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

GEORGE FLOYD POLICE INTERACTION - SPLICED DECENT VIDEO I COULD FIND START TO FINISH

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.

COLIN FLAHERTY PODCAST: THE DARKEST DAYS OF THE GREATEST LIE ARE UPON US.

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.

COLIN FLAHERTY: TEEN ON TEEN IS A LIE 2016 IT'S BLACK MOB VIOLENCE ON WHITES OR PIZZA IS THE CAUSE

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

Thursday, April 15, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 29, 2021

Notes on THE WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE by John Ford(as reviewed by Trevor Lynch) — Power of Myth & Narrative — Anglos and Irish in American History and Politics

https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/the-man-who-shot-liberty-valance-2/

John Ford’s last great film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) enjoys the status of a classic. I find it a deeply flawed, grating, and often ridiculous film... John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, both fine actors given the impossible job of playing men in their 20s, even though they were aged 54 and 53 at the time. It just doesn’t work... The film is poorly paced as well, burning through screen time... Shinbone was built on a soundstage. Ford was known for shooting on location because he loved authenticity. But Shinbone’s cleanliness and newness—its clear artificiality—were quite deliberate representations of progress and the end of the frontier.

It's certainly an old man's movie. It was made at a time when the Western too had grown old and was on the way out, ironically not least due to its great success on the TV screen. When the Western became generic fare in every living room, it lost the silver screen luster, and in a way, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE seems to be addressing the issue of TV and its impact on the Western. The use of sound-stage over actual locations suggest at this. Not only has the West been tamed but the Western itself has been tamed as weekly TV shows on all three networks. (Hitchcock likely also had the impact of TV on mind when he made PSYCHO, especially as he lent his name to a TV series.) Likewise, Sam Peckinpah's THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND is partly a commentary on the rise of home video and its impact on culture, not least cinema.

In a way, the West had a second life through the Western. Already by the time the first Western movie hit the screen, the Wild West was mostly thing of memory. The West had already become 'old'. But the Western genre made it 'young' again, and a very handsome John Wayne was there almost from the beginning, especially as the star of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL. It was as if Manifest Destiny reborn, happening all over as American Saga in the form of the Western. The West was old but the Western was young, and in movies like STAGECOACH John Wayne conveyed that youthful spirit of the frontier. Indeed, John Wayne aged along with the Western. By the time he made THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, he'd aged along with the genre that was soon on its last legs. And John Ford was even older.

So, LIBERTY VALANCE takes on different meanings depending on the context with which one watches the movie. Minus any context, one will notice many 'flaws' that may even seem ridiculous. Why didn't John Ford insist on using makeup to make Wayne and James Stewart look younger? Why do they look VISIBLY OLDER than the characters they're playing? And yet, this 'flaw' becomes a point and takes on meaning if seen as Ford's commentary on the Western and his place in it. As a story of recollection, it's taking place inside the soundstage of Ransom Stoddard's crusty old mind. It's sort of like a ghost-play. It's also as if Stoddard has forgotten how young they were and revisits those young days trapped in an old-man mentality. Thus, what seems slow-paced and even boring has to be seen as unfolding at an old-man's mental pace. It's a narrative with cobwebs. Stoddard has to rummage through the closets and attics of his mind to recall how things had been. Also, there's added tension because Stoddard's intention is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but personal memory is never a sure thing. The stage-like quality of the movie conveys this: the past has to be reconstructed to be deconstructed. Also, as the story is essentially subjective, drawn from Stoddard's memory, and shows the limitation of Stoddard's perspective. He's a man of words & ideas and never felt at home in the actual Wild West. He was too busy building order out of it, and the narrative and the setting are ordered and arranged like so many toy houses and train set. However, for a story that is largely subjective recollection, there are scenes without Stoddard. How could Stoddard know of them if he wasn't there? At best, he could have heard of what happened elsewhere or surmised with his own intuition(and limited imagination). Or, maybe John Ford just used the age-old convention where the flashback, though initiated as subjective memory, turns into a kind of omnipotent survey of the past. But then, LIBERTY VALANCE is less about actual facts of the West than about a certain myth. In the end, all the details of something, true or not, matter far less than the key issue of myth. And the element of myth was inseparable from the West and especially the Western. In a way, a Western trying to be real or truthful is a fool's game as its very essence is the myth. Pull on the loose thread of truth from the Western fabric and the whole thing comes apart. This was because the Western was constructed as a myth than as history, and John Ford played as big a role, maybe the biggest, as anyone else. Initially, in movies like THE BIG TRAIL, the Western had yet to be formulated into a genre or convention and could be lots of things. Indeed, CIMARRON, unjustly overlooked, features so many real-life aspects of the Old West. For the Western to live on as popular entertainment, it had to dispense with too-much-truth and too-many-details and be streamlined more into myth of movement and heroism. With STAGECOACH, John Ford contributed to the formulation of the Western into a tight genre, but he also remained true to the original vision of the Western as a sprawling and unruly genre with big cast of characters, which is why THE SEARCHERS is such a rich movie: it's about far more than Cowboys and Indians. Ford generally showed more of life and community than fixating on the 'lone hero'.

One of the central myths of the West was the good guy winning at the end, but of course, it wasn't so. Often the bad guys won, and the West grew out of corruption, compromise, and tyranny as much by morality, community, and civilization. The Western Myth says there was this Wilderness full of savage Indians and unruly outlaws who made it difficult for good decent hardworking folks. But then, some redemptive hero or upright sheriff came to town and cleaned things up, and the good triumphed over the bad. But in truth, those with power generally kept the power, got to appoint the lawmen, and cut deals with politicians. In the West, the big ranchers won over the 'sodbusters', especially as the land there wasn't much good for farming.
This was suggested by HIGH NOON where the good folks in town want Will Kane(Gary Cooper) gone. Why have him stick around and fight for honor and pride when what the town needs is Good Publicity that will attract investment? Frank Miller may be a bad egg, even a rotten egg, but his ilk will always be around and may even loosen things up for business as profits are associated with vice. It's like Pottersville is a more 'happening' place than Bedford Falls in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. So, the Western Myth is just that, a fiction for the most part. It was not the case of mostly good folks terrorized by a handful of wicked folks who were vanquished by the hero who then rode off while the good folks finally had their community. Rather, civilization came with the power, corruption, compromise, and violence. Indeed, it is the very forces of business and progress who hire the goons in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER to be rid of the 'independent' businessman. (And today, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Wall Street work with Deep State to crush the opposition, slander dissidents, and suppress critics.)

Many conservatives were offended by HIGH NOON though it later came to be loved by them. For classicists like Howard Hawks, it wasn't only an affront to the American Way but the Western genre. He hated the way the hero acted, filled with doubt and desperately hoping for support. And finally, he killed Frank Miller with the help of his wife who scratched the bad man's face. Ford may have agreed with Hawks in some respects, but he had his own doubts about the West and the Western, and it surfaced in THE SEARCHERS but especially with the later three: SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, CHEYENNE AUTUMN, and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Woody Strode movie SERGEANT RUTLEDGE is the most blatantly political one. An innocent upstanding Negro military man is charged with rape, and etc. It's a bit too stiff and preachy. Some see CHEYENNE AUTUMN as a kind of atonement on part of Ford who often featured Indians as shooting ducks but also formed a bond with Indian communities who respected him. It's a good movie but, like SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, marred by the heavy-messaging. Ford was good as a sentimental moralist but didn't fare well as a preacher or pontificator. Of the three movies, LIBERTY VALANCE works best because the message is slowly revealed and reflected on than just pushed in front of us.

It's been said it's impossible to teach an old dog new tricks, and this was true enough of John Ford(but not so with John Huston, but then, he was always young-and-lion at heart). John Ford understood this about himself and didn't try to keep with new trends. That said, he was aware of what was happening in world cinema, and his later movies, while resolutely and unmistakably Fordian, reflected on the changes. Thus, THE SEARCHERS is more complex than his earlier movies, and some might even say LIBERTY VALANCE borders on a kind of experimentalism, a kind of Ford's version of CITIZEN KANE and RASHOMON(or even LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD).
In style, one might say it's even stiffer, stodgier, and stuffier than Ford's earlier movies, but the very deliberateness suggests Ford's intentions were artistic than economic. It's more threaded than threadbare. Andrew Sarris rated it higher than LAWRENCE OF ARABIA(which he detested) and even JULES AND JIM(which he loved), but then, he was a Ford-nut. Also, just when many cineastes in America were favoring Foreign Cinema(as art) over the American(as tired entertainment), French critics(who would turn out to be very influential), argued that the Hollywood 'auteurs' were not only great entertainers and genuine artists but remarkably personal, experimental, and innovative in their own right, thereby relevant and inspirational to New Cinema.
So, the man who shot THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE was far more than he let on. Though Ford to the end claimed he was nothing more than a maker of Western movies, part humility and part pride in the common-man, but the care put into works like MY DARLIING CLEMENTINE and THE SEARCHERS show he took film-making very seriously. He was a drunk but no slouch. At any rate, perspective shaped one's view of Ford. For those who didn't take him seriously as an artist but acknowledged his skills as entertainer, his earlier works were the best for their relative simplicity and straightforwardness. It's like Pauline Kael loved early Hitchcock and could tolerate an early Ford, but she had little use for later and more elaborate Hitchcock and even less for movies like THE SEARCHERS that some of her colleagues were beginning to take seriously. From the vantage point of Ford-as-entertainer, LIBERTY VALANCE is the work of a tired old crank. It seems stiff and stodgy. But from the vantage point of Ford-as-artist, the work seems stark and striking in its barrenness. It's like a musical artist going unplugged or picking up an acoustic guitar with minimum accompaniment after working with a band and electricity. Also, LIBERTY VALANCE, with its unmistakable studio-setting, which renders it more like theatre than cinema, reminds us of the artificiality of all cinema, whether shot in a warehouse or in actual locations. So, even as LIBERTY VALANCE seems less real and 'authentic', it could be said to be more honest in the make-believe-ness of the movies.

When Ford first used James Stewart in TWO RODE TOGETHER(which I haven't seen), he surely had in mind the latter's roles in Anthony Mann Westerns that significantly deviated from the 'classic style'. They were like Noir Westerns, far darker and twisted. And Stewart played it neurotic, bordering on unhinged over trifles. WINCHESTER 73 boils down the violence to childhood psychology, kids fighting over toy guns. Not just 'boys will be boys' but 'men will be boys'. Granted, Stewart already displayed amazing range in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, surely one of the greatest movie performances, ranging from light comedy to the darkest tragedy. Mann and Hitchcock, especially in MAN FROM LARAMIE and VERTIGO, picked up this side of Stewart. (Stewart in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH also played someone faced with the crisis of uttering the truth.) They used Stewart like the homo-preacher was going to use Joe Buck in THE MIDNIGHT COWBOY. There was an All-American straightness to Stewart but also an element of hysteria to the can-do boy-wonder exuberance. Mann picked up on this one-man Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde quality about Stewart who plays straight-man to his own repressed craziness bursting forth.

In the Western Comedy DESTRY RIDES AGAIN, Stewart played a lawman who doesn't carry a gun, at least initially. By the time Mann got around to casting Stewart, things got a lot darker, and this may have owed to Mann making his mark in Film Noir before he moved onto Westerns. While actors like Marlon Brando profoundly changed movie to movie, the classic Hollywood stars carried their careers like a baggage. They weren't just playing the latest roles but representing the entirety of their screen persona. So, by the time Stewart signed onto Ford movies, he couldn't help but carry over the changes to his stardom in the 1950s, especially under Hitchcock and Mann, and this adds to the meaning of LIBERTY VALANCE.

From the beginning, the American West was rife with myth, not least because it was part wild and wild settled. It was settled enough for messages to get out by horse, train, and telegraph, but wild enough that tall-tales and legends could win out over facts and truth. It's like the opening of EXCALIBUR. Dark Ages give rise to legends and myths because stories, unverified, take on a life of their own, transformed as they go from person to person who embellish them with their own imagination, lapses, and biases. In a way, the Wild West was like the history of Western Civilization itself from barbarism to civilization in truncated form over less than a century. It had elements of the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Modernity. Some of the wildest, most savage, and most pristine land were transformed within two or three generations into the Modern World.
In the established part of the world, the truth could be just as false. Indeed, at the end of LIBERTY VALANCE, it is the media elites of Shinbone, now a completed town, who reject the fact and keep with the legend. And it's hardly different today with the myth of MLK who was really a lout and punk as well as the spokesman of a great movement. And who can forget the myth of John F. Kennedy'? (Also, the JFK conspiracy theories, far from favoring facts over falsehood, have only added to the myth of 'Camelot'.) Still, if the powers-that-be determine the Narrative, whether mostly true or not, in the developed/established world, the power of narrative was far more democratic and unruly in the Wild West, a kind of worldwide-web-on-horseback, and so many tales and legends proliferated. In a way, the newspaper man in LIBERTY VALANCE is a courageous champion of freedom and truth, but he also represents the coming of the institutionalization of information, with all its problems as well as advantages. It's like the media conglomerates today make a lot of noise about misinformation and disinformation on the internet(which is an understandable concern) but use their great power and reach to spread their own 'fake news' and PC nonsense, like BLM and 'mostly peaceful riots'. And who can forget WMD. And the official story on 9/11 seems far from complete. Ideally, the powerful will defend truth against falsehood, but in truth, the powerful push whatever, factual or false, that favors its power. That being so, it's better that the masses have their own power to lie as well. Lies vs Lies is still better than Only-These-Lies.

In a way, LIBERTY VALANCE is a study in futility. After all, most Americans got used to the Western Myth. Most Americans knew that all those stories of Billy the Kid in books and movies weren't the real truth. Same went for Jesse James(though his story was more Southern than Western). Europe had its Dark Ages, and the Near East was a place of God and gods in the Ancient World, but America was founded on Christian probity, material ambition, and rational politics(based on the Enlightenment). Those had great advantages but lacked in the stuff of myth. Granted, even the rationalist underpinning of Americanism had its own lore and myth, like the fake story of young George Washington chopping the cherry tree but vowing not to lie to his father. But because America was founded on rationalism, it envied the Old World with its deep history where gods, dragons, fairies, and heroes once dwelled. And yet, the Wild West provided an opportunity for such tales to develop. While Western heroes weren't exactly knights with magic swords and Western villains weren't exactly dragons or monsters with horns, their stories happened in a world where most information spread as tall-tales or songs.
So, given that the very appeal of the West and especially the Western was based on its mythic content, one may wonder why a work like LIBERTY VALANCE was necessary. It wasn't as if anyone took the Western as the real story of the West. And yet, it mattered to John Ford because he was perhaps the most important practitioner of the myth. Also, even if people consciously knew that the Western is myth than real history, it still exerted tremendous influence on Americans(and people around the world) in how they regarded America. In a way, all the more so precisely because myths are more appealing than mere history. It's like the appeal of so much of Black History is more myth than reality. In a way, Black America serves as something akin to the Last Frontier or the New Dark Ages where strange tales and mythic lore can rise because things are so crazy, murky, and chaotic in them parts. But even as blacks on the street are 'democratic' in their power to spin their own lies, it is the powerful Jewish-controlled media that select whichever of those lies are most useful to the Establishment. In 2020, it was evil 'racist' white cop killed saint George Floyd in TRUMP'S AMERICA. And the same is done with events in the Middle East and Ukraine, which seem as distant to Americans as the Wild West once did to Americans in the established Eastern cities. Just as those in NY media picked and chose the Wild West narratives that were useful to themselves, the current oligarchs of American Media pick and choose only those narratives in Syria and Ukraine that suit their agenda. "Assad gassed his own people." More things change, more they remain the same. So, what's been true of the Western Narrative has been true since the beginning of time and shall be to the end of time. After all, there are four Gospels, and they don't exactly agree on all the details. Also, even academics who obsess over 'texts' and 'subtexts' are less interested in the truth than on how the power used those 'texts' and how the current power should manipulate the 'text' to push a certain agenda. Today's academic put power above truth. Truth is everything and anything, and man lives with power, not truth. Power selects certain truths and mixes them with useful myths to create an alloy of authority. But then, what is higher than power itself? The gods, or what is considered holy and sacred. In the Current Year, the holies are Jews, Negroes, and Homos, and so, the big idea is that power must be summoned and solidified to serve those gods.

To those interested in 'textual' arguments, LIBERTY VALANCE is useful because it reduces everything and everyone into what is now called a 'trope'. It has all the elements of past John Ford westerns and even seems something like a 'highschool reunion' for the old gang(like in PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED). But they're so much reviving their older screen personalities as wearing them as 'conventions'. It's like everyone is carrying a cardboard replica of themselves. It's John Wayne as 'John Wayne', and the same goes for the rest of the gang. It's old John Wayne playing young John Wayne, which is both poignant and awkward.

Consciously or not, Martin Scorsese, a great admirer of John Ford, made a couple of films that have something in common with LIBERTY VALANCE. The controversial THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, or The Man Who Would Not Be Christ. In the fantasy sequence, 'Jesus' came down from the cross and chose the life of a normal Jewish man with wife and family. Later, he comes upon 'Paul' and accuses him of spreading lies. He, 'Jesus', didn't die on the cross. But 'Paul' says it doesn't matter what happened as long as the legend sticks as myth and fills so many lives with happiness. In other words, 'Jesus' doesn't need to die on the Cross for the myth of Christianity so spread and dominate the world. The myth is bigger than the man. And yet ultimately, 'Jesus' cannot accept this. No matter how successful and powerful Christianity may become and change people's lives, it would be based on a lie if he didn't die on the cross, and so, he returns to the cross and accepts his fate. A similar kind of logic underlies MEET JOHN DOE where a powerful social movement grows from a lie, that a certain John Doe chose to kill himself as protest against the inhumane world. The lie is exploited by the powerful as 'truth' but then 'exposed' as a lie when 'John Doe' turns against them. But then, 'John Doe' decides to really kill himself to give the movement a foundation in truth.
The other Martin Scorsese film on Man vs Myth is THE IRISHMAN. Though almost certainly based on a lie(especially on how Jimmy Hoffa was killed), it examines the contrast between the world of appearances and of the world of shadows(or disappearances). In the end, the film is less about how-Hoffa-died than how a man squares himself to himself, his family, and finally God in terms of what he knew, what he felt, and what he did. Quentin Tarantino, a harsh critic of John Ford, did something opposite to LIBERTY VALANCE with ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD. If Ford was aiming for the truth hidden by the myth, Tarantino fantasized a myth over the ugly reality of what really happened to Roman Polanski's wife. Tarantino is his own Noodles, the camera is opium pipe, conjuring a fantasy of what-might-have-been. But then, he's a very pomo creature.

Ford thought that drunkards and men with funny voices were hilarious... There is also a great deal of scene-chewing overacting and overbroad parody that often seem downright cartoonish. Beyond these lapses of taste...

Ford was not a man of taste, and even though he could make relatively high-toned dramas like MARY OF SCOTLAND, he felt most at home with folkish tales of rough men in vulgar worlds. THE QUIET MAN certainly isn't a work of 'taste'. This is the meat-and-potatoes of Fordism. You got to take it all or not take it at all. The folkish style especially fell out with the rise of the Cool where most Americans became embarrassed to be associated with hee-haw and anything old-fashioned. This even affected Westerns. PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID has the first 'California Teeanger' in Beaver.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance also contains Left-liberal messages on race. For instance, Devine’s Marshal Link Appleyard is married to a Mexican woman... This must have been Ford’s preference... Wayne’s character Tom Doniphan has a loyal negro sidekick named Pompey (Woody Strode). Pompey even endures the indignity of being refused service at the saloon, but Doniphan stands up for him, although he does refer to him as “my boy Pompey.” ...Ransom Stoddard (Stewart) teaches reading and civics to a class of white adults, plus Pompey and a brood of Mexican children. (All the children in Shinbone are nonwhite, a poignant sign that white civilization has not yet been established there. Now such classrooms are signs of white civilization in decline.) Lawyer Stoddard teaches that the fundamental law of the land is the Declaration of Independence, which holds that “All men are created equal.” The Declaration, of course, is not the fundamental law of the land. That would be the Constitution, which says nothing about all men being created equal.

This is reverse-PC and ideological bean-counting. I would have an issue about mixed-race marriage in a movie is out-of-place, unlikely, and/or pushed as a message. But Shinbone is set in the Southwest. It could very well be a Texas town, and there were lots of white-Mexican marriages there. The legendary Billy the Kid had many Mexican girlfriends, and Pat Garrett was married to a Mexican woman. So, the fact that a white man has a Mexican wife in Shinbone hardly seems out of place or unlikely. Could there be a message in there somewhere? But it's hardly 'left-liberal'. The white man mating with non-white woman goes back to Pocahontas in American lore. Possibly the greatest American song, "Shenandoah", is about some white guy in love with the daughter of an Indian chief. In a way, these could be construed as love-conquers-all stories, like in ROMEO-AND-JULIET, but they could also be taken as white sexual imperialism. After all, sex has never been neutral between men and women. It's a matter of who does what to whom. As men are the dominant sex, the race with the men humping the women of another race has the upperhand. When whites ruled over blacks, most interracial offspring were white-male-and-black-female. Today, with black men dominating sports and rap music and kicking white butts in schools all across America, most mulattos are products of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. When the Mongols invaded Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, it was yellow men sexually conquering white women. When white Americans militarily took over South Vietnam, it was a case of white(and black) men sexually colonizing me-so-horny yellow women. In a way, one could argue that even white-male-and-non-white-female pairing is 'anti-racist' in its 'interracism', but it was also used as a form of imperialism. This was especially true in South America or Latin America, traditionally far less 'liberal' than North America. There, Spanish men took many brown wives and created the mestizo race.

Doniphan-and-Pompey is a traditional relationship of that time. LIBERTY VALANCE takes place after slavery has been abolished, but if the South had won the Civil War, Doniphan could be Pompey's master. (Ironic that a former slave would be named 'Pompey' after the great Roman general. It either suggests Americans are ignorant of history or hints at black ascendancy in the future.) The thing is, apart from social distinctions, there is a personal bond between Doniphan and Pompey that go beyond the political. Doniphan is surely no racial egalitarian(and even Ransom is rather condescending to Pompey who is later given 'pork chop money'), but he's generally not a mean person(when he doesn't have to be) and much appreciates Pompey as his loyal sidekick, his Tonto.
Of course, Pompey might be happier joining with Liberty Valance. Then, he could be a wildass ni**a, the mode of most blacks these days. I read somewhere that 20% of all cowboys were black, and most Westerns never took this into account. Among them, there must have been some crazy fellers so different from Pompey. Sergio Leone brought out the dark side of Woody Strode in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. There, he is a menacing badass ni**a than a loyal servant.

A lot of children in Shinbone are Mexican because Southwest had a sizable Mexican population. Indeed, parts of the SW had already been settled by Mexicans and taken from Indians long before white folks arrived in numbers. Unlike the Great Plains and Northwest where white man took the land from savage Indians, the story of the Southwest was about white man taking the land from the semi-civilization already established by Mexicans, from whom Anglos also picked up lots of cowboy tricks.

While the Constitution isn't the same as the Declaration of Independence, the spirit of the latter is reflected in the letter of the former. After all, laws aren't just laws but guided by a spirit. If guided by monarchical spirit, laws reflect royal authority. But the US Constitution was guided by the spirit of the Declaration, and it's why the direction of American History and its Laws has been toward securing more rights and equal protections to all regardless of race, creed, and color.

Ford did not, however, identify with outsiders against America’s WASP ethnic core because he was Jewish. Instead, he did so as an Irish Catholic.

Chances are that, during most of John Ford's life, most WASPS were more 'progressive' on race than your average Irishman, Ford included. As a matter of idealism, Wasps were the main pushers of 'liberalism' on race. Jews pushed it for reasons that were more tribal than idealistic(though there was some of that too as many leftist Jews back then sincerely believed race was skin-deep). Many Irish were Democratic but more for ethnic and economic interests than high-minded idealism. Generally, Irish Catholics followed the Wasp lead on racial politics. While most Irish were opposed to stuff like the KKK(who bashed Catholics as well as Negroes), even the Irish Democratic Machine operators were a bunch of Archie Bunkers at heart.

Judging from Ford’s cavalry trilogy—Fort Apache (1948), She Wore the Yellow Ribbon (1949), and Rio Grande (1950)—the West could not have been won without the help of golden-hearted, silver-tongued Irish drunkards. These stereotypes seem rather broad and offensive today, but Ford—a heavy drinker himself—obviously regarded them affectionately and thought their inclusion to be progressive.

They wouldn't be offensive today because PC only cares about Jews, blacks, and homos. Mocking or making fun of whites or white groups is not only okay but obligatory. John Ford was profoundly Irish but in attitude and swagger than identity politics. He wasn't into Irish victimology or separatist thinking, but one can't help sensing the distinction between the Anglo way and the Celtic way in some of his works. It's buried somewhere in LIBERTY VALANCE as well. Ransom is very much an Anglo-kind of character. Very Waspy, whereas Doniphan is Irish-like. And the movie hints at the troubled but symbiotic relationship between the Anglo and the Irish. Anglos led with their big vision and ideas, and yet, no civilization is merely the work of ideas and principles, not even the US founded on liberty and rights. A lot of dirty work had to be done, and as the Irish and Catholics were generally poorer, cruder, and disadvantaged than the Anglos and Protestants, they ended up taking up a lot of the 'dirty' jobs involving muscle and sweat. Often, it was ham-fisted Irish cops who kept the blacks in line. In battles, the officers were more likely to be Anglo, whereas the Irish took the lower positions as footsoldiers. Granted, the Irish gained real fast in America, but the Anglo-Irish thing was like an ethnic version of the class-divide in England between the gentleman 'caste' and cockney-speaking laborers. In the film RAGTIME, the privileged family that takes in the Negro orphan is very Waspish, whereas the firemen who harass the Negro driver are visibly Irish, right down to the red noses from too much drink. In some ways, the rowdier side of the Irish could be seen as more honest and real, but it could also be seen as brutish and bigoted. The Irish developed a dual mindset in regard to Anglos. In a way, they were the first victims of British Imperialism, and their resistance later inspired other rebellions against the empire. And yet, the Irish were also like the pitbulls of the empire. They went wherever the Anglos went, terrorized the darkies, and did the 'dirty work' as overseers and enforcers. Thus, to those on the ground, the Irish seemed even more bigoted, tyrannical, and exploitative than the genteel Anglo who gave orders on horseback. Irish were at once the hammer of the empire and under its heel, and it's no wonder that today's Irish are both filled with victimology but also share in the 'white guilt'. (But then, blacks have been no different. They were oppressed under white rule but also benefitted from white victories and took part in neo-imperialist aggressions around the world. Blacks in today's military don't ask why they are ordered to bomb Syria or to threaten/invade other nations. They just do it, just like the Irish under Anglo orders long ago.)

The film’s message is deeply anti-liberal. Indeed, although Ford could not have known it, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance illustrates many of Carl Schmitt’s criticisms of liberalism.

It depends on what you want to see. One could pick out the 'anti-conservative' elements of LIBERTY VALANCE and include it in 'left-wing cinema'. This is a fool's game. While some works are clearly 'liberal' while others are 'conservative', LIBERTY VALANCE can't be ideologically pigeonholed one way or another.

Played to cartoonish excess by Lee Marvin, Liberty Valance is a cold-blooded murderer and thief. He’s also a drunkard and a petty bully. The entire town of Shinbone lives in terror of him. He’s the kind of man who needs killing, so decent people can plant crops, raise children, and sleep at night.

Actually, Valance plays it both ways. He is a thief and killer but not at all times. He isn't merely a wolf or coyote but a weasel. When he robs a coach, he covers his mask. But in town, he act just lawful enough to pass as a member of the community. If he were a total outlaw(like the bandits in THE WILD BUNCH), he would be no use to the ranchers. In contrast, Valance wears many masks. He steals when he can, but at other times takes up regular jobs with the ranchers. In that sense, he's more like a proto-gangster, the creature of civilization, than a classic Western outlaw. Valance can easily adapt to the New Order. Indeed, the likes of Jimmy Hoffa operated as criminals as well as labor bosses. In the West, there were outlaws and then there were OUTLAWS. One bunch couldn't do anything but rob and steal. Another took up stealing as a hobby or side-job while doing other things as well. They had their feet on both sides of the fence, and Valance is quite an adaptive bastard. Thus, even as he intimidates the people of the town, his ilk can co-exist with change because the Power always needs muscle for hire. Today, the likes of him could work as a mercenary and blow things up in Syria.

It seems odd that an American movie would have a villain named Liberty. Isn’t America the land of liberty? But Liberty Valance is not really an American. He’s a man of the Wild West. America is a Republic with laws. The West is the state of nature. Liberty Valance represents the liberty of savages in the state of nature, where one man’s liberty is exercised at the expense of another’s.

It's also odd that the good guy's name is 'Ransom', usually associated with kidnapping and extortion. Anyway, I don't think Valance represents only the Wild West. His name 'Liberty' doesn't represent the state-of-nature or savage-freedom. Rather, it's ironic, a suggestion that American Liberty has always been compromised, corrupted, and hypocritical. Also, the name of 'Ransom' suggest that American Progress was brought about by holding all of us hostage to some faulty narrative.

For no sensible reason except that he likes her, Tom(John Wayne) awakens Hallie, who works as a waitress at a local eatery, to help tend to Stoddard’s wounds.

Doniphan doesn't see Ransom as a rival, understandably so as the latter is just barely alive after getting beaten up by Valance. He figures Hallie is ideal for taking care of Ransom as if he's a little child beaten up at school by bullies. He has more manly things to do than playing nurse. It's almost like finding an orphaned doe in the wild and handing it off to a woman to take care of.

Incidentally, there's a scene with a woman nursing a man in SERGEANT RUTLEDGE as well, and it might have been Ford's way of, wink-wink saying, THE NEGRO IS GONNA ROB US OF OUR MANHOOD. Unlike scrawny James Stewart, Woody Strode was a well-built guy, so there could have been sexual tension when the white woman tends to him though the times discouraged that stuff when it was made. On the one hand, Ford as an Irishman with bitter national memories, sympathized with Negroes who faced discrimination. But he was also mindful of racial differences. On the set, he often mocked John Wayne's manhood as movie-fake and pointed to Woody Strode as the Real Athlete of the bunch.

Rance doesn’t see any difference between force used by criminals and force used by decent men against criminals. He’s an idealist who apparently thinks the laws can magically enforce themselves.

No, Ransom isn't against guns or use of violence. He's against vigilantism. For the law to work, it has to be properly enforced by legal authority. And Ransom wants the people of the town to create and uphold a system that can ensure peace and stability by rightful use of force.
But the state is weak in Shinbone. Its fatso sheriff is a nice guy but weak and a flunky. Doniphan is a good guy and perhaps has the ability and popular appeal to rally the citizens of the town to together to sustain proper law-and-order, but he's too much of an individualist and maverick(in his own right) to do what's good for the whole community. He's usually out for himself and into everyman-for-himself, something he favors precisely because he has the natural talent to take care of himself. He knows Valance is bad, but as long as Valance doesn't mess with him, he doesn't mess with Valance. He lacks a sense of the common good. He's a proto-libertarian and has something in common with Valance, the difference being Valance is nasty whereas Doniphan isn't. Doniphan has a good nature but doesn't stick his neck out any more than he has to. He believes it's up to every man to protect his own life and plot of land. The problem is that not everyone is made of the same stuff. Doniphan is big, strong, good with the gun, and has natural courage. He could take care of himself, but he's an exception than the rule. Most men, even though they own guns, dare not stand up to Valance. Valance feels he can rough up just about anyone, and Doniphan feels he has no obligation to protect anyone but himself and those closest to him. Such cannot be the basis of social order. In contrast, Ransom knows that justice-for-all can only be ensured by the enforcement of the law by the state. He's for the law-for-everyone than everyman-for-himself, which is essentially Doniphan's position.
Indeed, the argument over the steak between Doniphan and Valance is less a matter of general principles — "it is wrong for Valance to act that way anywhere and with anyone" — than a matter of personal pride. Doniphan is enraged because Valance messed with HIS steak. If Valance had messed with another man's steak, Doniphan might just as well have looked the other way(and even despised the weakling who couldn't fight for his own steak).

(Ransom) is spindly, priggish, progressive zealot. He reminds me of Barack Obama.

No, Obama is no zealot, no real progressive. He's a smooth version of Valance, a globo-gangster and weasel with many masks. He could play race-hustler, cultural-marxist, cosmo-elite, genteel buppie, machine crook, warmonger(for the Jews), Wall Street shill, deep state flunky, and etc. Whatever faults Ransom has, he is a true man of principles. Also, he's very courageous, in some ways more than Doniphan, who is naturally big and strong and grew up doing all the Western things. In contrast, Ransom is an outsider who sticks his neck out even at the risk to his life and for total strangers. When the coach is robbed, most people just stand around passively and afraid. In contrast, Ransom rebukes Valance to his face. Foolish perhaps but it took real courage. Obama is just a gangster who looked around, noticed Jews got the power, and played their waterboy to be president.

Rance’s role in the community, however, is distinctly feminine. In a land where men wear guns and settle problems for themselves, he refuses to wear a gun and expects the law to settle disputes . . . somehow. Thus in the Ericsons’ restaurant, Rance wears an apron while washing dishes and occasionally waiting tables. (Obama also allowed himself to be photographed in an apron.) When Rance learns that Hallie can’t read, he takes on another stereotypically female role: schoolmarm.

Ransom not only expects the law to settle disputes but pushes for changes that finally bring that about. Thus, he's a visionary, and he's keen on practicing what he preaches, something rare these days. While it's true that Ransom partially comes to appreciate Doniphan and his ways, reverse is also true. Grudgingly, Doniphan acknowledges that Ransom has his own kind of toughness, courage, and resilience, a real tenacity. They sort of merge into one another, like Lawrence and Ali in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and Mendoza(Robert DeNiro) and Gabriel(Jeremy Irons) in THE MISSION. Mind envies the muscle, the muscle envies the mind.

Plenty of men in the West wore aprons. Sure, Western movies focus on the gunslingers, but most men did regular work to build the West. Butchers wore aprons. Grocers wore aprons. So many men wore aprons. It was not a woman's thing. It's like what Nixon's pa says in the movie:

Nixon's Ma - "Could thee at least remove that apron, Frank?"

Nixon's Pa - "This blood pays the bills, Hannah. I'm not ashamed of how I earn my money."

The problem of the Western Formula was it so over-emphasized the men-with-guns that it relegated to insignificance all the men who did the real work to make the West work. Naturally, we want to see men with guns than men with aprons & ladles, but the earlier Westerns did have a wider and more embracing vision of the West. The real West wasn't about men-with-guns and men-with-aprons but men-with-aprons-and-guns, and womenfolk learned how to use guns too, like the woman in RED RIVER. It's like the guys in GOODFELLAS both cook and kill. Paulie has a system of slicing garlic. And Clyde nearly got crushed by a man in an apron. In MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Joe Buck is someone who works with an apron but goes off to New York to play cowboy stud, a gunslinger with the ladies. He chases after the myth and runs from reality. In New York, he sees other men like himself working with aprons in restaurants. He is one of them, a regular Joe, but has been poisoned by the myth that dreams come true for the cowboy.

Of course, a Western could deviate too far from the men-with-guns narrative. There was a recent one called FIRST COW(which should be called FA**OTY MOO) that was 'gayish' or 'homo-social'(as its writer calls it) as shit. It was about two fellas, one Jewish and one Asian, in the Wild West stealing milk from a cow to... get this, bake muffins. It is the fa**otiest thing I ever did see, though I turned it off after 30 min. I didn't see BROKEBACK MOUNTIN', but even two cowpokes poking each other's bung is less 'gayish' than the idea of two guys out in the rough frontier having nothing better to do than bake muffins with stolen milk. Can anyone imagine Gary Cooper and Richard Widmark forming a team to milk a cow in the middle of the night to go bake cupcakes? It's the sort of tooty idea only a comfy city-slicker can cook up in his own world of creature comforts. "Gee, what if a sensitive Jewish guy met a naked Asian guy pursued by Russians(!!) and formed a 'homosocial' bond where they pick flowers and bake muffins together?" Total pukeville, but a favorite among critics, but they're a pansyass bunch who probably went off to get a muffin at Starbucks after the screening.

How is teaching someone how to read being a 'schoolmarm'? The hero of VIVA ZAPATA is ashamed he can't read. And the Viking leader in 13TH WARRIOR learns to scribble some lines from an Arab. Word is Power. Granted, teaching womenfolk(except for lesbians) to read beyond perusing personal letters(like Laurie in THE SEARCHERS) may not have been a good thing as most woman-minds aren't fit for real thinking and easily get confused. It's like what the girl says in KINGS OF SUMMER about her 'woman-brain'. Incidentally, if the tough guy loses the girl to the idea-guy in LIBERTY VALANCE, it's the opposite in KINGS OF SUMMER, more along the Arthurian Tale.

This too is an attitude more commonly associated with women. Ford clearly thinks that manliness is connected with a willingness to fight over matters of honor.

No. Often in Ford movies, women love the fact that men fight for stuff like land, honor, and pride... and especially over women. In THE SEARCHERS, