the cultural degeneracy has negatively impacted so many lives with family dysfunction, drug overdose, and the general culture of ugliness. For the upper elites of America(and in the modern world in general), they never had it so good as under globalism. But for many Americans, middle class and down, things have been getting worse and worse. What Mao and the globalists share is the confidence, indeed arrogance, of history being on their side. Their way is the way, an inevitability. And they are so totally right, and if anything goes wrong, the fault is always with others than with themselves. And just like Mao, having amassed all that power, became accustomed to everyone agreeing with him and never faulting him for anything, the globalists(with Jewish supremacists at the top) got used to their monopoly hold on power and grew utterly intolerant of anyone who dared to say NO to their agenda, be it Open Borders for Europe or 'gay marriage' all around. Jewish megalomania came to match Mao's megalomania. And just like Mao was prone to thinking big, Jewish power-lust lost all sense of limits. Not only did Jews turn the world upside down with new economic arrangements(mainly to enrich themselves), but they also pushed various wars that drained the US treasury and cost thousands of lives(and maimed many more in wars that never seemed to end). But in all this, Jews got no blame, and/or the blame was shunted off to others, especially white goyim.

Then, just like there was a backlash to Mao's insanely conceived Great Leap Forward, an agenda driven by blind hubris, there was a backlash to the New World Order or Jew World Order in the form of nationalism and populism as embodied by Donald Trump(among others), a new kind of politician the US hadn't seen in many years, perhaps since Theodor Roosevelt or, even further back, Andrew Jackson. Especially the fact that Donald Trump won the election despite pushback by the entire Power Apparatus showed how deep the disenchantment was among large swathes of Americans. It seemed to imply that the Jew World Order, which took off with Bill Clinton and accelerated under George W. Bush & Barack Obama, was at odds with many Americans. And even those who voted for Hillary showed no great enthusiasm for the Neo-Liberal order in which the Democratic Party replaced the GOP as the party of the business class, all the while desperately clinging to the mantle of Progressive politics.

Just like the failure of the Great Leap Forward forced Maoism to retreat within the Chinese state, the problems of globalism elevated Trump to presidency, and for his supporters, it meant the restoration of national sovereignty, repairing of US borders, an economic reset with China(that worked hand-in-glove with US globalists), ending pointless overseas wars, and finding common ground with Russia(to avert another stupid and costly 'cold war'). And even though Trump couldn't do much(as he was surrounded by hostile Deep State players and also because his main instincts are that of a charlatan-hustler than an idealist and man of principles), illegal immigration did decline, there were no new wars, and 'woke' idiocy was restrained some. While Trump couldn't turn the car around and drive in the opposite direction, he was able to apply some brakes. All said and done, for all his bluster, Trump sought middle-ground with the Deep State. Partly, it was because the 'swamp' was the only game in town but it was also because Trump's vanity wanted acceptance and validation by the People of Power. Even as he became president by garnering votes from the hoi polloi by vilifying the ruling elites, he used his position to gain respect from the 'better kind of people'. In this, Trump miscalculated the ruling elites, especially the Jews, as much as Liu and Deng miscalculated Mao in the post-Great-Leap years of stabilization. Even though or especially because Liu and Deng restored the Chinese economy(and got well-deserved credit), Mao's fury boiled over. Mao's megalomania simply couldn't share credit with others; Mao's pride could barely accept any blame for anything he did, no matter how disastrous. Therefore, Mao was hellbent on using whatever means to bring down Liu & Deng to show who's the real boss. Likewise, Trump failed to understand the true nature of Jewish Power. Perhaps, if Anglo-Americans still constituted the uppermost elites of America, they might have been willing to accommodate Trump and populism, as indeed such had happened in the past. But the new ruling elites of America were Jews, and they simply couldn't brook any criticism or settle on compromise with filthy goyim. By hook or by crook, they were determined to topple Trump and utterly destroy the mass movement associated with him.

Jewish power was so deranged in its agenda to punish American Populism and Trump that it didn't care about the negative consequences for the the country and the world(much of which is a mere satellite of American Power, which in turn is a tool of the Empire of Judea). Mao was willing to do ANYTHING to regain total power as the indisputable ruler of China. It wasn't enough to be god-emperor of the Red Middle Kingdom. He had to be the Big Boss at whose feet everyone in government trembled. To intimidate the bureaucrats who were loyal to Liu, Mao needed rage mobs who hollered with clenched fists, ready to accuse anyone of being a foreign spy, a 'capitalist-roader', Soviet agent, reactionary, and etc. And of course, one couldn't debate any of these issues. When mobs of young radicals come at you in fever-pitch of rabid hysteria, all you could do is plead for mercy or chant along with the mantras in the hope that you'd be accepted as one-of-them. It's like zombies don't attack fellow zombies(in DAWN OF THE DEAD), and pod people don't go after fellow pod people(in THE INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS). Mao knew he was playing with fire, but it didn't matter. If Red Guards were to turn China upside down, beat up countless people(virtually all of them falsely charged), destroy artworks & cultural heritage, paralyze the state, and create all kinds of havoc across the nation, the price was worth the cost as far as Mao was concerned. His megalomania demanded that he be absolute ruler in every way. The horrible consequences for many Chinese were merely an afterthought to Mao. He mattered more than the rest. He was China, China was him.
Jewish Power feels much like Mao. Just ask the Palestinians or Syrians. Just ask the Iraqi children whose dead lives were 'worth it' in the words of Madeleine Albright. Jewish Power is ethno-megalomaniacal. Jews feel that the US, as the 'lone super power', belongs to them. They believe they are the rightful rulers of America and masters over inferior goyim. Jews are resolved on turning white Americans into a minority. They boast about this with hideous glee but have the gall to blame whites of 'antisemitism' and 'white supremacism' when whites notice. They are committed to using Diversity to make goyim fight among themselves. They demand that all goyim, white-black-yellow-brown-etc, bow down before Jews.
But then, Trump came along with 'America First', which reminded Jews of Charles Lindbergh's movement. To Jews, 'America First' reeked of "goyim should put goy interests first instead of whoring out to Jews 24/7". Also, Trumpers seemed defiant of the Narrative pushed by Jews. Even after all these years of mass manipulation via media and academia, the Trump movement showed that many Americans, at least half, weren't with the program or not fully. Of course, Trump and his supporters mindlessly praised Jews and Israel, but that wasn't good enough. Jews sensed a crack in their total hold on power in America, and they were going to do ANYTHING to regain it. And just like Mao didn't care about the consequences of the Cultural Revolution, Zion-First Power didn't care how negatively America and the world might be impacted under their agenda of mass hysteria and violence. What if countless small businesses were to face ruin? What if many people wouldn't be treated for serious illnesses? What if school lockdowns would lead to widespread depression and loneliness among students, as well as degrade their education? What if Americans would grow paranoid of another? What if constitutional rights would be violated? None of this mattered to Jews. Whatever threat Covid-19 posed, it could have been handled far more rationally and sensibly, but the most extreme measures were pushed with the aim of consolidating power in the state, favoring mega-globalist corporations at the expense of small businesses, and reducing the majority of people into scared sheeple with faces veiled with masks(though many wore them as face badges of commitment). But that wasn't enough. If Covid-19 was a statist attack on Trump & populist-nationalism from the tower, BLM lunacy was an attack on American Patriotism from the streets. Just like Jewish Power didn't care how many people were harmed by the medical tyranny of Covid Hysteria, they didn't care about the victims of racial violence and riots as long as they hurt Trump's chance of re-election. The very Jews who'd pushed mass-immigration and mass-incarceration to reduce black crime(to make way for urban gentrification) did a turn-about and unleashed black rage and mass violence to shore up black support for the Democratic Party and to beat White America once again with the stick of 'white guilt'. ANYTHING to have it their way. So, just like Mao was willing to sacrifice the well-being of the entire nation to regain total control, Jewish Power was willing to terrorize and brutalize the entire country as a form of quasi-divine punishment upon goyim for having defied any aspect of the New/Jew World Order agenda.

While the Covid Hysteria and BLM violence didn't impact the US as badly as the Cultural Revolution did China, they were in some ways more troubling. After all, it was hardly surprising that a totalitarian communist system could unleash such mass lunacy. Red Guards had been indoctrinated from cradle on nothing but Maoism. Their entire formative experience had been under Mao's rule. And besides, Marxism-Leninism at its core was a radical ideology. Combined with Mao's megalomania and vestiges of Oriental Despotism(as well as the Asiatic tendency to conform and obey), that something like the Cultural Revolution could happen wasn't exactly all that shocking. In contrast, the US has long billed itself as a country of Rule of Law guided by secular culture and rationalism going back to the Enlightenment. Americans have also prided themselves on moderation and pragmatism, which was why there was a swift backlash against Sixties radicalism. Americans have also been big on individualism, the idea that one's dignity is independent of the state or the mob. Richard Nixon's landslide in 1972 was a testament to that. Even the Liberal Establishment that sympathized with blacks and radicals soon soured of the mass violence and terrorist acts. Besides, the Democratic Party then wasn't just made up of armchair 'progressive' types but white ethnics who dominated the political machines in big cities. They were Democratic but socially conservative and patriotic in many respects.

