Friday, April 23, 2021

In an Empire of Lies, the Only Way to Truth is to be MUGGED BY REALITY — Why America Never Wakes Up to the Truth about Black Thuggery — How the Great Leap Forward Has Parallels with Current America that is under Psychological Maoism


In a Empire of Lies, only brush with reality will inform people of the truth, especially as lives have become more atomized. In the past, when people were closer to family and kinfolk, they might have heard of first-hand experiences of close ones. Now, many people just know their nuclear family or individual lives, and much of their view of reality comes from mass media controlled by Jews. Of course, social media can spread the raw unfiltered truth — visual evidence of black criminality and other social problems — , but then, that is why Big Tech enforces Censchwarzship and why the Zionic Big Media and Big Academia have gotter ever more shrill and hardline with Political Correctness.

In the 70s and 80s, there was the notion of being 'mugged by reality'. It implied that the US had become a country of lies. After all, if truth was readily available, one wouldn't need to be mugged-by-reality to know the reality. One would have heard of it even if one didn't experience it. Consider tigers, grizzly bears, and sharks. Most of us never saw a tiger or bear firsthand(except at a zoo). And most of us never got bitten by a shark. But even without having been mauled by those animals, we know they are dangerous. We know a tiger can kill you in a split second. A bear can tear you apart. A shark can have you for lunch. We know this because we were taught the truth about nature. Don't wander into a forest where tigers lurk. Be wary in bear country. Don't swim in shark-infested waters. So, we don't need to be 'mauled by nature' to know nature can be dangerous.
But the notion of 'mugged by reality' suggests a white 'liberal' will turn 'conservative' or more realist IF AND ONLY WHEN he comes face to face with grim reality, especially of black criminality. Otherwise, he will continue to be a 'liberal' for two reasons: The systemic deception of academia, media, & entertainment AND the conceit of being 'tolerant' and 'progressive'. There's too much mendacity and vanity involved in being a good 'liberal' or a 'good conservative'(aka cuckservative) for that matter as even conzos now fall all over themselves to demonstrate they are not 'racist'.

Now, things would be different if we were living in an Order of Truth than in an Empire of Lies. Even people who never experienced black crime(or had a friend or relative attacked or murdered by blacks) would know that blacks are a problematic race, mainly due to evolutionary factors: Africa is a dangerous place, and not only the black race but various species are more vicious there(for survival's sake). African elephants are bigger and more aggressive than Burmese elephants. African buffalos are more dangerous than those in Vietnam. African rhinos are bigger and even more bad-tempered than Indian rhinos. All such dangerous animals plus ace predators such as lions, hyenas, leopards, wild dogs, crocodiles, and etc. have made organisms in general(and that would include Negroes) more ferocious, aggressive, and muscular. Also, the non-black races, having experienced the Northern Cold(even if they later migrated downward to places like South America), had some of the impulsive traits weeded out of them whereas the impulsive oogity-boogity genes remained intact among African Negroes.


In an Order of Truth, people would be informed and instructed as to the ways of Negroes. Just like one doesn't need to be mauled by a lion to know lions are dangerous or be bitten by a rattle snake to know it's venomous, one wouldn't need to be mugged-by-reality to know the truth of reality. But we don't live in an Order of Truth but in an Empire of Lies where 'truth' or 'falsehood' is defined less by actual ways and conditions of reality than by agendas, interests, and biases of Jewish Supremacists. In the Jew-World-Order, Iran is the 'terrorist threat with nukes' when it has no nukes. Israel has 300 nukes made with material stolen from the US. Israel aids terrorists in Syria. Israel uses terrorism to murder Iranian scientists. And Zionists in the US control US foreign policy to destroy entire Arab and/or Muslim nations. But, we are told 'Israel is our greatest ally' whereas 'Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror' and 'Assad gassed his own people'. And consider all the lies told about Jews and Palestinians. Jews stole Palestinian land and continue to occupy the West Bank(which is being prepared for full annexation), BUT we are supposed to worry about poor poor Jews. And even though US uses NATO to harass and provoke Russia, we are told Russia is the perennial aggressor. US instigated a coup in Ukraine, which is now totally owned by Jewish gangsters. But Russia is always the threat. US surrounds China with numerous military bases, but China is the big bad guy in the neighborhood. US has military bases all around Iran, but, in accordance to the same twisted logic, Iran is the 'aggressor'.
Fish rots from the head. US was never big on the truth, but with Jews at the helm, it's gotten worse. Just like the Color Revolutions finally came home with the Jew-Coup against Donald Trump, the Culture of Mendacity that characterizes US foreign policy is now indistinguishable from US domestic policy when it comes to news and information. It has come home to roost. But then, why not, considering that Jews don't look upon whites as Fellow Countrymen but as 'foreign goyim' to colonize and control? Jewish agenda toward whites doesn't work in accordance to the concept of National Interests; the only part of the world where Jewish Power operates on the basis of National Interests is Israel where Jewish leaders feel as one with Jewish masses, and this explains why the media in Israel are far more honest and truthful; Jews share truth with one another but generally resort to lies with goyim to control them. Jewish perspective on white goyim in the US is more akin to Jewish attitudes toward Palestinians, Iranians, Arabs, Russians, and etc. It is about 'us vs them'. Jews feel more like British Imperialists did toward the Hindus in India. When Hindu-based nationalism was on the rise in India, the British favored the Muslims as allies. (Initially when the British had taken control over India against the Muslim Mughals, they were more partial to the Hindus.) Jews now use blacks and nonwhites against whites in the way that the British came to use the Muslim minority against the Hindu majority in India. What Jews fear most is the reawakening and liberation of white consciousness. In the past, it was the fear of violent Anti-Semitic mobs or anti-Jewish discrimination that animated the Jewish agenda. Now, Jews are addicted to supremacist power and rely on white subservience to maintain Jewish Hegemony around the world. Jews know there are preciously few true-blue Nazis around. They don't fear the rise of New Hitlers. Jewish fear isn't that of the slave but of the master. The slave fears the master may no longer need him and sell him down the river. The slave fears the master will forever deny him freedom and dignity. In contrast, the master's fear is different. His first fear is the loss of power and privilege over others, something he's become accustomed to. It's like a rich man fears being poor more than a poor person does. Whereas a poor person is accustomed to being poor, it's totally anathema to the rich man who's come to believe he's deserving of the good things in life. When Jews had survival or basic rights on their minds, they had something of the slave mentality. Today, they are the rulers of the West and have a master mentality. They don't so much fear the potential for white mob violence against Jews as the possibility that Jews will lose their hegemonic status if whites refuse to play along as puppet-servants of Zion. Paradoxically, Jews bait whites with guilt over 'white supremacism' to ensure that whites will continue to aid and abet Jewish supremacism. It's pure bait-and-switch. It's not a campaign against supremacism per se but a selective targeting of white consciousness as 'supremacism' to perpetuate Jewish supremacism(and those of their allies, blacks and homos).

Things get tragic or tragicomic in a world where only one's direct contact with reality(or something close to it) wakens one up to the truth. It's worse if the danger is covered up or forbidden as a topic of candid discussion. It's even worse if the danger is lionized, sanctified, and extolled as if it's sacred. Imagine there's a button that is dangerous to the touch. If you press it, you get jolted really bad. Now, in an Order of Truth, people would be told, "Don't press the button cuz you'll be electrocuted." Thus, even those who never came upon the actual button would know it's dangerous. It's like the skulls-and-bones sign with the words 'poisonous' on certain bottles. You don't have to drink the stuff to find out if it's dangerous, just like most people know they shouldn't pick and eat mushrooms in the wild with proper knowledge. This way, you don't have to push the button, feel the shock, and learn the hard way to know that it's dangerous. But suppose it's taboo to speak about the button's danger. So, someone who comes upon the button may press it out of accident or curiosity. Not having been informed of the danger, it was the only way for him to find out. The hard way. And yet, he doesn't tell anyone about it because it's taboo to badmouth the button. But worse, suppose the powers-that-be spread the message that the button is a wonder-of-wonders, and there's nothing wrong with pushing it. Indeed, you SHOULD press it. Of course, you get the most unpleasant jolt. Then and there, you should be jolted or 'mugged' by reality. But what if, due to the incessant narrative pressure that consecrates the button, you feel 'sinful' and dirty to say that you were hurt by it. So, you pretend it was actually rewarding. Or, you say(in self-flagellation mode) that you deserved the righteous 'punishment' from the button because of 'muh guilt', also pushed by the powers-that-be on the button-pushers. If a river is polluted and toxic but also regarded as holy and divine, people may still choose to bathe in it and drink from it because, all too often with humans, irrational emotions override factual reasoning.


This is where we are with blacks. People can only be 'mugged by reality' because the Jewish-controlled academia, media, and state spread mostly lies about blacks, pathology, and criminality. Facts tell us that less than 20 unarmed blacks are killed by the police in an average year, but the majority of 'liberals' believe the number is 10,000! Even though blacks are champion robbers, rapists, thugs, and murderers, so many people see blacks as hapless victims of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacism'. Often, whites and nonwhites who live in unblack areas are often the biggest suckers of the Narrative. They see Magic Negroes on TV and movies; they are bombarded with news about blacks as victims. Also, as local news always describe black thugs as 'teens' or 'youths' or some such euphemism, the message gets out that it is taboo and unacceptable to mention the race of blacks when they do bad. Furthermore, the powers-that-be go boo-hoo-hoo over black deaths(when killed by whites) but totally ignore nonblack deaths, especially if the perpetrators were black. All such manipulations subconsciously instill the masses with the sense that black lives are more important than nonblack ones. While the ideology of America yammers about racial equality, the Jewish-controlled idolatry of America favors Jewish, homo, and black lives uber alles.
Under such conditions, many people are ill-informed about the black problem. Even the children of whites who moved to the suburbs in White Flight from blacks end up with the wrong idea. Instead of being grateful for their own safety and security away from black thuggery and crime, they come to believe, via education and news, that they have undeserved 'white privilege' while poor helpless blacks are being oppressed by 'systemic racism'. What about their parents who made the move to get away from black crime? In many cases, they dare not speak the truth that they know to their own children because people are naturally status-conscious conformists, and it's become 'unacceptable' for 'good people' to speak frankly about the race problem, especially pertaining to blacks. So, many white parents don't tell their kids. Also, in the safety of the white community, they gradually forget about the reality of black crime and become increasingly influenced by media lies and entertainment manipulation(where blacks are either presented as heroic/saintly, tragic/magic, or cool/badass if bad; so, even when blacks are presented as gangstas, they be idols to rhapsodize about).

One would think, with all the White Flight and Neo-Liberal hardline policies against black criminality beginning with Bill Clinton, most white people would know about the reality of race. Tragically, there is a huge discrepancy between general action and collective emotion. On some level, of course many whites knew. That's why even Jews and white 'liberals' joined in White Flight. It's why Neo-Liberals got tough on crime and locked up so many blacks and implemented stop-and-frisk. They also supported immigration on grounds that newcomers will make better employees and safer neighbors than the blacks. And yet, none of this could be said with any honesty over the years. Under Jewish control, blacks became ever holier and special in symbolism even as Jews and white neo-liberals pushed policies to clamp down harder on blacks to save cities from crime and blight.
And yet, this set the grounds for even more Afro-lunacy. After all, if blacks are so special as the children of MLK as the media/academia have constantly reminded us(especially as conzos are just as cucked as the libby-dibs on blackness), why were so many blacks locked up and pushed out via gentrification? Why was there so much talk of holy homos and wonderful immigrants that took attention away from black issues? Now, the hardline policies on black crime and the push for more mass-immigration were led by Neo-Liberals in the big cities. And many of these were Jews. Lest any blame fall on Jews, Libs, and the Democrats, the powers-that-be chose to blame all of US history for the black problem. So, never mind the new policy that New York Jews implemented since the 1990s to save the city from black thugs. Just blame it on Jim Crow in the South or even go back to 1619. Never mind 1992 and Bill Clinton and all those New Yorkers voting for Rudy Giuliani twice and for Michael 'stop and frisk' Bloomberg three times. The thing is Jews really needed blacks to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, and so they brought back blacks who'd been shunted to the back of the bus relative to homos and immigrants for special attention, lamentation, and celebration. Of course, even when blacks were getting less love than homos and immigrant-diversity, they were nevertheless glorified as a specially tragic-magic people, and besides, blacks always had lots of idolic star power via sports and music.

In the long term, the black problem shows it's useless to act on the truth if you don't speak the truth. So much of US policy from the early 1990s was based on the reality of black thuggery and criminality. To win elections(by gaining white voters anxious about rising black crime), Democrats had to out-Willie-Horton the GOP. But being cleverer, Bill Clinton and Jews pulled something sneaky. They got far tougher on black crime while, at the same time, covering up their 'racist' tracks with highfalutin talk of the Noble Negro! They walked one way, they talked another way. They figured all the talk would serve as cover for the walk. Maybe blacks will be too dumb to realize it with Clinton as the 'first black president', Bush II as the 'compassionate conservative' who gave tens of billions to Africa, and Obama as the real first black president. And maybe whites will be too razzle-dazzled by rainbow-homos to become aware of what total phonies they are. And this foolery might have continued but for the presidency of Trump. Jews and the goy-cuck deep state hated him so much and wanted him out so badly that they were willing to UNLEASH THE BLACKEN(which turned out to be more potent than the Kraken).

It's odd that black grievances mount with the passage of time. If the past was so bad for blacks, one would think they would be much better off with progress made through the years following the Civil Rights Movement. And yet, a large number of blacks remain mired in dysfunction, and in many cases, things have only gotten worse since the 1960s. A good number of blacks did make gains and progress, but they hold dear to outrage politics for two reasons. For street cred as their success might be seen as 'acting white' and betrayal of the brothas and sistas. And out of megalomania because successful blacks, like Jews and homos, just can't get enough spotlight as the magic-tragic people.

History is usually blamed for black problems, but what has happened since the 60s is also part of history. In less than 39 yrs, it will be 2060. So, what went wrong? In a way, the problem was freedom itself. Freedom is only as good as those using it, and too many blacks used freedom in bad ways. More freedom can mean more opportunity, but it can also mean more corruption, more degradation, more self-indulgence, and more crime. Blacks were prone to abuse freedom more than other races because they evolved to be oogity-boogity. But no one dare mention the connection between freedom and foulness when it comes to blacks... just like Jews and homos can't be blamed for anything; everything is blamed for the AIDS crisis EXCEPT the most obvious culprit, which was homo indulgence in depravity with new liberties. To say that blacks are naturally prone to act stupid and wild would be 'racist'. So, never mind that it is true. Truth must take the backseat to the Narrative. But then, it's perfectly fine to say blacks are naturally different and superior in POSITIVE ways. Interesting how that works.
It's always back to scapegoating History while ignoring that all that has happened since the 1960s is also part of history, and that blacks must bear much of the blame because they used their history of freedom and equality in the worst possible ways. While the odd innocent Negro lynched by whites is part of US history, so are all the white and non-black victims of black criminality, thuggery, and mayhem. But what does it matter? Did anyone take the knee for all the people beaten, attacked, or murdered by the mobs in 2020? No, the only approved and compulsory sympathy is for the creep George Floyd who died of overdose and was no victim of police brutality. (Given Jewish bankers funded much of European imperialism and profited greatly from the West's incursions into Africa, it's interesting how Jews never partake of 'white guilt' when it comes to blacks. If anything, Jews demand that whites unconditionally support Jewish tyranny over Palestinians and terrorism all over the Middle East.)

It goes to show history matters far less than 'thistory'(or this-story) as shaped by the powers-that-be. It was certainly true of Christianity. Even as Jesus's death receded into history, He became bigger and bigger because the clergy that controlled the Narrative put Him front and center of everything. And even as Christians gained in power and persecuted non-Christians, pagans, and heretics(and even as the story of Christians being fed to lions became a distant memory, if it happened at all), the Narrative of Christian victimhood grew only bigger. Whether an event happened long ago or recently, what is 'remembered' and resonates depends on whoever has the power the decide what is commemorated. This is one why dead Negro matters far more than millions of dead Arabs killed by Wars for Israel. Jews have the power of commemoration that defines the current 'thistory'. So, it doesn't matter how far back something happened. It is relevant now IF the powerful make it so with their means of commemoration, reiteration, and mythologization. That a lowlife punk like George Floyd could be anointed into the pantheons of the sainted goes to show (1) how powerful Jews are (2) how effective 'thistory' is and (3) how stupid the populace has become over the years under Jewish influence to fall for such nonsense.

At any rate, in an empire of lies where the only path to truth is to be 'mugged by reality', we should do all we can to make sure that PC libby-dibs and cucky-wucks learn about reality the hard way. Let them be 'mugged' by it. Those drugged on fantasy must be mugged by reality. People like Derek Chauvin should NEVER sign up to for police work in blue cities. Let Jews and white libby-dibs defend their own bodies and properties from blacks whom they purport to love so much. Of course, there are venal Jewish supremacists and fiendish deep state lowlifes who know all about the black problem but pretend otherwise to keep the power and push the agenda. It's like the Soviet authorities who willfully lied about grain harvests to keep the system going. But, there are plenty of suckers among the libby-dibs and the cucky-wucks. It's the difference between Jews who sold Obama as a new brand of soap and the suckers who bought it, fainting left and right in rapture. The world is made up of fuc*ers and suckers. In an empire of lies where the suckers willingly go along with the fuc*ers, let the suckers be 'mugged by reality'. So, people like Heather MacDonald and Ann Coulter need to stop trying to protect urban libs from black crime. If the libby-dibs are really into BLM and believe defunding the police will do wonders, let them follow such course and get mugged-by-reality. Stop trying to help or save people who hate you. This is why it was foolish for people like Rudy Giuliani to have cleaned up NY. By drastically reducing crime, it took away the one factor that 'mugs' libby-dibs into reality. Now, if the law-and-order types took pains to reduce crime with tough measures while, at the same time, changing the narrative to fit reality — "LOOK, CRIME WENT DOWN BECAUSE WE GOT TOUGH ON BLACK THUGGERY, the product of Negro evolution in wild and dangerous Africa" — , the policies would have been worth it. But just as the policies reduced crime, the narrative carried on with the same lies about Negro Victimhood and sanctity.
So, when the libby-dibs felt safer and more secure, they just embraced the Big Lie with greater gusto. Imagine someone who got sick from using bad drugs. For a cure, he's put on healthy diet and exercise regimen. But all through the process, he is never told he got sick from those drugs. Rather, even as he's recovering from the ill-effects of the drugs, his environment is filled with promotional material for the drug. So, what is the first thing he wants to do when he's healthy again? To use the stupid drugs all over again. The proper cure would have not only forced him to eat better and exercise but inform him of the dangerous drugs. But suppose the healer isn't allowed to speak the truth. He cures the person but doesn't inform of the dangers posed by the drug. (Or worse, the healer advises the usage of the drugs even though he saved the man from the drugs.) So, when the guy is feeling good again, he wants to go back to using the drugs. If the truth isn't allowed to be said, it's better not to treat the guy at all. Let him abuse the drugs until he gets so sick that he finds out the truth for sure on his own. It goes to show it's not enough to DO the right thing. One must also SAY the right thing, the truth. The word must be in sync with the world. It's like Merlin says in EXCALIBUR, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world."

But the problem isn't merely with libby-dibs and cucky-wucks but even with the so-called Dissident Right, especially the boomers whose gushy sentimentality about Jews prevent them from connecting all the dots. So, they'll mention black crime and Muslim terrorism but hardly discuss the Jewish question. They are useless because the Jewish element is the most crucial. After all, it's the Jews who've decided which button to push and which theme/issue to highlight for the moment. Globo-homo yesterday, BLM today, Tranny tomorrow, and etc. Indeed, it's useful to distinguish between core power and favored power. It's the difference between the sun and the planets. Planets near to the Sun get plenty of heat, but this heat isn't self-generated but reliant on the Sun. In Hollywood, the big stars seem powerful, but they ultimately are not. Jews can make or break any of them. Jews are the sun, they are mere planets. Likewise, people who focus on tranny-mania but refuse to mention Jewish Power behind it are useless. They mistake planetary heat as auto-generated when it relies on the sun. Jewish Power is the sun that selectively chooses in the moment which group or issue gets the most light. There is hardly any action without traction made possible by Jewish levers of promotion and narration. Consider how the media was all about SAVE THE KURDS when Trump threatened to pull out of Syria. When Trump changed his mind, Kurds faded from view once again. Why did Kurds get a special boost? Because Jews aimed light at them. (Of course, Jewish Media don't mention Syria is a hellhole because of Judeo-Nazi-dominated US foreign policy and Israel's support of ISIS terrorists.)

What can result from the culture of lies or the cult of myth? Two obvious examples are the fates of National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. Without proper means for people to warn the leaders of the dangers of all-out war, doom was looming over horizon. And US foreign policy has been disastrous as the result of lies, except that Americans are fortunate to live in a country big and strong enough to fend off all attempts at retaliation. Japan and Germany declared war on the US and got totally smashed. But the US can spread lies, invade & destroy nations, and still stand tall at the end of the day as the lone superpower. Using the moral logic of WWII, the US surely deserves to have been nuked around 20 times.

An even more instructive case of the danger posed by the culture of lies is the Great Leap Forward, Mao's manic plan to accelerate China's transformation into a modern economy. So many deaths resulted from this, and it was all because of the culture of lies centered around the myth of Mao as an all-knowing god-emperor. Mao and his men didn't mean to starve people. They really thought they were doing good. And yet, it led to what may have been the biggest man-made famine in human history. (The death toll from the campaign is a major factor as to why communist death toll in the 20th century is so high.) Unlike the Cultural Revolution that began with an air of menace(with Mao planning to purge and destroy his perceived 'enemies'), the Great Leap Forward was launched with hope and optimism. Mao hadn't planned to kill a single person but ended up killing anywhere from 25 to 40 million people. How could such thing happen? It was because, by the eve of the Great Leap, China had turned into an empire of lies. Through series of purges, struggles, campaigns, nonstop propaganda, and education/indoctrination, Mao had sent a message to every corner of Chinese state and society that he is not only numero uno but infallible, invincible, all-wise, all-knowing, super-duper, and awesome... and anyone who even suggests otherwise is in for a big surprise. So, if Mao hatched a plan to catapult China from a Third World nation into a First World one in a matter of a decade(or less), how could anyone disagree? His wish was their command. How could it be otherwise in a country where Maoism was the sacred law of the land, where Mao cult was the new religion? So, when Mao said his plan would be a great success, it had to be a great success. There was no other way. So, almost immediately, various provinces announced tremendous gains under the new program. Wheat and rice harvests were said to be doubling, tripling, quadrupling... If some provinces were making such claims, others felt compelled to do likewise or make even more extravagant claims. World according to Mao trumped reality. So, if Mao had great hopes for the Great Leap, then it was up to the Chinese to make sure that reality conformed to Mao's vision. The provinces, having made big claims about increased harvests, had to ship the amounts stated to the cities. But in fact, there weren't great increases in harvests. The claims were mostly empty rhetoric to appease Mao's megalomania as the savior-builder-master of China. As grains were shipped to urban authorities in the exaggerated amounts, there was less food for the peasants doing backbreaking work. But being in tune with the spirit of infallible Maoism, the exaggerated claims continued and more grains were shipped to the cities. Even as the countryside had less food, China was sending food to other nations as aid. It did so because the government was convinced that the Great Leap was a wild success. In reality, things grew dire in the countryside. It was made worse by Mao's insane campaign to kill sparrows that ate grain. It never occurred to Mao that sparrows also eat insects that consume even more grain. (In America, the sparrows are the police. Police are blamed for black deaths, but when police step back, blacks kill more blacks and other victims. America, where 'pigs' became the scapegoated 'sparrows'.)

Now, the sane thing would have been for someone to tell Mao upfront before the Great Leap even started that it was a hare-brained idear. But who dared to say No to Mao? They were afraid even to say Maybe. It had to be Yes, Yes, Yes.
Or, Mao would have sobered up that it wasn't going according to plan IF the officials in the countryside did not exaggerate grain yields. But how could they not when they were expected to produce unprecedented bounties? After all, Mao was infallible, and you'd be a damn 'reactionary' to fail to fulfill Mao's dreams. Next, once the peasants started going hungry and dropping like flies from overwork and undernourishment, it would have made sense for someone to confess the grain figures had been falsified. But such a person would fear being purged and destroyed for having made up bogus numbers to fool Mao.
They were caught in a Catch-22. On the one hand, one dared not lie to the great Mao, but telling the truth could mean a death sentence. One felt compelled to lie in service of the Revolution as the Truth, but the lie could also be construed as treason. So, from all quarters, Mao heard nothing but happy news and glowing data. He genuinely believed China was advancing in leaps and bounds. Those close to him dared not speak any bad news. They existed in a state of fear and trembling. But eventually, things got SO BAD that the truth began to make its way to Mao in bits and pieces. When Mao asked about them, those around him denied the reports and insisted everything was going according to plan; and so more people suffered and died. But then, things got even worse, and the whole system began to break down. It's like, even if your nerves have been blocked from sending pain signals to your mind, you will eventually notice something isn't right when the body just feels wrong and isn't doing what it should. It got to the point where Mao ordered his men to tell him the truth. What was really going on? Mao had to forcefully order others to finally tell him the truth. Mao was upset that the truth had been kept from him, but he created this very culture of lies. After all, so many people had been purged, imprisoned, or even executed for having told the truth or shown any real courage and independence of mind. He surrounded himself with loyalists, true-believers, and flunkies. So, by the time Mao realized what a fiasco the Great Leap had become the damage had already been done. He blamed others for not telling him the truth — he had to pry it out of them — , but he'd created the conditions were only the approved dogma and narrative were allowed. And in the end, he learned nothing because a megalomaniac will always be a megalomaniac. Even as he assented to the reversal of the Great Leap policies, he blamed the people for complaining too much once the truth was out. So many peopled had died of starvation, but the concerns were mostly an annoyance to Mao. And tragically for China, Mao was allowed to remain god-emperor, and it wasn't long before he launched another crazy campaign, the Cultural Revolution.

There are parallels between Maoist lunacy and the insane Western Cults around Jews as new christs, homos as new angels, and blacks as new saints. Just like Mao remained mostly unscathed by the total disaster, notice how hardly any Jew connected with the insane Wars for Israel and Wall Street meltdown faced any consequences. Even after so many wasted lives, squandered trillions, and stolen gazillions, Jews are not only still in control of industries and institutions but objects of near-worship by both political parties. Even after so much black criminality and violence, it's always groundhog's-day-return to Noble Negro myths. And of course, US embassies now fly homo flags as the de facto new national symbol despite the cultural degradation unleashed by globo-homo, of which tranny-wanny insanity is a part. No matter what Jews, blacks, and homos do, it's as if they've been fixed as the permanent neo-trinity of the West.

Some on the Right have said the 'new left' is like Maoism, but it's not the case ideologically. Rather, something like Psychological Maoism has taken over the West. The current 'left' and its globalist enablers aren't into communism or class struggle and all that, the ideological components of Maoism. What they have in common with Mao is megalomania and the obnoxious insistence on the culture of lies to prop up their moral nihilism, which is worse than moralism or nihilism. While moralism can be overbearing, it can be a sincere effort to be more moral. While nihilism is dangerous, it is at least honest in its embrace of total freedom. In contrast, Moral Nihilism means owning the high ground of morality no matter how nihilistically you act. This is the Jewish Way now. Jews can do anything, but they're always right. They can lie, but it's always the 'truth'. Jews can kill, but they are always the victims. It's an empire of lies. Jews have mao-power, or mao-pao.

Report: Ga. fraud votes exceed margin of victory

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Notes on the Review of THE SEARCHERS(directed by John Ford) in Counter-Currents

I think The Searchers is absurdly overrated, for it is far from flawless. But it is still a great work of art that plumbs deep themes and stirs deep feelings.

Its high esteem owes to several reasons. Auteur Theory, mainly established in America by Andrew Sarris who regarded John Ford very highly. Ford has been a pantheon among auteurs. Also, John Ford and the Western are considered quintessentially American, and the Western genre defined Classic Hollywood. Though Ford made several fine Westerns, THE SEARCHERS gets extra-nods for its high energy and darker themes. It is at once a Classic Western and something of an Alt-Western more in line with those of Anthony Mann. Then, there's the French Influence. Jean-Luc Godard claims to have wept at the ending of THE SEARCHERS. Of course, the Auteur Theory(or Policy) originated in France, long an influential hub of cinephilia. Then, there was the Movie Brat influence. The American filmmakers who came of prominence in the 1970s got hooked on THE SEARCHERS. Why that one than other Ford Westerns? It was old-fashioned and revisionist. As such, it had double or triple meanings open to post-modern interpretation. It was as if Ford was channeling something of Sam Fuller & Elia Kazan in slight but significant deviation from his formula, much like Alfred Hitchcock with his batch of movies such as REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO.
THE SEARCHERS offered the nostalgia of Old Hollywood but also a bit of edginess to keep it relevant in the turmoil of the 60s and 70s. THE SEARCHERS, like VERTIGO, has been prized as a bridge between the old and the new, and also an indication of what Ford(and Hitchcock) might have been capable of with greater artistic freedom, available to later filmmakers like Sam Peckinpah and Robert Altman. THE SEARCHERS and VERTIGO represent the dawn of something new in American Cinema and yet also represent what was lost with the new freedoms(that could just as easily lead to indulgence as inspiration).
If Scorsese wandered into the darker regions of Fordom, Spielberg remained in the lighter spaces, as in THE WAR HORSE. So, when film critics, film scholars, and filmmakers vote for THE SEARCHERS, they aren't necessarily saying it is really one of the top ten greatest movies. Rather, they are voting for what it represents in terms of genre, theme, and significance. It also explains why RASHOMON rates so highly in polls. Though Akira Kurosawa made several greater films, its cultural significance cannot be overstated. Its effect was electric at the time and introduced the world to Japanese cinema.

Although The Searchers is set in Texas in 1868, Ford’s treatment goes beyond the historical to the mythic and epic.

The Western genre is innately mythic, but THE SEARCHERS isn't really big on myth. It's more folkloric and picaresque. Ford generally wasn't interested in Western genre conventions of the classic gunfighter and the final showdown that served as the basis of the myth. His Westerns were more about a group of men(and good deal of womenfolks) than about the Man. SHANE has mythic overtones. Pauline Kael derided the hero as Kid Galahad on horseback. And of course, Sergio Leone pushed the Western myth to the stratosphere with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, which is really about giants than men.
Also, THE SEARCHERS doesn't feel like an epic. It spans several years over large territory, but the treatment is usually intimate and episodic than grandiose and sprawling. Much of the movie is a like a road movie or buddy comedy with Ethan & Marty and furthermore takes place in interiors. The movies doesn't try to be Large in the style of THE BIG TRAIL or THE BIG COUNTRY, let alone THE GIANT, a modern Western. There's no air of Importance to the story-telling. The obvious use of studio sets in some scenes further undermines the sense of the epic. Also, Ethan's brooding quality reminds us that he is more an embodiment of personal rage than a symbol of Western Expansion and Progress. He is an outlier.

The silhouette of a woman appears in the doorway... It is like watching a specter, a shade, taking on an embodied form. It has the feel of a creation myth. But what is being created? The answer seems to be civilization...

Ford didn't think in such big terms. That was the folkish Irish in him. She represents family, at most community. That's what Ford really loved and felt at home in. Civilization is a big concept with highfalutin ideas and monumental architecture. Ford had no real feeling for that. Even his modern movies, like THE LAST HURRAH, are more about community and a culture. In this, Ford felt sort of Indian-ish. After all, the Anglos often characterized the Irish as brutish, tribal, kin-oriented, and backward. Irish were more about pride than principles. So, even as Ford romanticized the coming of community to the West, he sort of lamented the coming of Civilization that would do away with manly roles and womanly roles in a close-knit community.

A rider approaches across the desert. This is a lawless land, where every stranger is regarded with apprehension.

Yes and No. There are Indian hostiles about for sure, and you never know when they might form a war party. But homestead is also part of an intimate community. Because there aren't as yet many people in the area, it seems all the white folks know each other by name. They are awful neighborly and supportive of one another, unlike city folks who are mostly strangers unto one another. So, unless there's Indian smoke and war drums, a figure on the horizon would likely be a familiar face and be welcomed into the house for coffee or broth.

Ethan clearly aims to stop fighting and make a home there... But Ethan’s attempt to reenter society and enjoy the fruits of peace does not last a single day, for there’s trouble afoot.

Ethan still can't get over the fact that the South lost. He has some of that Jesse James rage. If the Civil War were still on, he'd be in the fight as warring comes naturally to him. But by the time he reaches the home of his brother, he's come to bitterly accept that the North won and there's no way of turning back history. But deep down inside, he's smoldering over the defeat. He will fight with the Yankees against the Indians, but his Southern folks have been defeated by the Yankees, much like the Indians are being beaten by the cowboys. Also, he sides with white folks against the Red Man, but he probably feels bitter that the Yankee North waged war to free the semi-savage ni**ers against white Southern folks. The Yankees wage race war against the Red Man but also waged war on Southern White Man to free the black man who, being stronger and donger, could whup the white man.

In one way, the Indians disrupt his chance for peace and stability. In another way, the crisis saves him from a life of slow dissolution as just another farmer or rancher(like Eastwood character in the beginning of UNFORGIVEN before he embarks on a quest). He has reason to be a man of action once again, and he truly feels at home on the move. It's like the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., while genuinely enraged over his partner's death, uses the opportunity to get his nihilist kicks. War is tragic, but peace is tragic for the man of action. It's like what Douglas MacArthur said about old soldiers just fading away. And the men in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, while glad to be back home, feel so humdrum. In war, they were heroes. And the military guy in WORLD TRADE CENTER(by Oliver Stone), though saddened by the terrorist attack, also welcomes it as godsend. He can finally do what his kind is meant for: To fight and destroy.

Who is Ethan Edwards? He is a warrior and a wanderer in wild spaces: the space between warring civilizations and the space between civilization and savagery. He lives in the state of nature, not civil society.

Ethan is functional in both. Unlike Travis Bickle who is a bundle of neuroticism, Ethan is an all-around personality who fits equally well in civil society and war zone. He can be sociable and chummy as well as fearsome and aggressive. He's in his environment as a wandering 'cowboy', but people of the community feel comfortable when he's around. He gets along with everyone while simultaneously standing his ground. In other words, Ethan is very much a John Wayne character. He's sort of like Pat Buchanan. Pugnacious and always relishing a fight but also amiable and sociable with people of all stripes.

Once the Confederacy was defeated, he fought for the Emperor Maximilian for money. But war is a young man’s game. Ethan is getting too old for it.

Age isn't really a factor in the movie. Sure, Ethan isn't a strapping young man anymore, but he's still younger than some others in the community. And his reason for 'coming home' was the bitter acceptance of the lost Southern cause. He stopped fighting because the Southern defeat was total. It seems that, for a time, in Jesse-James fashion, he took part in revenge violence against Yankees and Carpetbagger types. But it became pointless as the South was lost. It was a bitter pill to swallow but swallow he did.

On two occasions, the Ranger Captain Clayton chooses to ignore Ethan’s possible crimes because they need his help. They sense that Ethan is like them: a guardian of peace and family life...

It's mainly because Ethan is a tough guardian of self. It won't be easy to force one's will on a man like Ethan. While he's useful as another white man against the Indians, there's just enough outlaw in him to intimidate even a proud and tough man like Captain Clayton. Clayton knows Ethan will not come peaceably if he tries to arrest him. And other men would also think twice about arresting him. Besides, as fellow Texans who share the bitterness of the Southern defeat, they sort of empathize with Ethan's vengeful feelings and actions against the Yankees. It's like even law-abiding Southerners who didn't take part in Jesse James' criminality looked the other way because "it was for Dixie and nothing else".

For instance, when a fight breaks out at a wedding at the Jorgenson home, Ethan shoos Mrs. Jorgenson inside because he doesn’t think a woman should see such things.

I think he was just clowning, a way for him to say, "You womenfolk pretend to be for home and hearth but love to see a good fight like anyone else." So, his action was sarcastic than moralistic. It's like when Laurie pleads with Ethan to stop the fight, he tells SHE started it, and soon enough she's reveling in the sight of two men whupping each other over her.

When Ethan finds the bodies of Martha and Lucy, both of whom were presumably raped, he spares others the sight. He has peered into the abyss so that others don’t have to.

That was more personal than anything else. He loved Martha and feels that Marty setting his eyes on her ravaged naked body would be more violation of her dignity. As for Lucy's body, he kept that secret so that young Jorgenson wouldn't lose his head. Just as he predicted, once Jorgenson hears what really happened, he burns with rage and rides off into an Indian camp and gets killed. In a way, Ethan despairs what happened but also understands Jorgenson died a manly death.

Ethan doesn't try to protect Marty from the horrors of the world. He was certainly about to kill Debbie right in Marty's presence. And when he shot the eyes out of the dead Indian, Marty was there as witness.

Mrs. Jorgenson says, “A Texican’s nothin’ but a human man out on a limb . . . This year and next and maybe for a hundred more. But I don’t think it’ll be forever. Someday this country will be a fine good place to be . . . Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come . . .”

She was a school teacher, you know.

Texas is a pagan land that demands human sacrifices before it becomes a decent place to live. This is why Ethan interrupts the Christian burial of his family to begin the search for the killers. Texas is not yet ready for such niceties. It needs more blood and bones, and Ethan is ready to lay down his own.

This is over-interpreting Ethan's motives. He's just impatient for action. He is not a high concept person who thinks in terms of history, meaning, and significance. He lives for what is his, whom he knows and cares for. The only larger loyalty he had was to the South and only because of the Civil War that divided the US into North vs South. Even if Ethan lived in a civilized setting without red savages, he would always be impatient and a bit impulsive, like the Burt Reynolds character in DELIVERANCE who is eager to reach the river. (Why? Because it's there.) Or the Stampers of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Ethan isn't acting for civilization or even for Texas. The school teacher may see her life as part of something bigger, but Ethan lives for himself. Even his rescue mission for Debbie is really about his feelings, his sense of revenge, his personal vendetta.

Ethan is a man in a hurry. The proximate reason for haste is that with each passing minute, the girls are closer to rape, torture, and death. The deeper cause is that he’s over the hill, so his time is short.

With Lucy, that's true. She is a young woman, therefore a sexual target for the Indians. But even as victim of rape and murder, she would still be a white woman who resisted and understood the horror of what had happened. But it's different with Debbie. She wouldn't be raped. She would be turned Indian. She would be accepted into the very fabric of Indian life, and her loyalties would be with the Indians. She wouldn't be sexually violated but sexually initiated into Indian life to produce braves whom she would love as her own sons. In some ways, this is worse. It's like turning Greek boys into Janissary who genuinely accepted Islam and fought for Allah against Christendom.

It's like a white race-ist being killed by terrible Negroes is less tragic than white kids being turned into 'woke' enemies of their own race, essentially tools of vile Jewish Supremacists and ghastly Negroes.

He is cold and ruthless, using Martin as bait to trap and kill the treacherous merchant Futterman.

Actually, cold-and-ruthless would have been less unnerving. What's truly unsettling about the scene is Ethan's casual camaraderie with Marty. He uses Marty as bait but treats him like a long-lost little brother. Of course, one could say Ethan was just playacting, but his fondness for Marty(by that time) seems as genuine as the ploy is calculating. Thus, Ethan has the odd combination of warmth and ruthlessness(which could be said of Ford himself, a real son of a bitch but not without a heart). And the crazy-funny thing is Ford did it with comic touch. It's almost as if Marty passed the test of manhood with Ethan, much like Paulie saying, "You broke your cherry" to Henry in GOODFELLAS. It's the warrior's code. Warriors are a band of brothers but also expendable. It's just the name of the game. Ford made a movie called THEY WERE EXPENDABLE. So, the more Marty comes to accept his expendability, the more he becomes valuable to Ethan who lives his life like it's expendable.

He is also increasingly savage... He even slaughters buffalo simply to starve the Indians.

Modern times make us wonder what is and isn't savage. During World War I, the entire German civilian population was targeted for starvation with naval blockades. In the 1990s, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, both products of elite institutions, implemented ruthless sanctions on Iraq that killed countless lives of children. And the US uses food-and-medicine as weapons in its Jewish-Supremacist war on Syria. So, Ethan's 'savagery' was pure amateur stuff compared to what civilizations do.
In a way, the dichotomy of civilization vs savagery misses the mark. American Indians were more 'war-like' because there were many competing tribes. But there was peace within the tribe. So, if Indians fought more, it wasn't because they were naturally more warlike or savage but because the sphere of peace was smaller for them. They belonged to a tribe surrounded by other tribes. Civilization has much wider sphere of peace but only because more peoples have been conquered and forced into the sphere. But when we ponder America's war-making on nations and entities that remain outside, independent of, or hostile to the Globalist Empire, it's utterly 'savage' and ruthless. Just ask the Syrians. Just ask the Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass. Just ask the Palestinians hated by the Jewish supremacist masters of America. We speak of civilization conquering savagery in the American West, but civilization itself is an amalgam of conquered peoples. The Irish who collaborated under the Anglos to conquer the West had themselves been forced into Pax Anglo. Same with Negroes. 20% of cowboys were Negroes, and they too warred with Indians. They too had been forced into Pax Anglo. So, spread of civilization is often about the conquered conquering the 'savages' yet to be conquered.

Ethan’s search for Debbie quickly takes on the quality of an obsession.

She is kin, the child of his brother. Also, she's the child of Martha, the woman Ethan loved. He lost Martha to Aaron, his own brother, and he's not about to lose the child of Martha to the Indians. Because she was abducted when young, the real problem is she can be raised to love the Indians. With Lucy, the Indians had to force their lust on her. But with Debbie, she could put out to some brave out of love. That would be the greatest betrayal.

There’s a lot to dislike about Ethan Edwards, but he’s the only man who could have rescued Debbie.

But the rescue is purely accidental, and her survival owes more to Marty. Despite all those years of wandering and searching, Ethan failed to rescue Debbie. He came close to killing her at one point, but Marty stood in his way.
The final raid on the Indian Camp wasn't about Debbie. The cavalry was going to attack anyway, and she just happened to be there. And she could have easily gotten killed if the cavalry charged in. After all, plenty of Indian women and children were mowed down by the US cavalry. This is why Marty asks to sneak into the camp prior to the charge. And it is he who kills Scar. It wasn't Ethan's plan, but by this time, he's gained enough respect for Marty, who'd grown into full manhood, to let him have his way.

The central hangup of most critical writing about The Searchers is that Ethan is a “racist,” even a “virulent” one.

There is a virulent quality about Ethan, but what is impassioned among whites is usually called 'rabid' and 'virulent' by Jews. Of course, when Jews exhibit similar passions, those are noble and inspiring.
Anyway, calling Ethan a 'racist' in the context of THE SEARCHERS seems pointless. I mean, who isn't a 'racist' in that setting? The movie features a race war between whites and Indians. Every white person in THE SEARCHERS is for the eradication of Indian savages to make way for white communities. Even the North, which abolished slavery in the South, was totally committed to Westward Expansion and the 'genocide' of the Indians. Whether Mr. Futterman the merchant is Jewish or not, plenty of Jewish merchants sold rifles and ammo to cowboys to go kill Indians with. Perhaps, the difference is other whites just do it as a necessary evil whereas Ethan really feels the 'racism' as a kind of all-consuming obsession.

A racist, in the words of Jim Goad, means “a vicious loser who hates people with different continental ancestry . . . merely to compensate for being an inadequate psychopath and to avoid taking responsibility for his own problems.”

There are people like that. Some white supremacist types are indeed the biggest losers. They aren't smart or strong. Their 'racism' is a crutch. They inflate their own egos and put down others to feel better about themselves. But this is true of all groups. Black supremacists tend to exaggerate 'we wuz kangz' BS to compensate for their loserdom in many fields.
Now, if 'racism' was meant in this way, it wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is 'racism' now applies to ANY expression of white desire for self-preservation. So, any European nation that doesn't want to be swamped by the Third World is 'far right' and 'white supremacist'. Of course, Jews push this invective, but then, they demand that whites, who must forsake their own blood-and-territorial inheritance, totally support Jewish right of identity, pride, nationhood, and even hegemony over others.

It used to be 'racist' meant a nasty hateful jerk who hated just to hate. Now, a 'racist' is any white person who won't totally grovel before Jews and Negroes. And even if they do grovel, they would still be charged of 'white fragility' or some nonsense. But the fact that so many whites fall for this goes to show they are idiots. It seems white greatness owed to great white elites leading the white masses. Most white people are only good for following like sheeple. Once white elites abandoned their roles as proudly race-ist white rulers/leaders, the white masses just turned to the new Jewish elites for answers, and it's been ever increasing levels of cuckery.

Ethan clearly isn’t a racist in this sense. First of all, he is not ignorant of the Comanches. He knows their language and their myths. He respects them as enemies. He clearly hates them. But he doesn’t hate them because they are merely “different” or because he is a “loser.” He hates them because of their treachery, violence, and cruelty. They butchered his family after raping the women, something they did to countless other white families.

Comanches are a fearsome bunch, but whites are invading Comanche territories. Comanches fight back like the Germanic barbarians did against the Romans. So, even though whites are understandably horrified by Comanche brutality, it's hardly surprising that Comanches would react this way to white encroachment on their ancestral hunting and burial grounds.
The thing about Ethan is he's a natural tribalist(though always wandering off into the turfs of other tribes). He feels most comfortable with us-versus-them view of the world. He even feels this way about whites. He surely killed lots of whites in the Civil War and even after the war. As a Southerner, he resented the North telling his kind what they can and can't do. As a white man, he's at war with Indians. As the brother of Aaron, he takes the massacre personally. If the Comanches had spared Aaron and Martha's family and gone after the Jorgensons, Ethan's anger wouldn't have been sufficient to become a 'searcher'. With Ethan, the personal is political and vice versa. The fact that he even fought in Mexico goes to show his main loyalty isn't to country or principles. It's about what feels right to him at the moment.

Critics are also exercised over the fact that Ethan would rather kill Debbie than allow her to stay with the Indians. Surely this is an expression of irrational “racism” and “hate.” But is it?

This is understandable. After all, Marty himself is shocked that Ethan would even dream of such thing. And Ford as storyteller is with Marty though privy to Ethan's motives.
It's a variation of 'better dead than red'. It's been a common theme for people to prefer death with dignity than defeat with humiliation. In STAGECOACH, a southern gentleman saves the last bullet for the white woman lest she be taken by the Indians. Indeed, this rule applied to men as well. Better to save the last bullet for yourself than be taken hostage by Indians who might torture you in the most horrible way. In MASADA, the Zealots choose to end their lives than surrender to the Romans. In DOWNFALL, the Goebbels' wife would rather kill her kids than have them grow up as 'slaves' in defeated Germany. Many Japanese committed suicide than accept defeat in the Pacific War. A woman in13TH WARRIOR instructs another to kill the children than have them be taken as captives by the invaders if the defenses were to fail. The black woman in Toni Morrison's BELOVED killed her child than have her grow up as a slave. If white men had abducted an Indian child and raised him to fight on the side of whites against Indians, the boy's Indian father or uncle might have wanted him killed. Better than than have a red man fight for whites and kill fellow Indians.

Still, Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is deeply disturbing because she is wholly innocent. She was taken as a child by the Indians and raised as one. Under the circumstances, she is what she is. To kill her seems over-the-top, more an expression and realization of Ethan's personal rage than anything to do with justice or purpose. (Ethan would want to kill her even if or especially if she found happiness with the Indians.)
Debbie's 'betrayal' isn't something she chose. She was acculturated into another world that accepted her as one of its own. It's like what happens to the white kid in THE EMERALD FOREST by John Boorman. He becomes a genuine Noble Savage. Now, in THE SEARCHERS, it's revealed at the end that Debbie never fully gave herself to the Indians. She did grow fond of them and came to regard them as her people, but deep down inside, she still remained true to her real family, like the priest in THE SILENCE(Martin Scorsese) kept the flame alive deep in his heart under captivity in Japan.

The real question about Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is, "Was it more for her sake or his sake?" I think it was more about his feelings, and on that note, it is wrong. It was his rage more than her interests that drove him to such extreme resolve.

Ethan also knows that once Debbie reaches puberty she will be raped. Maybe she will be killed then. Maybe she will be made into a squaw. Ethan would rather die than suffer that fate. He wants to spare Debbie from it. This isn’t racism and hate. It is an act of love in a terrible situation.

No, the rape issue was with Lucy. The problem with Debbie is she will be wed to an Indian. This is worse than rape as far as Ethan is concerned. At least in rape, there is the act of resistance. It's like the scene in THE BIRTH OF A NATION and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS(by Michael Mann) where white women kill themselves than be taken by the Negro or Indian. White male 'racists' may be outraged by black-on-white rape but they are truly enraged by white-on-black love, aka Jungle Fever. At least the white rape victim resisted the Negro. In contrast, there is white lust and desire for the Negro in jungle fever. A white woman happily surrenders herself to black men. So, as horrible as Lucy's death was, Debbie's acculturation into Indian life seems worse to Ethan. She won't be raped but may 'freely' give herself to some Indian brave she regards as her husband to serve and obey.

Ethan would rather die than suffer such fate? You mean Ethan would rather kill her than suffer the fate of knowing of her 'betrayal'.

Whatever it is, can't it be race-ist and hate and love and honor all rolled into one? Why think in binaries? Ethan hates what has become of Debbie, but that hate exists only because of his love for her. It's often the case that the person you come to hate the most was the one you loved the most. You feel most betrayed when the person you trusted the most turns out the wrong way. The notion that Ethan, in his fit of rage and on the cusp of killing Debbie, was acting out of love is a bit of a stretch. There is love buried somewhere in Ethan's heart but also unhinged rage and hatred. He's not acting rationally based on questions of ethics(in terrible situations) but burning with fury of the moment.

The problem men face with women is twofold. In SEVEN SAMURAI, a woman abducted by bandits feels great shame, and later, face to face with husband, she would rather throw herself into the fire than have him look at her fallen self. (That peasant's rage makes Ethan's seem pale by comparison.)
In THE WILD BUNCH however, it's not the case. When Angel asks the village elder if his woman Teresa was molested and taken, the old man says, "No, the bitchass ho ran off with General Mapache who has more blings to give her." Later when Angel encounters Teresa at Mapache's compound, she laughs at him, and he grows so enraged that he kills her.
Kurosawa idealized the woman-as-saint, whereas Peckinpah saw women as natural whores, true enough in STRAW DOGS.

Raped by Black Savage or Jungle Fever? Long ago, maybe sex between black male and white female had a good chance of involving rape. Today, most of them are products of jungle fever, and furthermore, it's promoted by Jews and endorsed even by Conservatives and Donald Trump, the friend of Kim Kardashian.

TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE, both written by Paul Schrader, reveal that the girls ran off on their own and chose to be whores than 'chores' and 'bores' in small town setting. And so many small town girls go to Hollywood and prefer to work as skanks than be stuck in nowhere-ville with the prospect of settling down with Average Joe. Even in PATTI HEARST where a white woman was really kidnapped and raped, she becomes one of the radicals soon enough.
Coen Brothers did a variation on this with the porn girl in THE BIG LEBOWSKI:

And it is this question that haunts Ethan. How much of Debbie's 'betrayal' was forced on her and how much of it was voluntary? Is she a mere victim or a willing accomplice with the Indians?

Martin Scorsese was deeply influenced by The Searchers.

True, but his yammering about Ethan-the-'racist' is so sickening in that series he did on the Western. Sometimes, an Irishman
would do well to paint his house.

Ford makes Martin Pawley one-eighth Cherokee. He first appears riding a horse bareback, then neatly dismounts while it is still trotting. He’s also late to dinner. Later we see that he is highly emotional and impulsive, although he is still a teenager. When he is a little older, he does not fight “fair” in a fist-fight. All this suggests that he has a bit of Indian wildness in him.

His entrance comes later to accentuate his 'intrusion' into the family setting as preferred by Ethan. The very sight of him triggers Ethan's deep-seated hostility. Ethan's reaction is 'animal', like when a dog instinctively feels wary of another creature. It takes time for Ethan's memory(of having saved Marty) and the family's affection for Marty to ease him back into the family setting. His mind knows that Marty is 'part of the family', but his heart remains wary of him. He feels tolerance but not bond.

As for being emotional and impulsive, those are more Irishy traits than Indian ones, whose stereotype was stone-faced stolidity. It's like Scar speaks in monotones.
We learn that Ethan rescued Marty as a baby, and this foreshadows Ethan's rescuing(or sparing) of Debbie at the end. Both 'rescues' have an air of ambivalence. The white-man-side of Ethan didn't particularly care to save a 'half-breed' child, but perhaps the Christian side made him do, though he shunted the kid off to another family than raise him on his own. Likewise, we don't know until the very end what Ethan will do when he gets his hands on Debbie. He doesn't know it either, also the case with revisionist NOAH of Darren Aronofsky's movie that combines the Noah story with that of Abram. In the end, this 'Noah' just couldn't do it. The difference between Marty and Debbie is Ethan's heart wasn't into saving baby Marty but his mind was — he knew it was the right thing to do even though he didn't really care — , whereas with Debbie, his mind is set on killing her but his heart isn't, which is revealed at the end.

When Ethan sees him, he blurts out that he could be mistaken for a half-breed. In truth, he cannot. Played by Jeffrey Hunter, Marty has strikingly handsome Caucasian features

Yeah, Marty is supposed to have distinguishable Indian features. Back then, it was the norm in Hollywood to cast white actors for non-white roles. So, we must go with what Ethan says than what we see.

When Laurie suggests that it might be better for Debbie to die than stay with the Comanches, it is obviously not because she has a horror of miscegenation. Instead, she has a horror of rape.

No, it's more due to her feelings about mixing with savages. She doesn't like the idea of Debbie having Indian babies and living as a squaw-woman. She's high-spirited and proud but not particularly sympathetic. She's a bit vain and selfish, at least to the extent allowed by frontier experience. When Marty rides off to find Debbie, she takes it as personal slight and grievance. She wants Marty's attention on her than on Debbie. In this, she is sort of like Ethan. Both act like the world revolves around their feelings.

The characters of Marty and Laurie bring us to the main faults of The Searchers. They are incredibly annoying: less characters than caricatures. Perhaps these characters could have been saved by good acting, but both Jeffrey Hunter and Vera Miles as Laurie are committed over-actors. Marty is annoyingly whiny and buffoonish, and Laurie tends to be shrill.

I like Marty, but the performance is problematic because the actor was too old for the role, especially in the early years of the search. He acts too boyish for a full-grown man. Also, he plays the most morally and socially/racially complex character in the movie, but Ford wasn't sure whether he wanted Marty to be a comic sidekick or the voice of conscience.
Vera Miles on the other hand shines like an apple. Her performance isn't subtle or complicated but from the heart, but Laurie is a simple girl with strong passions and full of spunk. She's a girl blossoming into womanhood, and it is peak Miles. It's a hearty and heartbreaking performance. She is bound by duty and does her chores and more but also defiant and self-centered. Her life revolves around work, but she wants the world, or at least Marty, to revolve around her. She's responsibility and vanity in one tight bundle. Even when she wails at Marty for choosing the search for Debbie over her, she goes through the trouble of retrieving the horse and handing(or hurling) him the rifle.

There is a great deal of childish flirting and bickering. It is often painful. But the worst thing about it is that Ford left nothing to accident. He clearly wanted it exactly this way, which is a terrible lapse of taste.

The problem lies in taking Ford and THE SEARCHERS too seriously. Ford never aspired to be a pure artist, and his movies are essentially folkloric popular entertainments. Much of the appeal owes to the air of familiarity. When you watch a Ford movie, you expect the similar cast of characters. It's like the Irish returning to Ireland to bask in Irishness. Ford's movies feel like 'home', even when set in the Western wilderness. Ford created his universe of characters, and the appeal was to popular and even vulgar taste. Ford wasn't exactly about good taste or sophistication. An average Ford movie was perhaps more complex than the usual Hollywood fare but not by much. His movies weren't Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. And much of THE SEARCHERS has to seen as Family Entertainment. It had nostalgic appeal, especially in the 1950s when Teen Culture was on the rise with the birth of the Cool. There's nothing cool about Ford's movies. When Laurie receives a letter, her parents hardly have any concept of privacy and tell her to read it out loud. It's old-fashioned and homey.
Though Ford could be somewhat complex, his movies have to be taken like Norman Rockwell paintings(than Rembrandts). Naturally, they are filled with archetypes and caricatures than three-dimensional characters. THE SEARCHERS is very much the usual Ford fare but something a bit more, as if entertainment has been miscegenated with art into something promising to be wondrous, or monstrous.

terrible possibility that Lucas also copied Luke’s annoying whining from Marty and the juvenile bickering between Luke, Leia, and Han from similar scenes in The Searchers.

That owes more to screwball comedies.

By the end of the film, (Marty) is man enough to defy Ethan then fight off Laurie’s would-be groom, a grinning, drawling buffoon about whom the less said the better.

That 'grinning, drawling buffoon' is wonderful. It's hilarious because he talks like a hee-haw tard but sings like an angel. But the single most memorable character is Old Mose who looks racially ambiguous and is wonderfully goofy. He looks both infantile and senile. Inspired personality and performance. One thing for sure, characters like Old Mose show that the movie was as much bawdy comedy for the unwashed masses as a dark tale of race and redemption for thinking folks.

What happened? Obviously, Ethan has had a change of heart. But it makes perfect sense. He wanted to kill Debbie when she wanted to stay with Scar. But Scar is now dead, his people will be killed or captured, and Debbie has run away from the Comanches. So she has had a change of heart too. Now Ethan can rescue her, so he does. But that was Plan A all along.

No, this is too neat and rational. His murderous feelings toward Debbie went deeper than the problem of her loyalty to the Comanches. She'd been defiled in his eyes and is beyond redemption. Sure, his rage has abated some since his attempt to kill her, but the rage is still there, as Marty noticed many times. (Marty says that whenever Ethan talks about Debbie, his face goes 'red rum, red rum'.) And when Marty sneaks into the Indian camp, it is as much to protect her from Ethan as to save her from Scar. Marty fears that the US cavalry raid might serve as perfect moral cover for Ethan to kill Debbie(as surely some women and children will get killed in the melee). Even to the very end, Marty tries to stop Ethan, and Ethan strikes Marty to the ground and rides off in pursuit of Debbie. It is only when he holds her in his arms that he knows for sure that he won't harm her. It's like John Wayne's character wasn't sure what he was really going to do with Montgomery Clift's character in RED RIVER, an emotional precursor to THE SEARCHERS. On the one hand, Wayne's character vowed to kill the 'traitor', but face to face with the young man, he refuses to shoot him and slugs him instead until he is slugged back... until they make up. This element of THE SEARCHERS has something of 'existentialism'(fashionable at the time). In the end, we cannot sum up Ethan's final decision with recourse to logic, ethics, philosophy. He was torn between killing her and sparing her, and he didn't know what he'd really do until the very end when she was in his arms. In a way, she saves him as much as he saves her. That sense of mystery is what adds power to that scene. It's like the closing line of Scorsese's RAGING BULL.

"So, for the second time, [the Pharisees]
summoned the man who had been blind and said:
'Speak the truth before God.
We know this fellow is a sinner.'
'Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know.'
the man replied.
'All I know is this:
once I was blind and now I can see.'

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Why did Capitalism go 'Woke'? — Idolatry, so intrinsic to Capitalism, led it toward the promotion of Jewish Supremacism, Negromania, and Globo-Homo — Political Correct Capitalism as the Neo-Catholicization of the New World Order

During the Cold War, there was the sense that the West was about freedom, about having a good time and being 'cool'. Not everything had to be politicized. In contrast, the communist world was seen as overly political, with ideology shaping and coloring just about everything. This was especially true of Stalinist USSR and China of the Cultural Revolution. So, while everything had to be Marxist-Leninist in the communist world, one could be just cool and happily apolitical in the West. You could have fun and be left alone by the state, commissars, or activists. It's like that movie NINOTCHKA. Garbo as Soviet commissar is staunchly ideological, so hardline. She is humorless and stern. But when she begins to laugh, she begins her transition to capitalism and freedom. She learns one doesn't have to be uptight and upright all the time with radical commitment. One could take it easy and enjoy life. And unlike communist propaganda devised to shape one's politics and worldview, capitalist advertising had only one thing in mind: To sell stuff. It was about profits for the company and fun/convenience for the consumer(as king or queen). The appeal of capitalism was its apolitical character. It was about products and services. It was about money for the company and happiness for the consumer.

So, even though the West was plenty political and ideological during the Cold War with its own propaganda and messaging, one could nevertheless ignore all the humorless and heavy-handed stuff in the world of capitalism, consumerism, and entertainment. For sure, Americans weren't dragged to ideological sessions. One's involvement in politics was voluntary, not mandatory. One didn't drink Coca-Cola to be political. One didn't watch a Disney movie for ideology. One didn't watch a 007 movie for propaganda. Even when James Bond took on the Russkies, it was more about fantasy and romance than politics. One didn't read Archie comics for 'moral' instructions or guidance. Indeed, the West often portrayed itself as apolitical compared to the Communist East. The dreary notion was that people behind the Iron Curtain, from cradle to grave, were molded into 'good communists' and everything was politicized. If you were politically suspect or heretical, you could be hounded, persecuted, or even executed. But in the West, the capitalists didn't care about your ideology. They just sold you stuff and services. And when you took part in capitalism, it was to buy something of convenience or pleasure. You didn't purchase it for meaning or commitment. When Richard Nixon met Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, the message was that Americans were consumers with freedom and money to buy what they wanted without meddling of the state. And when China opened up in the late 70s, one of the famous images was of Chinese youths wearing sunglasses and drinking Coke. The appeal of sunglasses and Coca-Cola wasn't ideological. They were consumer products. At most, they had 'idolic' value. Cola meant easy pleasure, cold drink on a hot day. Sunglasses meant looking 'cool' and stylish.
During the Cultural Revolution, sunglasses had been banned as a product of 'Western Decadence'. And in the Soviet Union, body building was frowned upon(if not illegalized) as a form of vanity and narcissism. And indeed, one of the Western attractions for people in the communist world was the sense of apolitical freedom, especially in America. In the movie MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON(by Paul Mazursky), the Russian exile(played by Robin Williams) encounters many problems in the US, but he still chooses to remain because he's left alone and free to do his own thing. There isn't a commissar breathing down his neck 24/7. He could say to the Power, "It's none of your business", something disallowed in a communist system. You don't lose your job over politics(unless it's truly grievous).

So, the idea was that capitalism is fun, cool, easy-going, tolerant, individualist, and apolitical whereas communism is radical, fanatical, censorious, repressive, dogmatic, and conformist. This contrast is illustrated in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING where pro-Western Czechs act in libertine fashion whereas the Communist Order is presented as rigid and heavy.

So, what happened? Why did capitalism in the West turn 'radical' in the current 'woke' form? Why is it so incessantly activist and pushy with its constant messaging and propagandizing? Why are people being fired or demoted or censured over some tweet years ago? Why are they being denied products and services over matters of personal creed, politics, and values? Why do capitalists fund, propagate, and lend support to views that smack of 'radical' nuttery? When Coca-Cola made inroads into China in the 1980s, it was the apolitical drink of the world. The idea was its dominance owed to quality and service, not to any idea or message. But now, Coca-Cola is the promoter of the cult of White Fragility. Burger King constantly reminds us of the sanctity of homos, as if it wants to rebrand itself as Bugger King. What does sodomy have to do with burgers? But then, why did Homosher take off as the new kosher? Why are Oreo Cookies packaged in homo colors? What do cookies have to do with guys sucking each other's pud? Why are capitalists pushing BLM the big lie when surely anyone with a sense of reality knows that blacks mostly kill one another(when not attacking non-blacks) and that the number of innocent blacks killed by cops is negligible, if existent at all? It's bad enough that capitalists are taking part in politics(when they are all about products and profits). What's worse is they willfully take the ideological or idolatrous line than have any real concern for the truth. They go with what is politically advertised than what is true in the real world. It used to be capitalism was like the Beach Boys(fun, fun, fun), whereas communists were like the Red Guards. Now, capitalism funds and supports 'woke' mobs and pushes 'radical' dogma through their public announcements and advertising. Also, they fire and intimidate their own work force on the basis of ideological correctness and idolatrous sanctity. How did things become this way? It's almost as if capitalism has taken on the attitude of Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1920s. 'Wokery' is doing to business what Neocons did with American Conservatism. It's in selective purge mode, condemning whiteness while enabling Jewish Power to grow ever bigger.

1. Surely, the ascendancy of Jewish Power is a major factor in this as Jews are the top capitalists and have an obsessively supremacist mentality. Jews love money, but their top priority is tribal supremacism. Having abandoned socialism, Jews are now totally capitalist and determined to use their monopoly power to shape the narrative and direct the course of history to secure their supremacist position. Mass media are part of Jewish capitalist enterprise, and Jews use their near-monopoly lock on news and information for tribal supremacist's sake. So, for Jews, capitalism isn't just a cash cow but a political weapon of mind-control. Jews especially feel vulnerable despite their vast riches because they are only 2% of the population. For Jews, capitalism is useful as both a political and apolitical tool. As an apolitical instrument of hedonism, leisure, fun, and entertainment, capitalism turns the masses into complacent and infantilized bunch of mindless consumers. Better to have goyim obsess about sports, video games, movies, and gambling than gain independent political consciousness that might realize that Jews control just about everything.
But an apolitical order never stays that way. In a vacuum of political meaning, some force enters the scene to offer meaning, direction, and sense of purpose. Man doesn't live on bread alone, not even on bread-and-circus alone. In the past, Jews used capitalism for profit-making and used socialism & radical politics for meaning. Jewish capitalists made the profits, and Jewish leftists served as the prophets. But genuine Jewish leftist have all vanished. Most Jews are capitalist and pro-rich. They are for more money and more privilege for the Tribe and have lost interest in Humanity. Thus, Jews have bundled profit and prophet into one package. For example, in the past Jews made some movies and TV shows for fun and nothing but fun. They hardly had any politics and were made to be as uncontroversial as possible to make the audience complacent and happy. But Jews also made other kinds of movies, usually scripted by leftists, radicals, and subversives, that were meant to push a message. These movies generally made less money and even lost money. Still, they had political and propagandistic value.
Today in contrast, even mindless entertainment is likely to be loaded with politics. Advertising is often heavily politicized or in service of ideology or idolatry of certain groups, especially Negroes and Homos, the holy icons of commercialism. The way things are going, even slot-machines of the future might be politicized with ideological symbols. Jews control advertising, entertainment, and news media, all of which are capitalist enterprises. And as the #1 priority of Jews is Jewish Supremacism, they are hellbent on using whatever means, even consumer-capitalism, as a tool of power. As Jewish Power relies most essentially on the cuckery of white goyim, Jews use capitalism to spread images, ideas, and narratives that gaslight, shame, or paralyze white identity and interests.

2. The corruption of Gramsci-ism. When Antonio Gramsci spoke of Cultural Hegemony, he hardly had stuff like 'gay' Oreo Cookies or BLM-narcissistic fests in mind. His idea wasn't to take over capitalism to spread idolatry in favor of certain groups. Rather, the idea was for leftists and socialists to gain cultural influence to win over hearts & minds. His idea of Good Culture would have been something like BICYCLE THIEVES or the films of Roberto Rossellini. For him, Marxist cultural hegemony was to destroy capitalism, not to take over capitalism and indulge in narcissistic hedonism as proper platform for good ideas and values. If socialism must have dignity, it must be conveyed through serious and noble manner. In contrast, today's neo-hegemonists indulge in the culture of excess and use such means to convey supposedly important messages. It's like radicalism expressed through a strip-tease.

If Gramsci looked forward to winning hearts and minds with a new cultural paradigm, the neo-hegemonists are perfectly fine with capitalist excess, self-indulgence, narcissism, vanity, and infantilism... as long as those are loaded with the favored idolatry, mainly of Jews, homos, and blacks. So, it's great to 'twerk' as long as it's for BLM or Globo-Homo. It's okay to indulge yourself with wild-partying and girls-gone-wild and wanton hedonism AS LONG AS you remember to pay tribute to Jews, blacks, and homos.

This has obvious appeal to Neo-Hegemonists who are more Cultural Marx Brothers than Cultural Marxists. There is precious little that is Marxist or even mildly socialist about them. They are total capitalists even if they make some obligatory noises about the dangers of 'greed' and the 1%. Indeed, the neo-aristocratic globalists fixed it so that leftism would be changed from a movement of laboring masses and lesser-haves to a movement centered on vanity, celebrity, narcissism, freakdom, and mental illness(as the new normal). Leftism went from the voice of the majority to that of favored minorities, Jews-blacks-homos. This bogus 'leftism' is not about basic justice or equality but the look-at-me obsessions of those infected with 'celebrititis'. It's not about homos asking for tolerance but demanding they be celebrated by the entire world, even in places of worship. It's not about blacks struggling for justice but howling to be the center of attention and affection REGARDLESS of how they act. It's not about blacks condemning white bigotry and violence against blacks but about them bitching and yapping about how it's unjust for blacks to be brought to justice for bad deeds and criminality. The Civil Rights Movement ran on, "Don't hurt us", but today, it's more about "Shut up when we hurt us." And of course, this is partly due to the fish rotting from the head. Jews are the ruling elites of the West, and they rigged things so that they have license to kill, steal, and feel(the shikses). With Jews having such power and privilege, why wouldn't blacks and homos, two especially self-centered groups, demand similar affection, deference, and privilege? The new 'leftism' is about the nihilism of Jews, blacks, and homos intoxicated with idolatrous megalomania.

Jewish supremacists and globalist elites studied history. They know why the French King lost his head and why the Russian Tsar was mowed down. Them fellers were at least honest in their relation to the masses. They ruled over their subjects. The neo-aristos of Jews and globalists also rule over us, and in more ways than one, they are even more powerful and privileged than the kings and emperors of old. And they know the people may rise against them IF they are seen as the over-privileged ruling elites. And so, they decided to appropriate, indeed confiscate, the cult of leftism for their own uses. This way, they can have the power of ultra-kings and uber-emperors BUT be shielded by their professed 'leftism'. In actuality, they work against the people, but their mantle of 'leftism' creates the impression that they are for 'progress' and 'justice'.
This is why today's capitalists and globalists love it when idiot conzos call them 'communists' and 'leftists'. Imagine that, conzo losers with little or nothing calling super-duper capitalists and their well-funded flunkies a bunch of 'communists'. The right would do much better to adopt socialism, and why not? Nationalism is intrinsically socialist in this sense. It says, regardless of private property, a nation belongs equally to all its people. It doesn't matter how rich or poor someone is. The nation belongs equally to the rich and the poor. Therefore, the rich national must make common cause with the poor national, at least as fellow patriots. He may be rich while the other is poor, but they are fellow nationals, and as such, there is a bond and obligation that goes beyond dollars and cents. But globalist capitalism tells people that the Nation is an outdated and archaic idea. The only thing that matters is a system of global networks whereby the elites of the world all collude with another. The rich national has no obligation to fellow nationals. Of course, this doesn't apply to Jews. While Jews push ultra-individualist libertarian deracination for white goyim, they themselves have a sense of Jewish brotherhood and sisterhood. Even as they pressure whites to give up every last vestige of white identity and interest, they press upon whites to support Jewish identity and interests. Jews even got Jonathan Pollard sprung from prison, and the freed Jew is now in Israel urging fellow Jews all over the world to betray goy nations for Jews Uber Alles. No wonder Jews grow stronger as a group while whites are dividing into successful white individuals and unsuccessful white individuals(who are derided by successful whites as 'losers'). Rich Jews look out for lesser Jews, but rich whites sneer at have-less whites as 'losers' who should use opiates and die. If rich whites care for anything other than themselves, it is in accordance with the gods controlled by Jews. So, white goy elites sing paeans to Jews, homos, blacks, and even illegal immigrants while spewing venom at the 'deplorables'.

3. Another factor is the catholicization or 'christmasization' of capitalism. Look back into Christian History. Christianity was not a happy creed. It was about self-denial, sacrifice, poverty-as-virtue, turn-the-other-cheek, and other righteous deeds & values. In contrast, paganism was a lot more fun and colorful. Paganism indulged in pleasure, appreciated beauty, celebrated life as a circus, and had space for vanity, narcissism, and egotism. The Greeks and especially the Romans knew how to have a good time. Christianity looked upon much of paganism as sinful, wicked, demonic, satanic, and degrading. Christianity was severe and spartan in its mode of life and expression. It was deeply ideological. And yet, the Catholic Church didn't want pure Christianism. It was too gloomy, depressing, and judgmental. And so, the Church found ways to fuse the spiritual righteousness of Christianity with the colorfulness of paganism. This way, the Catholics could have the cake and eat it too. Practice Christianity but in a colorful pagan way. Make the faith more festive and cheerful. Of course, the Church was careful to reject the more licentious aspects of paganism and shape paganesque expressions into something holier and sanctimonious. Still, Christianity in its spiritual purity was too stark and depressing for the Catholics who found a way to fuse Christian ideology with pagan idolatry. If pagans, lacking deep spiritual grounding, were drawn to Christianity's profound faith, it was the case that Christians, lacking color and cheers, were drawn to the excitement offered by paganism. While some pagans rejected Christianity to the end while some Christians denounced all vestiges of paganism, the Catholic Church arrived at a synthesis of faith and festival. And this has been especially true of Christmas. Ostensibly a somber observance of the birth of Christ, it has turned into a kind of pagan bacchanalia of materialism, partying, and hijinks. Jesus and Santa.

In our post-Christian age, people of the West have been clamoring for new 'spiritual' meanings, and of course the Jews, as controllers of media, academia, and entertainment, get to choose the new gods. And the new gods are the globo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Reverence, and Homo Devotion. This new trinity constitutes the new faith. But just lamenting the Shoah, crying about Slavery, and recalling how homos used to be called 'fags' wouldn't be much fun. They need color and excitement, sass and zing.
This is where the symbiotic partnership with 'pagan' capitalism comes in. Capitalism, often characterized as crass and trashy, is redeemed by its association with Sacred Jews, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. And in turn, the Jewish cause, black cause, and homo cause are made cool and fashionable by capitalist color. Consider the marketing that goes into AIPAC conferences. It's like the freaking Emmy Awards night. Jews hire publicity firms to put on a big show with fanfare and razzle-dazzle. Indeed, what is the Academy Awards ceremony all about? Hollywood is mostly about marketing crass entertainment, but once a year to burnish its image Hollywood puts on a big show about how it cares about art, quality, meaning, and values.
Even though the moralists and activists may resent the power of money, they are also dependent on and grateful for the money that comes their way. So, if Marxists sought to totally do away with capitalism, the neo-catholicist 'left' is happy to form a symbiotic relationship with Big Money. The Golden Calf is also the golden goose for the activist community. Same goes for the so-called Green Energy movement. It's really bait-and-switch. It's about Jews invoking environmental concerns to replace goy-owned fossil-fuel industry with Jewish-owned fossil-fuel industry, except that the latter has been packaged with 'green energy' credentials when, in fact, most of the Jewish-backed industries are overwhelmingly run on fossil-fuel. (As for nuclear energy, Jews oppose its proliferation because other nations might, like Iran, have the potential to develop nukes. Whatever is good for Israel.) So, the Jewish oligarchs of 'green energy' aim to take over entire sectors of the energy industry, and the 'green' activist community is flush with donations. Even though the latter are mere tools, they like being in the limelight in their roles as the saviors of the planet. But then, the clergy played much the same function in European history. They mostly served the ruling elites but got housed in nice big churches and hogged roles as spiritual-moral voice of the community.

4. In a way, the fanfare around LGBTQ and BLM makes sense in accordance to the logic of capitalism. The favoritism for homos and blacks owes more to capitalist logic than socialist/Marxist logic. After all, capitalism is far more idolatrous than communism is. Granted, there were massive Stalin and Mao cults in Soviet Union and China. But the monopolization of iconography by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other top leaders meant that everyone else had to remain on the human level. In Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were like gods but everyone else was merely human, equal to others. And when Soviet Union did away with the cult of personality after Stalin's death, it was mostly humanist. It was a repressive and restrictive form of humanism but humanism just the same. Humans had value as humans, neighbors, comrades, fellow citizens, and etc. Not as idols, icons, stars, and divas.

And in a way, the West was wrong to assume that the communist world was about nonstop propaganda. While propaganda could be overbearing and shrill at times, most of the arts, culture, and entertainment in the communist world was humanist than ideological. They were about people faced with daily problems, something anyone in any part of the world would recognize. So, on one level, communism vs capitalism wasn't entirely about radical propaganda vs apolitical pleasure.
It was also a matter of humanism vs stardom-ism. When youths in communist nations hankered for blue jeans, rock n roll records, and Western fads, they weren't merely seeking escapism from ideology and dogma. They were bored with humdrum humanism and were besotted with the narcissism and celebrity-cult of the West. While some resisted communist ideology in favor of Western freedom, others rejected social humanism in favor of capitalist idolatry, i.e. they weren't so much striving to be free as to fall under the spell of Western excess of vanity and diva-cults.

Apart from elevating Marx, Lenin, and some local ruler to high heaven, communism offered humanism as the proper mode for most people. Accept and appreciate people as people, as fellow workers, patriots, and comrades. Don't put on airs like you're something special. Don't be aloof and 'cool' like you're above the fray. In contrast, especially with the rise of youth culture around Elvis Presley, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and the Beatles, capitalism turned into a mass idolization of celebrities, stars, and divas. Nihilo-Narcissism pushed humanism aside in the West. The French New Wave got started with the humanist 400 BLOWS by Francois Truffaut. But on the eve of May 68 disaster, Jean-Luc Godard was already pondering the emergence of youth centered on 'Marx and Coca-Cola'.

But over time, people forgot about Marx altogether, and if there are young Marxists today, they got it from The Clash or Rage Against the Machine, except the Machine could easily appropriate the 'rage' that was never anything more than moral narcissism to parade onstage by shallow divas.

If the current order was truly about 'cultural marxism', then it would certainly not favor homos who are natural materialists, narcissists, egotists, and aristos. Homos have always been deferential to the rich, privileged, and/or famous. No wonder the US deep state is teeming with homos who work for NSA and CIA to smash other nations. And globo-homo agenda isn't about tolerance for homos(a good thing) but compulsory celebration and deification of homos and trannies as new angels, even new messiahs.
As for the Negro agenda, one could argue it is more in line with 'cultural marxism'. Negroes, after all, have roots in slavery, and many of them toiled in low-end jobs on farms and factories. But is that the reason why Negroes get so much attention? No, if that were so, how come browns don't get much attention? Browns were conquered by whites and mostly toiled as peons and servants in South and North Americas. Even when white libby-dibs feigned outrage over Trump's "kids in cages", it was less about the illegals than about JEWS, i.e. border security reminded all these libby-dibs of Jewish Refugees during the Holocaust, LOL. (And now that Biden's administration is putting the kids in 'cages', they aren't cages anymore according to the Jewish-run media.) And if 'cultural marxism' is about the oppressed, there is precious little discussion of the American Indians, the most tragic people in the world who permanently lost their homeland to foreign invaders. And there's hardly any talk of Palestinians and Arabs destroyed by Wars for Israel cooked up by Zionists.

So much for 'cultural marxism'. So, the reason why blacks get special love is due to 'cultural capitalism', not 'cultural marxism'. It owes less to the history of slavery or Jim Crow than black success in the idolatrous fields of capitalism, mainly in sports and pop music. It also helps that Jews own the media and much of sports industry and have much to profit from black ability and talent. And of course, Jews associate 'white guilt' with blackness because blackness is most potent in paralyzing white agency and unity. After all, people feel more guilty about having done wrong to the superior than to the inferior. It's like there's more outcry over someone killing a grand elephant than a lowly warthog. As whites idolize Negroes as rappers, athletes, and super-studs in the capitalist-hedonist order, it was only natural that so-called 'woke' capitalism would come to favor blacks and BLM mainly due to the higher idolatrous value of the Negroes.
So, in a way, capitalism's promotion of globo-homo and BLM isn't so much a fusion of 'right-wing capitalism' with 'leftwing ideology' but the logical outcome of capitalism's obsession with vanity and idolatry, finally leading to the moneyed apotheosis of whatever has the most 'idolic' value. It's hard to think of two groups more narcissistic and exhibitionist than blacks and homos, and not surprisingly, under Jewish media orchestration, BLM and LGBTQ symbols are often displayed side by side. This is 'cultural capitalism'.