But things were different in 2020. The white middle class had imbibed all the craziness. Their feelings about blacks went way beyond sympathy; it was more like reverence, even worship. Cut off from roots, their entire worldview came from PC education(controlled by Jews), mass media(controlled by Jews), and idolatrous pop culture(controlled by Jews). Rootless and spineless, they bent to every fad and fashion, every rage of the moment. Not only had the Silent Majority come close to being a Silent Minority but the very white middle class that one would expect to serve as the bulwark of sanity, stability, and common sense was swept up in what came to be known as 'wokeness', rather odd when the so-called 'woke' are, far from being sober and awake, drugged by PC.
Indeed, this led to a crisis of confidence among middle class whites. In terms of their livelihoods, they are much like the middle class of old: well-off or affluent with stable jobs. But unlike the past middle class, they are under the spell of 'radical' ideology, or more like idolatry, because the new radicalism owes less to a set of principles than the special cult-idolization of certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos. In the past, a middle class person had middle class views. Today, a middle class person, having been influenced by Jewish-run academia, mass media, and pop culture, is likely to have 'radical' views, if only out of conceit of being 'more evolved' and 'committed'. This leads to self-loathing, a sense of having compromised with 'white privilege', especially when they are so convinced of 'wokeness'. Thus, if past middle class pushed back against the violence of radicals and blacks, today's middle class is likely to cheer it on(even if from a safe distance in their nicer and whiter neighborhoods). And why not when, even more incredibly, the very apparatus of the state from top to bottom fanned the flames of racial violence as righteous reckoning against so many innocent Americans who were harassed, beaten in the streets, and/or had their properties destroyed? Imagine that, the very state that exists to protect people from mob violence actually fanned the flames of violence against regular people... and so many regular white people cheered this on. The people of power from Washington D.C. down to the local level made excuses for Antifa thugs and BLM rioters(who were called 'mostly peaceful protesters' by the Jewish-run media).
Just like Mao unleashed the Red Guards to cause havoc all over China and ordered the military to stand back and let the violence take place, the very power of the US state in 2020 sided with street violence, mob rage, and lunacy. And when Trump called on the state to do something, it rebuffed the president and accused him of 'fascist tendencies'. (This is the very state that accused the far less violent rioters at the Capitol on Jan 6 as 'domestic terrorists' and 'insurrectionists' and used heavy military presence to barricade the entire city.) Of course, the state acted thus because US government is now mostly made up of goy cucks to Jewish Masters. If Jews want it, they get it. Jews want to keep total power, and goy cucks who made their careers under Jewish Power are too ashamed to face the fact of their perfidy. So, they pretend they're on the side of 'social justice' and work with Jews to attack nationalism and populism.

Given how the US bills itself as a Liberal Democracy defined by moderation, rule of law, freedom, individuality, dialogue, and concern for truth, the events of 2020 were more horrific than the Cultural Revolution. Far fewer people died, but how could this happen in a so-called democracy? How could a country based on Rule of Law do nothing to protect regular people from mob violence and, if anything, fan the mob violence by protecting Antifa thugs(who are hardly charged for anything) and coddling black rioters and thugs as 'mostly peaceful protesters'? Maoist China going nuts was predictable. Liberal Democratic US going nuts in this way was shocking. Indeed, it proved that US is not a liberal democracy but a ethno-monopolistic tyranny dominated by Jews who now treat white Americans like Israeli Jews treat Palestinians. US is no longer about negotiations between elites and the masses. It's about Jews saying, "We want this" and demanding that all goyim meekly comply... or else.
In the past, such would have been impossible for Jews as the great majority of white Americans were patriotic and had pride in their own identity. But especially since the Sixties, generations of whites came under Jewish mind control and don't know how to stand up for themselves. The very notion of 'white interests' has become anathema. Jews have convinced whites that white justification for existence can only derive from its usefulness to Holy Jews, Noble Negroes, and Wondrous Homos. Jews, who'd argued in favor of the Constitution in the past when free speech suited their needs, are now totally against the First Amendment. The Jewish Way is 'our way or the highway'. Just ask the Palestinians. Thus, current US is less guided by the Constitution than by a Cult. The Cult of Ethnicity, that of Jewish Supremacists who believe they are the best, know best, and deserve the best; therefore, we goyim exist only to obey and follow. If we dare have views of our own and speak truth to Jewish Power, we are to be smeared, deplatformed, destroyed, denied banking services, and etc.

Given all such craziness, one might have expected Americans to really wake up and push back. And yet, Jewish Power has prevailed for the same reason Mao prevailed against Liu and his supporters in the bureaucracy. In China, Mao was god; and Mao Zedong Thought was the sacred dogma of the land, even as Liu and Deng deviated from it to restore the Chinese economy. So, the conflict wasn't between pro-Mao people and anti-Mao people but between pro-Mao radicals(Red Guards & the Gang of Four) and pro-Mao pragmatists(Liu and Deng). Even Liu and Deng who built up their own political base and deviated from hardline Maoism nevertheless praised Mao as the great and awesome sun that rises in the east in their official capacity. Thus, when push came to shove in the ideological campaigns, the pragmatists had to answer for having deviated from the Maoist line. If indeed Mao is all-knowing and so great, how dare Liu, Deng, and their supporters embark on any program that could only be heretical to Maoism. Thus, Liu and Deng were doomed.

Likewise, as virtually everyone that matters in the US worship the same gods(controlled by Jews), it was difficult for Trump and his base to push back against BLM lunacy and the Jewish Power behind it. Both parties worship MLK as bigger than god and jesus. Both parties go on and on about Magic Negroes. Both parties say white 'racism' was, is, and will be the worst-thing-ever. Both parties believe it's wrong to blame blacks for anything; why, that'd be 'racist'. And of course, both parties are totally owned by Jews. Goyim in both parties are obsequious in their awe of Jews and/or deathly afraid of them. So, just like Liu praised Mao even as he was brutalized and driven to death by Mao's goons, Trump continued to praise Jews and Israel to high heaven even as World Jewry was doing everything to pull his pants down, twack his penis with a mouse-trap, piss all over him, smear him with feces, and ram a big hot pepper up his arse. Against all that, Trump's response was "I give Jews the best blowjobs and let me prove it once again." And even as blacks were burning down cities, attacking MAGA people, and badmouthing the Donald, his response was a Platinum Plan for the glorious Negroes.
The parallels with the Cultural Revolution are truly amazing. It goes to show that those who control the gods have tremendous leverage over those who don't. Those who control the gods decide the terms of heresy. The accused heretic is at a disadvantage because he too claims to believe in the same gods. But if so, why the heresy from the official dogma? Unlike a blasphemer who proudly spits on the dogma, the heretic claims that he is a true believer and pleads for understanding and sympathy. Jews control the gods, and the American Cult(as opposed to the American Constitution) is about the divinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (The fact that the Power turned a blind eye to so many immigrant groups attacked by blacks and Antifa goes to show that Diversity matters far less. While useful against whites, diverse folks of various backgrounds, often immigrant in nature, are ignored when harmed by blacks or Jews. Whether it's Asians attacked by black street thugs or Muslims/Arabs traumatized by Wars for Israel, they take a backseat to Jews, blacks, and homos.) Trump, for all his attempts to slow down immigration, pledged his fealty to the same gods, those controlled by Jews. For all the Jewish hostility toward him, he was always servile to Jewish Power. Despite most blacks sticking with the Democrats and using election fraud against him, Trump's attitude has been, "Mr. Super-Negro, can I suck your dic*?" And Trump's been chicken on the homo issue.
So, how could he push back in his four yrs in office? Jews attack Trump as 'worse than Hitler' and his MAGA followers as 'deplorable Nazis', but Trump only praises Jews and sucks up to Israel. Jews punch him in the face, and he kisses their toes. Jews kick him in the stomach, and he goes down to offer another blowjob. Jews fan black rage at Trump's America, and Trump sings paeans to that scumbag George Fentanyl Floyd. This is why nothing will change unless white patriots stop worshiping the gods controlled by Jews. Though Christianity is now a defunct religion, the cry of "Jesus is King" is somewhat useful against Jewish Power. At the very least, it says there is something bigger, holier, higher, and deeper than Jewishness(and globo-homo and Magic Negro). But for most in the GOP establishment, their sacrament is "Jews, blacks, and homos are king", and this goes for Trump as well. When your enemy attacks you but you accept his divinity, how can you win? His divinity lends him leverage over you. He is godly, whereas you're just a man. Worse, what if your type has been associated with deviltry, as Jews have done with whiteness? Indeed, the core of so-called 'wokeness' is all about maintaining Jewish Supremacist Power. Jewish Power relies on white obeisance, and Jews figure whites must be paralyzed with 'white guilt' and self-loathing to be made sorry-ass, servile, and submissive to Jewish Power. On the outside, 'wokeness' sells itself as 'equity' and 'social justice', but it's really a tool of undermining white identity and preventing white liberation to keep whites as soul-slaves of Jewish Supremacists. Whites aren't, as yet, physical slaves, but many of them are already soul-slaves as they've been made emotionally incapable of breaking free of Jewish tyranny and its Noble Negro 'white-guilt' trips. It's as if Jews are doing to the white race what Jewish Mothers had done to their sons over the ages. It's like what Ramzpaul says about how so many whites have been made more sensitive to black pain than white pain.

Now, in some ways, the analogy of Mao and the Cultural Revolution seems the reverse of what's been presented above. One could argue Trump has been like Mao whereas Jews and the Deep State have been like Liu & Deng. After all, the Cultural Revolution was an alliance of demagogic Mao and the crowd against the bureaucratic Deep State controlled by Liu and Deng. Prior to Liu's downfall, he had the bureaucracy on his side. Most people in the state apparatus preferred Liu and Deng over Mao for their relative stability, pragmatism, and consistency. Mao, ever so erratic, seemed unstable and unreliable. Because the deep state of China was solidly with Liu, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution that called on youths all across the nation to converge in Beijing. Then, he ordered the youths to 'bombard the headquarters' and to give hell to the bureaucrats and so-called 'experts'. One may seen parallels between that and Trump's calling on the Deplorables to come to Washington D.C. on January 6 to send a clear message to politicians and the state, which is 96% Democratic in D.C. And when the Capitol building was stormed, it seemed like Deplorables were having their 'bombard the headquarters' moment. But as it turned out, the violence was limited, and most people who entered the building just walked around. And order was soon restored and the whole city was put on military lockdown(something that was denied when the city was aflame during the BLM riots). Indeed, even though Trump sure could work up a crowd, there was very little pro-Trump violence from 2016 to 2020. Trumpian populism was about enthusiasm, not violence. The Red-Guard-like violence came from Antifa types, 'woke' mobs, and black thugs. Even college geeks committed more acts of violence than working class Trump supporters. Nothing the Deplorables did resembled the Cultural Revolution or what happened on Kristallnacht in Germany. Indeed, pogrom-like violence were almost entirely carried out by blacks and Antifa types, often with support and protection by the Jewish-run media and Jewish-run legal teams working pro-bono.

Also, even if one were to note certain parallels between Trump and Mao, the biggest difference is Trump didn't control the gods whereas Mao did(and went one better by being the god of China). Trump, for all his vanity and swagger, never had godlike aura. He was a star and had star power, but it falls short of divine power. It's like Muhammad Ali called himself greatest in the ring but was humble before Allah and Muhammad. It's like Elvis Presley answered the question about him being the 'King of Rock n Roll' with "There's but one King(Jesus)". Ali and Elvis were stars, not gods. Trump as politician was certainly a star, but he was no god and didn't control the gods. All said and done, his gods were those controlled by the Jewish Power: Holy Jews and Noble Negroes. He deviated from the other side in not being so totally into globo-homo, but his political bible was about prostrating himself before Jews and Negroes as gods. Even as he reached out to the white masses, he never said anything positive about whiteness, and he did far more for Jews and blacks than he did for whites(which is why his share of the vote among white males dipped in 2020).
In the US of 2020, it was the Jewish-run deep state that controlled the gods. Thus, it had the Mao-like power. And having such power, it unleashed the American variant of the Cultural Revolution, which might as well be called the Cult Revolution as it's about the cult of Jews and Negroes.
On that note, what happened in 2020 America was in reverse dynamics of what happened in 1966 China. In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Mao called on the mass violence whereas Liu's deep state sought to contain and control it. In contrast, it was the Jewish-run US deep state that engineered the Cult Revolution of Covid Hysteria and BLM madness, whereas Trump, for all his star power, was helpless to stop or contain it. In more ways than one, Trump was in a far weaker position that Liu and Deng. At the very least, Liu and Deng had the Chinese deep state on their side. But because they were confronted with millions of rabid youths and besides also acknowledged Maoism as the highest law/truth of the land, they could no longer maintain control. In contrast, Trump controlled nothing when the madness of 2020 hit. The deep state was totally controlled by Jews and goy cucks. The military was mostly on the side of the Deep State. All the big city mayors worked with Jews to push the anti-populist agenda. The energized youth, brainwashed by academia-media-pop-culture, were the tools of the Jewish elites. If in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Liu controlled the deep state whereas Mao controlled the gods and the youth, with the military sitting somewhere in the middle(though ultimately siding with Mao), the Cult Revolution of 2020 America pit Jewish Power that controlled the gods, the deep state, the youth, and most of the military(now a cuck organization) against Trump who controlled nothing but only occupied the office of presidency; he couldn't even keep his Twitter account. The deplorables were useless to Trump. As most were white, they were devils in the eyes of the gods controlled by Jews. The gods are Jews, blacks, and homos. Whiteness is the new satan in America, therefore the only proper role of whiteness is shame, guilt, self-loathing, and struggle for redemption. If whiteness is satanic, then the sight of whites proudly taking part in politics is blasphemous in the eyes of the current gods. Trump rallied the white crowds but couldn't salute their identity or inheritance. Appealing to white masses was a double-edged sword. Trump might win over white votes, but his association with white enthusiasm/pride suggested the evil of 'racism' and 'white supremacism', and of course anything that is mildly pro-white is now deemed 'white supremacist'. Pro-white politics became the Satanic Strategy according to the gods controlled by Jews. Also, unlike Red Guards who could engage in wanton violence, the Deplorables were mostly nice people. For all the Jewish smears about Trump's 'nazi'-like supporters, most Deplorables dared not commit any act of violence, and indeed, most Trumpian violence was in self-defense against blacks and Antifa thugs encouraged by vile Jewish Power.

Because the Cultural Revolution was so crazy, it seemed only an erratic megalomaniac like Mao would dare let such thing happen. Indeed, it's difficult to imagine Liu, Deng, and the Chinese deep state pulling such lunacy. It was the child of crazy man Mao.
But in the America of 2020, it was the deep state that engineered the Cult Revolution. To be sure, the Covid-Hysteria and its controls seemed very deep-statist as it meant more state power over individuals and entire communities. But the BLM riots were something quite else. The deep state, despite its obsession with control, let loose anarchy in the streets(that even went against Covid lockdown dictates) and allowed cities to burn. The deep state even allowed the mobs to attack government buildings and ordered cops to stand back and do nothing. Some have compared this to Color Revolutions, but those were engineered to destroy other nations. What makes 2020 America an outlier is the deep state attacked its own country in chemotherapy manner. But then, who controls the deep state? Jewish Supremacism. Jewish Megalomania > Deep State. Jewish Supremacism regarded Trump and populism to be so malignant(and at odds with total Jewish domination) that radical treatment of especially potent anarcho-tyranny was deemed necessary. Use Covid-19 to gain statist tyranny over the populace and then use the anarcho-madness of BLM to terrorize White America into submission out of fear and/or guilt.

And yet, after all that, the gods are still the same. Both parties still worship Jews and blacks(and homos). It's like Mao's star never faded in China. Even after the Great Leap Forward that destroyed at least 25 million lives, Mao was god. Even after the Cultural Revolution that caused so much damage, he was god. Even after Deng returned to power and embarked on fundamental economic reforms sometime after Mao's death, Mao still remained god. Even now, when the Chinese economy has nothing to do with Maoism, he is the god of the CCP.
It seems Jews now possess the same kind of grip over the white world. No matter what Jews do, they are to be praised. This is true even of Russia. After what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s and given the 'new cold war' against Russia engineered by Jews, you'd think Putin would be anti-Jewish. But nope, no matter how much Jews abuse Russia, Putin is still all about honoring and praising Jewishness. If the relatively nationalist Russia acts like that, imagine the hold that Jews have over America and EU. Jews got Mao-power or Mao-Pow over the West. Even after all the foreign policy disasters and economic wreckage caused by Jewish Power, all we hear from US and EU politicians, leaders, and public figures is "Muh Israel" and "We worship Jews".
Jews really did a number on the West with the Holocaust Narrative that would have us believe wholly innocent Jews were set upon by totally wicked and irrational 'Anti-Semites' all through the ages. But so much of what Jews call 'antisemitic tropes' are really 'antisemitic' truths. Jews need to be toppled from god status for the current madness to ever come to an end. And it's about time people discussed the Holo-Cause than the Holocaust. Holo-Cause would be an honest examination as to why so many goyim were driven into murderous rage toward Jews. What were the true causes of the events that led to the tragedy of the Holocaust? Sure, there were many bad goy players, but it takes two to tango, and there were plenty of bad Jews. The idea that Jews were totally nice, decent, and wonderful but were mass-murdered for the hell of it is total science fiction... and the basis of Jews being the new-christs of the West.

FACEBOOK BANS TRUNEWS OVER POLLARD TREASON AND GAETZ-MOSSAD SCANDAL COMMENTARY

Saturday, April 10, 2021

Notes on Review of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE(dir. Stanley Kubrick based on Anthony Burgess Novel) in Counter-Currents

https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/a-clockwork-orange/

although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated

Dumb, no. Distasteful, yes, but how could it be otherwise given the content. Highly rated by some but denounced by just as many, and the film continues to have detractors who, while acknowledging Kubrick's mastery, take exception to this treatment. It was as underrated as overrated.

They... use a confidence trick (“There’s been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?”) to invade a couple’s home, whereupon they beat the man, rape his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.

But how could it be tasteful, especially when most of the film is from Alex's subjectivity? Alex is a crazy guy, and the whole film is seen through his predatory eyes. He isn't a man of taste(by conventional standards) though he does think rather highly of himself as an aesthete who reveres the genius of Beethoven. As he sees it, he's cut above the rest, a natural leader. He is anti-christ, and his droogs are merely anti-disciples. Also, he sees himself as an artist of mayhem. There is flamboyance to his aggression, a vision to the madness. It's as if his crime spree is a performance art, an ultra-violent version of the pantomime troubadour in Michelangelo Antonioni's BLOW-UP. Alex feels as a natural aristocrat, a pop-Nietzschean star of the streets who makes up his own rules. No wonder Kubrick thought of casting Mick Jagger in the role. Sympathy for the Devil.

That Alex should be locked up or executed reads like a non-sequitur. It's social commentary unrelated to the film and its purpose. I don't know of Kubrick's stance on justice and capital punishment, but the film is not about what kind of punishment should be meted out to people like Alex. I highly doubt Kubrick was cheering on the violence or thought the Alexes of the world should be treated leniently; after all, he led a life not unlike that of the writer whose home is invaded. Rather, he features an horrific act from both objective and subjective modes, which makes the scene all the more disorienting. On the one hand, Kubrick just watches and takes note in 'cinema verite' style; it's like reportage of rape done by the Maysles Brothers. Yet, it's also like the pig-hunt in LORD OF THE FLIES. William Golding made the reader share in the ecstasy(with sexual overtones) of the pursuit and kill. It's something more than search for food. It's the thrill of violence and unfettered freedom.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in presenting the violence raw, oscillating between cold-eyed detachment and wild-eyed exuberance, was being daring(with unprecedented depiction of violence) and also daring us to find our own equilibrium. Traditionally, violence by bad people was presented with strong moral overtones, like when Liberty Valance robs and assaults people. It's as if even the bad guys knew of the moral equation. In being fiendishly mean and nasty, they were proving a point, paving the way for good guys to put things to right. That element made violence in older movies less disturbing and more comforting. Plenty of villains act nastily in Cecil B. DeMille movies, but we know it's bad-guys-acting-bad and furthermore our sympathy is directed toward the victims(who are often featured as noble or saintly). Or in Ida Lupino's THE HITCHHIKER, we know the villain is a real scumbag, and we never stop worrying for the hostages. Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO comes close to making us identify with Norman Bates, but the moral conundrum is resolved by featuring him as a hopelessly sick person(in the clinical sense).
In contrast, ACO is the-world-according-to-a-sociopath and hardly wavers from that position. Also, unlike BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH that halfway try to ennoble or humanize the characters — Robin Hoods in hard times or outlaws who fight for honor — , there is nothing redemptive about Alex who exults in nihilism in the final scene. One could argue Kubrick chose not to do the moral or emotional homework for us. Another director might have padded or slanted the film to make it clearer that Alex is a bad guy, a brutalizer, even a killer of innocents. (A good example is the TV movie HITLER: THE RISE OF EVIL that leaves no stone unturned that Hitler was a bad, bad, very, very bad-bad guy lest anyone get the wrong idea. Though Hitler is almost always on screen, he is made repellent at every turn. It's well-known Hitler was an animal-lover, but the TV movies denies him even that; a dog senses his demon soul, barks at him, and is killed by him. DENIAL, the movie about David Irving, is also slanted to leave no doubt that he's Mr. Miserable, evil incarnate. In contrast, Kubrick chose to give the devil his due in ACO and leave it up to us to judge or not. Alex plays it like he's the son of satan but too wily even for his other-father who'd do better with Damien in the OMEN movies.) Some might argue that Kubrick went too far and overly indulged Alex, i.e. he isn't merely presented as a sociopath but like a rock star, a rebel with cause-celebre. But then, the film is essentially seen through Alex's eyes and narrated by him. It is not an objective presentation, like with Hitler and cohorts in DOWNFALL. It makes for an interesting contrast with the next film BARRY LYNDON with its third-person narrator. While it remains with Barry from beginning to end, it's never quite his story. He is the observed than the observer. In contrast, Anthony Burgess wrote the book as a tall-tale of a demented youth, and it has the advantage of the 'unreliable narrator'. As with Voltaire's CANDIDE, we can never tell if the story is true in its entirety. In contrast, it's more difficult to suggest unreliability in movies that show everything in detail.

In some ways, the rape scene in ACO is even harder to take than the one in Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS. While both are disturbing, the violation in the latter is presented gravely, one where senses and emotions are pushed to the limit. Also, the rapist in STRAW DOGS has strong feelings for the woman, and even as she resists, a part of her surrenders to the alpha of the pack. It's a serious transgression done with serious emotions.
In contrast, the rape in ACO is like an extension of the joy-ride with the stolen car. The rape meshes tragedy with comedy(even with a musical). The gaiety of the moment(for Alex and his droogs) is utterly indifferent to the gravity of the act. At the very least, both the perpetrator and the victim in STRAW DOGS were agreed on the seriousness of the situation. The rape in ACO has an element of elation, even ecstasy, but it's also childlike, and perhaps there is a relation between sociopathy and child psychology. As deviant and nasty as Alex is(he is also intelligent), there is something 'innocent' about his deeds and emotions. Children have limited empathy, which develops later. At least in part, sociopaths may be dangerous precisely because something within them fails to grow out of childhood. So, even as they develop adult ambition and sexuality, a part of their psychology remains childlike and fails to appreciate the full consequences of their actions on others. Just like children are fixated mostly on 'my fun', sociopaths see other people as their 'toys'. The rape scene in ACO is like child-play with adult-victims as 'toys'. That creates emotional dissonance in the viewer. The scene is like an episode of Romper Room with Rape. So 'innocent' in its perversion.
It throws us off-balance. How are we to react to the scene? One possibility is to laugh along in the manner of Animal House, but then, we would have to be pretty demented. But even if one settles on moral outrage, the scene lurches between indifference and exaltation, denying us a safe-seat of judgement. And when Alex breaks into "Singin' in the Rain", it's all the more bewildering. (HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER takes it even further in mayhem, but the sheer grimness has a consistency and may be less exasperating than ACO is to some. As for MAN BITES DOG, that's just pointless.)

The rape scene is disorienting(precisely because it was done with skill & intelligence and can't be chalked up to mere exploitation or dementedness) and either acts as a challenge or a monkey wrench, especially in relation to our feelings about Alex through the rest of the film. If Alex were a grim and humorless figure like the character of HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER(which I detest as much as Nani Moretti does), it wouldn't matter so much. At the very least, it's impossible to see Henry as anything but a man-monster from beginning to end. But there are moments in ACO when Alex is funny, charming, and inspired(and even a bit endearing, but then, who says bad people can't have winning qualities?) He isn't merely funny like Joe Pesci's characters in GOODFELLAS and CASINO. There, even when you laugh at his antics, you know he's just a lowlife killer, a goomba. But Alex isn't just a sociopath but a rare breed(whose fiendish grin sweeps sins under the rug), and there's the risk of our overlooking his true nature(or even being seduced by it). There is something of the Marquis De Sade about him. Especially in the Rock Era when so many music stars' bad behavior were overlooked or even hyped for their cool factor, not to mention the effect of 007 movies and Spaghetti Westerns, it's easy to see why ACO became part of the Zeitgeist.

In a way, ACO is like a cold-eyed distillation of the driving forces behind the 60s. Boomer youths fancied themselves as idealistic and 'committed', but events like May 68 owed more to youth narcissism/nihilism than to any real understanding of the world or justice; unlike earlier forms of leftism, they were products of too-much-prosperity than too-much-poverty, more about demand for meaning than struggle for material needs, and one thing for sure, Alex's dementia can't be blamed on 'poverty', which was the pat formula for ideologues, especially in relation to bad black behavior. And yet, the search for meaning soon turned into pursuit of thrills in an era when youths were enticed with dreams of sex, music, drugs, and unfettered expressions in arts/entertainment. It's like the ending of the German film MEIN BAADER-MEINHOF KOMPLEX where the original radicals soon discover that the movement is most attractive to those with a penchant for destruction for destruction's sake; for them, ideology is really a veneer, a moral convenience, as with the would-be murderers in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD who rationalize their murder plot with 'social justice' theories of getting even with the rich 'piggies' in Hollywood.
In a way, ACO does to youth culture what DR. STRANGELOVE did to the Military-Industrial Complex. Just like the generals and wargamers of the Cold War satire are driven as much by sex and territoriality as by principles and patriotism, ACO implies that the driving spirit of youth is less idealism than ultra-narcissism. Indeed, a world where Rock Stars and the like hog the limelight of 'morality' really makes us wonder.

Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely breeds resentment.

But we can understand why. Alex is clearly superior to them in will and wit. He's got bigger brains and even bigger balls. He is the natural leader among them. In any rock band, some have more star power than others, more innate authority. Mick Jagger was the front-man for the Stones. John Lennon was the dominant force in the Beatles, even if Paul McCartney did more of the heavy-lifting. Alex is too good for his droogs, and they know it. They resent him but also envy him. They stick by him because he inspires them to do things they wouldn't on their own. But he pushes too far, and they betray him, but this happens in rock bands as well. Some have speculated that Alexander the Great was a victim of a conspiracy by his own men. Alex just can't help himself. He's a diva, he hogs the attention, and he must be boss.

All of Kubrick's films are ruminations on the game of power. ACO is about Alex who plays like knight on a chessboard but is reduced to a pawn.

The tough(and loud)talking chief guard(who could give Sgt. Hartman of FULL METAL JACKET a run for the money) can be a real son of a bitch, but he takes his job seriously and does it well. He’s totally dedicated to the system and his role in it, and such stuff interested Kubrick more than the novel’s theme about free will. ACO gave Kubrick an opportunity to delve into the workings of power. In order for the well-spoken elites to treat Alex with pseudo-civility, men like the chief guard must play the roles of enforcers, bull mastiffs. It says so much about the structure of the once-great British Empire. A world of genteel men guarded by ham-fisted men with big sticks. Those with the most power outwardly display it least because those with less power, the enforcers, strut with threat of blunt force.

The happy ending is that Alex returns to being a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism to pure cynicism in the end.

But the film never dabbled in pat moralism. If anything, Kubrick upset a lot of people precisely because of the near-total lack of any kind of moralism. Indeed, Alex's troubles out-of-prison are not treated as 'lessons' as Trevor Lynch would indicate: "Let that be a lesson to you."
It's less a lesson and more a joke on him. Alex develops a strange relationship with the audience. Because of his zany devil-may-care charisma, the audience is partially with him for the ride, a vicarious participation in thug-life. But because some of his acts are unspeakable, the audience also feel sickened as voyeuristic 'accomplices'. It's almost as if Kubrick was pulling a Ludovico Technique on us but in reverse. If Alex-the-sociopath is made to feel sick about mayhem, the audience(presumably made up of mostly normal people) is made to feel almost giddy about the violence. (Over the years, the real problem has been desensitization, especially as even young ones now grow up watching slasher movies and playing violent gory video-games. Today, a normal person is probably inundated with loads and loads of violent images, the kind that used to haunt only psychopathic minds in the past. What is the long-term psycho-social consequence of this? A nation of normal people with heads filled with manifestations of abnormal psychology?) There's a kind of love/hate feeling for Alex on part of the (normal) audience.
In a way, Kubrick's lack of judgement is not without moral value, at least in that he allows the viewer the free will to find and choose his/her own responses. In contrast, what is so offensive about PULP FICTION is Tarantino opens the sewers of demented ugliness for laughs but then pretends at the end to wrap it up with hipster-sermonizing, which is totally unconvincing.

Kubrick was fascinated with the fallibility of the perfect plan or system(most notably with the Hal 9000 computer). The ruling regime and Alex arrive at an understanding of the Perfect Solution that would satisfy both parties(and the third party, the public, as well). Due to the Ludovico treatment, Alex would be set free, which is good for him. He would no longer commit crime, which would be good for the public, and it would mean good press for the government, a boost for the ruling elites. But, as so often happens in Kubrick films, the perfect system(or the perfect game) goes awry. Alex is free but becomes the hunted, public support falters, and the regime must backtrack.
At the highest levels, it's really a matter of power, a game of who rules what, than a matter of justice. The opposition that uses Alex, even driving him to attempted suicide, is capable of anything to embarrass the ruling regime so that its members can take power. And the regime changes its tune on Alex and restores him to his original self not out of any real concern for him(or the public) or ethical principles but merely to minimize the damage to their power. To take or hold onto power, both sides will do anything. Indeed, something is a bit suspect about the Ludovico Technique. If its purpose is to prevent criminality, why show images of Hitler and the Third Reich? What does that have to do with street crime or home invasions? Hitler was a killer but not a criminal in the conventional sense. It could be the Jewish Element among those who procured the treatment, and the conditioning seems to be as ideological as medical. But then, we see this with the Covid-hysteria. It was politicized and weaponized. It was promoted as a medical issue but was really driven by politics of power among the contending elites. Granted, the US is less a two-party system than a two-puppet system with both puppet-parties having their strings pulled by the Jews. Still, even among puppets, there is the wish to be the top puppet. It's like school. No matter who is class president, he or she has to take orders from adults, but there's still prestige in the label.

Had ACO's ending been truly cynical, it would have been less disturbing. After all, DR. STRANGELOVE ends on a cynical note, and it was universally praised. The problem is the triumphalism, a kind of thug-version of the Star Child at the end of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Alex, the creature of hell, has entered the heaven of ecstasy with the backing of the powers-that-be. How did Kubrick really feel about this?

One problem is Malcolm McDowell's the only one with star power whereas everyone else plays a caricature. They do it really well, but they are relatively cartoonish in comparison to the Alex who is at least three dimensional. Star power may not make a person sympathetic, and it’s hard to imagine anyone sympathizing with Alex’s vile exploits. But star power provokes a more dangerous response in us, an adulation of the ‘cool’ nihilist who has the audacity to make up his own rules. There is the Id in each of us, but we keep it caged for good reason. But even as we fear it, we are excited by it, which is why law-abiding people root for bank robbers in movies. Or for Tony Montana with ‘balls’ in SCARFACE. Alex may not be sympathetic but is certainly made pop-mythic.

If ACO has a moral problem, Alex’s balls are too big and aglow with star power whereas his victims have been flattened into two dimensional cartoon figures who look ridiculous and don’t elicit our sympathy. It didn’t matter in DR. STRANGELOVE because EVERYONE there is a caricature and there’s consistency of vision: Mad satire from beginning to end, with everyone deserving ridicule.
In contrast, ACO is like 1/3 spectacle(not unlike SPARTACUS and 2002), 1/3 drama, and 1/3 comedy. Alex is given some dramatic gravitas, which is denied to everyone else, even his hapless victims. If Alex is humanized(and even idolized), why is everyone else only good for mockery, ridicule, or unconcern?

Apparently, the book’s final chapter was “redemptive,” but this was omitted as being contrived—as if that weren’t true of the whole story.

It was excised from the American book edition, long before the making of the film. Kubrick went with the American version. I'm of two minds about the ending of the original novel. It seems plausible given that people do change with age. But it also comes across as an afterthought and even seems irrelevant as the novel is really a satire, more about society than about any fully-realized character. Alex is an embodiment of a trend, a cultural 'icon', than a realistic individual.
Still, it works better in the novel because Alex is younger. In the film, Alex is all grown-up, a young adult than someone on the verge of adulthood. And Alex of the film is far nastier than his counterpart in the novel. In contrast, we can believe in Barry Lyndon's transformation when he loses his son and everything else. He was created as a genuine character than constructed as a social symbol.

The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don’t necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of his violent sociopathy.

This isn't true. The people behind the Ludovico Treatment don't overlook the fact that normal people have a taste for violence, even cruelty, directed at the likes of Alex. At the presentation, a male performer humiliates and beats up Alex to the delight of 'normal' people. The audience loves the fact that Alex is getting his comeuppance. They look forward to the prospect that people like Alex, when righteously humiliated by 'good normal' people, won't be able to fight back. Try as he might, Alex is defenseless at the abuse directed at him. He wants to strike back but can't. And the crowd applauds. If anything, this becomes the undoing of the Ludovico Treatment. 'Good normal' people take advantage of Alex's defenselessness and drive him to the edge, indeed to the point where he becomes the victim.

Also, the Ludovico Treatment was never aimed at turning Alex into a morally normal person. It's made clear that the powers-that-be don't care what Alex thinks or feels AS LONG AS he is physically incapable of committing crime. The idea is to make him physically free but emotionally caged. So, Alex can be as evil as he wants to be on the inside. What the treatment promises is that he won't be capable of acting out his evil; he will be as harmless as a child on the outside. That's it. It's not a moral treatment but a behavioral one. In other words, it's not meant as a moral or 'spiritual' cure, which is precisely the theological argument presented in the film. The powers-that-be argue that, regardless of what Alex feels inside, he is harmless AS LONG AS he doesn't commit crime, which is the reverse of Christian teachings that say the SIN is essentially a matter of the heart.

Also, this has to be seen in context. There was a time when B.F. Skinner(author of WALDEN II) was a major influence in the West. He disregarded psychology & free will and focused on behavior and conditioning. Skinner's disciples rejected the notion of 'personality' & 'individuality' and believed that people are just the sum of their conditioning.

Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that.

Actually, a more disturbing point would be that seemingly normal people often empathize with violent victors over the victims. Consider the Southerners who sympathized with Jesse James and the Younger Gang. Outlaws were often romanticized in American lore. 80% of blacks cheered for O.J. Simpson and celebrated his win in court. And most Americans cheer for powerful Zionists and feel zero sympathy for Palestinians. (Also, moral outrage turns off moral considerations for whom we come to hate. Jews are so morally outraged over 'antisemitism' that they are blind to the suffering of goyim, especially those suspected of anti-Jew hatred. But then, Germans under Hitler were so angry with Jews, who acted atrociously during the Weimar Period, that many of them didn't care what was done to Jews by the Nazis. And given what Jews have done to the white race in the past fifty years, I doubt if many Alt-Right types would much care if there was another Holocaust. Moral outrage makes us immoral or at least amoral toward those who outrage us.) And even normal people enjoy watching romanticized portraits of criminals. Gangster movies were sensations from the beginnings. Lots of people loved BONNIE & CLYDE. The film I watched the most times is THE WILD BUNCH. I loathe crooks and criminals, but I love that film and feel for the characters. Oliver Stone is an anti-imperialist radical but swoons over Alexander the Great and his imperialist exploits; apparently, the man who was saddened by all those dead Vietnamese rationalizes the wanton destructiveness of Alexander whose empire-building turned entire worlds upside down.
ACO as a movie phenom demonstrates the problem of 'normal morality'. Why did so many Normal People praise this film? Why did they find themselves laughing along and cheering for Alex the killer? It's almost as if charisma or the Cool Factor has a logic of its own. Alex has devilish charm. Despite his vileness, he has a winning quality. Morality takes backseat to mythology, and Alex possesses the stuff of myth-making. Consider Muhammad Ali. Boxing had many tough mean bastards, and Ali could be as nasty and brutal as the rest of them. But most boxers lacked his showmanship, his knack for performance. So, he got away with stuff that most boxers would never have. In the strictest sense, Alex is a lowlife street punk, but he has a kind of power, the means to charm and disarm, like the friend in A SEPARATE PEACE, who can talk and smile himself out of any situation.

Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn’t exactly make such a “cure” for crime implausible.

While the treatment could be deemed 'leftist', it could just as easily appeal to anti-crime rightists. If something like Ludovico Treatment could be administered to crazy Negroes, many rightists would probably be onboard. Who cares about Negro souls or free will? Wouldn't it be better if black thugs were psychologically stripped of their Jafric-Jiver tendencies? Imagine a vile Negro who wants to rob an old white lady but underwent the Ludovico treatment. Even the thought of transgressing would make him feel agony and go, "Sheeeeeiiit, dis pain be a mothafuc*a!" And imagine if, by 'accident', the treatment also made him associate fried chicken and watermelon with pain. That'd be amusing as hell. "Sheeeeiiit, I can't eat chicken no mo'!"

Burgess’s “deep” objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex’s freedom, which takes away his humanity...
But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex’s behavior? Is that also a dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so. Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.

But that's gumbic logic. Actually, Burgess's objection is philosophically and morally sound.
First, free will isn't the same as freedom. Burgess and the prison chaplain are not arguing for granting freedom to Alex. They believe a man like that should be locked up, maybe forever. Because scumbags used their free will to commit heinous acts, they must pay for their crimes and, if possible, seek redemption. Free will means that each of us is an individual who is responsible for one's decisions and their consequences.
Without the Ludovico Treatment, Alex would remain in prison and would have to pay for what he'd done. Still, he would have his soul, and of course, soul can be evil. He would have his free will, and that would make him human. Now, 'human' isn't the same as 'humane'. Being human means having the freedom to choose between good and evil. According to most religions, being human is a curse, a state of fallenness, a sinfulness. Man is of flesh, and in this man is like an ape or animal that also lives by flesh and instinct. He has animal drives despite culture and civilization. Still, unlike animals that are trapped in their world of instinct, mankind has consciousness, the means to gain higher understanding, though it may take more time for some. This is possible even for sociopaths. That is the basis for human dignity. Sure, killers will be killers, and sociopaths will be sociopaths. But they still have a uniquely human quality. Dogs and cats can be full of love and affection, but they cannot understand right and wrong. But moral understanding is possible even for a sociopath. It's like what the priest says to Frank(Robert DeNiro) in THE IRISHMAN. One can BE sorry even if one doesn't FEEL sorry. Unlikely but within the realm of possibility. One can understand even without feeling it.

So, Burgess wasn't arguing for freedom for people like Alex. Rather, even they shouldn't be denied free will, the individual choice between good and evil. As the prison chaplain says, the New Alex can't really be good or reformed because true redemption requires a change of heart. But as the authorities see it, such are archaic sentiments or obsolete ideas. Science can alter behavior, and what does it matter if Alex is rotten inside as long as he doesn't cause harm on the outside?
Of course, the victims may argue it is still unfair that someone like Alex should be allowed to walk free(even if they won't cause harm) because they haven't paid their debt to society. After all, if I commit murder but is given a chance to walk free if I undergo a treatment where I can't murder again, I might take the offer; and the family of the victim would be upset that I didn't serve my full sentence and is a free person. Still, a free person without free will. Free on the outside, but imprisoned on the inside. I suppose one could argue that Alex, even following the Ludovico Treatment, has free will. He can still choose to be evil than good or choose to be genuinely good on the inside. He just can't ACT OUT bad deeds. Ludovico effect kicks in only when he tries to ACT on his vile or evil impulses. It doesn't rob him of the freedom to have bad thoughts. So, one could argue it robs him of free action than free will. His inner soul still can choose between the good and evil.

As to the restoration of Alex's 'humanity' at the end, we need to be careful with words. It's not a matter of humanity but of human-ness. 'Humanity' connotes humane-ness, where human-ness encompasses the totality of what makes us human, from good to evil. So, Alex-as-sociopath is still an inhumane monster, but he's human in the sense that he can choose good or evil out of his own free will in conflict with his twisted nature. Think of the sociopathic character played by James Woods in THE ONION FIELD. In terms of film-making prowess, it is maybe 1/10th or 1/100th that of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but it's a penetrating study of a sociopathic mind. In some ways, the killer in that film will never change. At the fundamental level, he is not like us. Still, in certain respects, he does grow as a person. Age and experience do affect him. He mellows and grows more reflective, though not sufficiently for social norms.

Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

Again, you're confusing 'human' with 'humane'. Human-ness encompasses everything from dark evil to shining nobility, the full spectrum of thoughts, passions, and actions in the tragedies and comedies of Shakespeare. Also, the moral theme of the novel is about free will, which mustn't be confused with freedom. Free Will simply means one's conscious moral-personal-existential choice between good and evil. Burgess wasn't arguing for granting freedom to sociopaths. He was merely acknowledging the autonomy of free will. If people choose to do evil, make them pay the price. Lock them up and throw away the key. And if there's any chance of them reforming, it must come from within their hearts in concert with their minds. True goodness must be a conscious choice, the product of reflection and realization. (Is empathy really necessary for decency? Dogs probably can't empathize with what it means to be human, but they love us and treat us well. In contrast, many intelligent people can empathize with other people but use the knowledge only for control, often deviously and/or ruthlessly. Also, given that the world is so full of tawdry people, wouldn't empathy make us sense the tawdriness of others more acutely, making us think even less of them?)

Of course, Kubrick used Burgess's novel to explore his own ideas. ACO is like a debased pop-version of the Napoleon story. Unlike Napoleon who had revolution, nationalism, war & glory, and justice & liberation as the canvas for his megalomania, Alex has only a future world of soulless modernity defined by pop-consumer culture. He lives in a 'world of shit', a post-enlightenment world that Andy Warhol might have designed. As horrible as things were in Napoleon's times, there was faith in the future, that somehow things will get better. It was proto-modern, whereas the world of ACO is post-modern, very much the world we find ourselves today.
Yet, as trashy as Alex is, he has one thing in common with men like Napoleon. His sense of freedom is limitless. He is unbound as a free spirit who follows his bliss, however depraved it may be. Nothing stands in his way. Even in prison, as rotten as he is, there's perverse integrity in remaining true to his viciousness, as if he is the master, the king, the lord of all things.

Alex wastes his energies on pointless destruction, but he has something in common with great leaders and great artists. Alex doesn't care what anyone thinks. Artists and leaders also score high on sociopathy. Richard Wagner, for example, used and abused everyone and felt zero remorse because, so convinced of his own greatness, he felt others existed merely to serve his genius. And great leaders believe it's worth expending countless lives for greater vision, national glory, and/or higher cause. But buried beneath all those flowery concepts, how much does it have to do with egomania, narcissism, vainglory, and sense of destiny?
What sets Alex apart from artists and leaders with sociopathic tendencies is he lacks any higher vision or cause... though, unlike most hooligans, he has the greatest appreciation for Beethoven. His mayhem is like an anarcho-orchestration of Beethoven's music. In a way, it's a perverse act of sacrilege, but in some sick twisted way, he has a point. While Beethoven's music is lofty and inspired, it is the sublimated product of raw passions. It is ape-hood willed into angel-ness.

In some ways, Alex is worse due to a total lack of any concern beyond his ego, and yet, it's refreshing because his primal energies aren't speciously wrapped in high-minded concepts. He has no pretenses of saving the world, the oft-used excuse of closet-sociopath crusaders who are really driven by megalomania and power-lust.
In a way, it would be more honest if all those creeps in the Deep State exposed their Alex-side than pretended to care for stuff like 'human rights' and 'muh democracy'. They are really gangsters and thugs. People in the war department love war for war's-sake. The world is one big football game, and they want action. They invoke all sorts of principles to drop more bombs and kill more people, and all without remorse. Against such sham morality, there is an honest quality about Alex's honest immorality. It's like Charlie(Harvey Keitel) in MEAN STREETS secretly admires and envies Johnny Boy who, though utterly demented, is true to himself and without pretension. Also, when Alex destroys or kills, it's totally his thing. He decided and he did it. In contrast, deep state goons and soldiers depend on higher authority to do all their killings. Agents lack agency.

The elites fear people like Alex, an equal-opportunity attacker owned by no one. He attacks poor and rich alike. In contrast, Red Guards and Antifa are controlled goons, so useful to those in power. Antifa doesn't attack the Deep State but does its bidding. Red guards were Mao’s minions. They acted on his whims(though they did get carried away).

But to the Ludovico technique, virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach.

No, the Ludovico treatment doesn't take virtue into account at all. It is based on science or scientism. It believes concepts such as 'virtue' and 'free will' to be outdated, much like most scholars today don't take ideas like 'natural law' seriously. It seeks to bypass 'sentimental' notions such as 'virtue' and 'morality' and get right down to the business of behavior and conditioning.
Genuine virtue requires individuality and free will, but the scientists in ACO don't believe in either, or they believe such notions run counter to social policy. They would have to trust the people to make the right decision out of their own free will; they would have to only deal with the bad ones who end up in prison. They can be reactive but not proactive. But why clean up after the storm if you can prevent the storm itself?

In a way, it's the problem of modernity. More freedom for individuals means more possibility for bad behavior. Even if not outright criminal, modern freedoms have led to people making all sorts of stupid decisions with over-eating, drugs, sex, and other vices & indulgences, all of which have had degrading consequences for society. Can we rely on virtue to inspire people to clean up their acts? Moralists say yes, but most social thinkers say no. In a way, the latter is right. People were less self-indulgent in the past not so much out of virtue but as the result of repression and communal repercussion. People then only seemed to act more virtuous out of fear of the whip or the shunning(especially at a time when people couldn't escape into their own TV-worlds). People whose morality or virtue is based on fear or approval aren't truly virtuous.
A truly virtuous person chooses the righteous and good even when he has all the freedom and opportunity to indulge in the bad. For most of history, most people never had such an opportunity. They lived in a harsh world where social punishment could be swift and social rejection agonizing. But then came the modern world of tolerance and plenty with more than enough to go around. More people than ever finally had something like real freedom and real choice. But when faced with choice, they often went with vice over virtue. Virtue requires self-restraint, which stands in the way of 'liberation'. Also, capitalism depends on people choosing vice that leads to more greed, vanity, and materialism that fuel the economy. And, so-called 'liberals' disdain the notion of virtue as repressive and 'anal'. Furthermore, many believe that 'virtue' is often invoked by the powerful as a means of social control when, in fact, the men of power themselves lack virtue and maintain position & privilege by hook or by crook.
So, if virtue-as-foundation-of-social-order has been an illusion, what way is there to maintain social control in a liberated world? More rules and regulations and more reliance on technology in an ever-increasing surveillance state. As miserable as this way is, a plea for virtue won't work, and indeed, it never worked. In the past, people didn't so much choose virtue as it was chosen for them, like many marriages were arranged. But because people didn't want to admit they were coerced, they chose to believe that the decision was their own in favor of virtue. Minus the return of those old harsh social controls, the ideal of virtue alone won't work because too many people will choose vice over virtue if given the freedom.

From the chaplain’s point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath’s lack of virtue or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.

??? You're just putting words into his mouth. He meant no such thing. He is saying true goodness requires a change of heart based on free will, something God bestowed unto each man. Also, his spiritual view does take the body into account. According to Christianity, man must wrestle with the drives of his flesh and fend off temptation if he's to reach higher states of being. Alex is very much a sensual, sexual, and physical creature. He lives for fleshly desires and thrill of the moment. The chaplain would never say the body doesn't matter. Body is always there, tempting man to act the animal than angel. At any rate, in order for man to rise above bodily desires, he must rely on free will to choose the good and pursue the way of God. For the chaplain, freedom alone isn't good enough. He knows well enough that freedom can mean freedom to be evil or good. Still, it is free will that offers man a choice between true good and true evil. There is NOTHING in what he said that would indicate that he thinks sociopaths are more 'human' than morally healthy people.

Also, the fact that the chaplain works in a prison indicates that he does believe in the power of habit. After all, prisons exist to deny bad people freedom-of-movement. Prisons exist to force bad men into daily routines and non-aggressive behavior. It is about control of bodies and conditioning them into new habits of routine and respect. And a good deal of Christianity is about how to shape and discipline the body and one's habits toward moral and spiritual goals.

Kubrick’s treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting.

My main issue with the film is its visceral power overrides its literary meanings. Burgess's book is a novel of ideas, but Kubrick's film is a spectacle of nihilism, especially because Kubrick prioritized cinematic expression over thematic exploration. The themes are there, but Malcolm McDowell's star power and Kubrick's visual prowess take center stage. The result is something like The Triumph of the Villains.

One may argue that anyone who enjoys the film as a thrill-ride is missing the point, the theme of free-will, but art operates on several planes, and this is especially true of cinema that not only works as story but as spectacle, made all the more overwhelming with music. Form is content; the two is inseparable. The form of ACO doesn't merely contain the message but is also the message, and it is "Wow, this is really exciting."
It's like APOCALYPSE NOW may have been intended as an anti-war film, and Colonel Kilgore is meant to be a crazy guy, but anyone who watches that film can't help but experience war as a rock opera and swoon at Kilgore as the awesome god of war. So, those who 'missed the point' actually got the bigger point, i.e. that cinema works on several levels, and the visceral experience may well overpower its 'moral intention'. Sam Peckinpah was never convincing when he said the point of the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was to make people sick in the stomach. No, it's too exciting and powerful, even beautiful, for that. Of course, some people make out-and-out specious moral arguments, like Martin Bregman's BS about Brian DePalma's SCARFACE being an anti-drug movie. Sure, the movie shows the sordid side of the drug business, and Tony Montana comes to a bad end, but what a rollercoaster while it lasted. It made morons want to be gangsters. And WALL STREET made more people want to work for the likes of Gekko or, better yet, be a Gekko. Even as Oliver Stone disdained the notion of 'greed is good', he presented Gekko as a god.

‘Sociopath’ has moral, political, and medical/clinical meanings.

Alex is a clinical sociopath who acts crazy on his own.

Most political sociopaths aren’t clinically deranged, but their ambition drives them to areas of power that are intrinsically(necessarily) and systemically amoral. If you work for the CIA, you have to be morally sociopathic to remain an insider and on grounds of ‘us vs them’.

It’s like murderers and soldiers both slaughter people, even innocent civilians. But murderers do it on their own whereas soldiers do it on orders.

Granted, extreme situations can unleash the repressed Id of blood orgy even among those who aren’t clinically sociopathic. Thus, Nanking massacre and other craziness.

One could argue that Alex, even following the Ludovico Treatment, has free will. He can still choose to be evil or good on the inside. He just can’t ACT OUT bad deeds. Ludovico effect kicks in only when he tries to ACT out his vile or evil impulses. It doesn’t rob him of the freedom to have bad thoughts. So, one could argue it robs him of free action than free will. His inner soul still can choose between the good and evil. Even as he's forced to be 'good' on the outside, he can choose to remain evil on the inside. Thus, he's not wholly robbed of free will.

Is a sociopath lacking in empathy or sympathy? Empathy means putting oneself in others’ shoes and seeing things from their points of view. Some people are capable of this, but they nevertheless feel no sympathy for others. They understand the mentalities but don’t care or share in the emotions of fellow human beings.

Also, lack of empathy doesn’t necessarily mean lack of sympathy. Dogs can’t empathize with humans or cats, but they often care about humans and cats(if friends in the same household). Some simple-minded people are too dim for empathy but they are full of love for others.

Is there a term for someone who lacks not the concern for others but the sense of autonomous self? If sociopaths care about themselves but feel nothing for others, what about someone who is totally concerned about what OTHERS think/feel about him or her but seriously lack the pride of his or her own thoughts or feelings? It seems lots of East Asians or yellows are like this. Very weak sense of self but very real concern about how OTHERS think/feel about them. Jews are into Jewishness, blacks are into blackness. But yellows seem to be about how-others-feel-about-them. Blacks attack them, but yellows say nothing about it because the dominant power would disapprove of such complaints. Instead, yellows go with the approved narrative and blame ‘white supremacism’. If sociopathy is lack of concern for others in society, could a weak sense of self or lack of autonomy be called ‘autopathy’ or ‘indepathy’ or ‘selfpathy’?

What were Alex's leadership skills like? Leadership qualities vary from context to context. You see this among animals. Certain species are more aggressive and predatory, like wolves and hyenas. To be a leader among those animals requires more forcefulness and brutality than to be a leader among sheep or prairie dogs.

If you’re a leader of a church with mostly nice people, you won’t have to be high-handed because most members are decent and trusting. Mere kindness can go a long way. But if you’re the leader of a gang, you need street cred. You must show you are tough and don’t take shit from anyone. Alex is a leader of wolves or hyenas. They are social predators, and he must always show he’s tougher than others; and if some are stronger than him, he must prove his superiority with wit and daring. If he’s seen as weak, another will try to take over as alpha. Of course, if he is too rough with the others, they could turn on him… which is what they do.
This was Leon Trotsky’s problem. In some ways, he had remarkable leadership skills, and many looked up to him. He was tough and ruthless, absolutely essential traits among radicals. But he was also supremely arrogant and insulting, and this made many choose Stalin over him. Stalin was also a mean son of a bitch who was often rude, but he could also be diplomatic and outwardly conciliatory(while plotting for future battles).

In ACO, it seems the droogs stuck by Alex for sometime. They didn’t immediately turn against him but reached a point where they decided to stick it to him.
In the world of thuggery, Alex has to walk a fine line between not appearing weak and not alienating others. It’s an unstable relationship as ‘honor among thieves’ usually is: Sociopaths or thugs trying to trust and support one another.
But such relations are common in all walks of life. Most politicians are untrustworthy as most of them will usually go with the strong horse and routinely stab anyone in the back to save their own skin or to further their own career. It's the same in the business world. Friends today, enemies tomorrow, and vice versa. The seemingly loyal underling in Akira Kurosawa's HIGH AND LOW turn on his boss and go with the rivals who gain the upper hand. Pachanga turns on his friend in CARLITO’S WAY. In those cases, the underlings thought the boss had gone soft and lost the edge.

In other cases, betrayal is about revenge, like when Carlo did a number on Sonny who beat him up in THE GODFATHER. And Fredo, long humiliated by Michael, conspired with Hyman Roth and Johnny Ola in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Carlo found Sonny overbearing, and Fredo resented the younger brother bossing him around. In contrast, Sal betrayed the family in part one because he thought the Corleones were on the decline and Barzini was the strong horse to bet on.

Donald Trump sure found out you can't trust anyone in the world of politics teeming with the likes of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney. Not murderous sociopaths but careerist ones who will do anything to save their own skin or play the game. Granted, Trump himself isn’t trustworthy. (But then, even Peter denied Jesus three times.)

There was a successful coup against Benito Mussolini. There was a plot against Adolf Hitler that came close to killing him. There are rumors that Josef Stalin was finally done in by his own men, perhaps with poison. Whether it’s Alex playing war in the streets or big leaders playing war among nations, such extreme games of ambition and violence are never stable in terms of loyalty and trust.

Obviously, Hitler and Alex are different creatures. For one thing, Hitler came to power in his middle age. He was ‘wiser’ by then. Alex is still young and driven by crazy hormones. What they do have in common is a bohemian(artistic) streak and love for classical music. Hitler was obsessed with Wagner, Alex is crazy about Beethoven. The difference is Hitler came of age in a more sentimental and romantic era, whereas Alex is very much the creature of post-modern irony and vapid youth culture. Had Hitler been born in the 1960s, maybe he would have taken up punk music. It’s hard to say. The skinheads in AMERICAN HISTORY X are pretty demented and degenerate, not least due to the youth culture all around them.

Difference between Hitler and Alex is the latter loves violence for violence’s sake whereas violence was a means for Hitler(though he found plenty of excitement in playing war games with the lives of millions). A combo of Hitler and Alex would be the David android in ALIEN COVENANT. Like Hitler, he has grand vision and a mythic sense of destiny; but like Alex, he revels in violence for violence’s sake and feels nothing for all the dead.

Alex is almost totally without sentimentality(though his feelings are genuinely hurt when his parents reject him upon his release). Hitler could be very sentimental and feel strong fondness and attachment to things. Alex seems to mock everything(except Beethoven, his god whose music is to art what Napoleon was to history). Julius Streicher was also sentimental. He wept over his dead canaries. He was an animal lover, as was Hitler. And yet, their feelings were narrowly restricted to certain people, things, and themes. For certain others, they not only felt indifferent but contempt and hatred bordering on pathology.
This is not uncommon among white supremacist types. Their love for their own race is genuine and true. But their disdain, derision, and hatred for outside groups can be extreme, indeed as a compulsive need to dump on the Other.
Now, it’s natural for most people to favor their own over others. It’s like a person favoring one’s own family. Still, loving one’s own family doesn’t mean one should hate other families or not acknowledge their equal value as human beings. So, even though I probably won’t be emotionally moved by the death of some neighbor I know little about, I would still understand that it’s a tragedy and people who loved him would be filled with grief. I wouldn’t feel sad but nevertheless understand it’s a sad thing that someone died and it's painful for those who loved him.

The problem with Hitler wasn’t his love for Germans or ‘Aryans’. Germans should love their own kind. It was his contempt for other peoples whom he deemed as lesser humans. Perhaps, he loved his own people too much. When you love your people too much, you may come to believe they deserve everything under the sun, indeed more than other peoples do. (An Italian mother who loves her son too much hides him from the Law even when he did something wrong and must face justice.) As other peoples stand in the way of your people’s rightful place-in-the-sun, they need to be wiped out or enslaved to serve your people. This was Hitler’s vision of Lebensraum. He came to power in Germany with his love for the German people, that much is true. But he later turned much of the world against him when his plan was Germany uber alles at their expense. Russians and Slavs had no meaningful place in Hitler’s grand plan. They would either be killed or enslaved.

So, what was Hitler? A Nationalsociopath? A person who is capable of great love for his own kind but lacking in even the modicum of human feelings for outsiders or those deemed expendable. In THE GODFATHER movies, it’s obvious Michael is capable of affection and love. He loved his father. He loved his brother. He loves Apollonia and he loves Kay. But he is also capable of having a prostitute murdered in cold blood to gain control over Senator Geary. For his empire, he will sacrifice a ‘lesser human being’.

Jews hate Hitler, but they are also big on nationalsociopathy. Just like Hitler loved Germans and ‘Aryan’s, Jews love Jews and ‘Semites’. But just like Hitler was willing to sacrifice millions of non-German lives to make room for his beloved Germans, Jews are willing to destroy countless goy lives in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Russia just to have Jews Uber Alles.
The fact that Jews did so much to get Jonathan Pollard sprung from jail is proof that Jews have strong affection and love for one another. But what about all the victims of Pollard? Pollard’s betrayal led to deaths of double-agents in the USSR. Jews don’t care. Jews feel, ‘He did it for the tribe, so he’s okay’.

So, Hitler and Jewish Supremacists have something in common. They feel real and genuine love for their own kind BUT feel zero feeling for outsiders. To Hitler, Jews and Slavs were expendable. Though he didn’t want to kill them for the hell of it, he was willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the Germans. Likewise, Jewish Supremacists probably don’t want to kill goy lives just for the hell of it; they are not murderous or sadistic in that way. But their main obsession is Jewish Hegemony based on tribal pride and arrogance; as such, they believe anything standing in the way of Jewish Destiny must be smashed.

In some ways, Hitler was worse than Jewish Supremacists. Whereas Jews all work together as equals for the good of the Tribe, there was something of higher value in Hitler’s mind than German glory and interests. He was a megalomaniac who saw himself as a Man of Destiny, one of those gods/heroes of Wagnerian operas. Thus, he was bigger than the Germans, and even as he loved them, they existed to serve him and his vaunted role in history as the epoch-making greatest conqueror and ruler of all time. In the end, Germans existed to serve him than vice versa. Germans gave him everything in the most devastating war in world history, but he felt no pity for them in the end because they failed him. In his eyes, Germans deserved to vanish as a race because they didn’t live up to his expectations.

In this, Jews have been wiser. Jewish Power is shared, and Jews are mindful of other Jews. Jewish Power is the culmination of many Jews with strong personalities and pride. In contrast, German National Socialism was about so many Germans submitting their individualities to Hitler’s megalomania.

If a Hitlerowicz rose among Jews, other Jews would speak up and bat him down. Jews would tell the Hitlerian Jew to knock it off. They would remind him and each other that Jewishness is about Jews working together for Jewish Eternity than about a single Jew hogging the limelight as the super-Jew. It’s telling that Jews have been waiting for a messiah forever but he never came(or the Jews never accepted anyone as messiah, not even Jesus). And so, Jews keep going on and on like the energizer bunny.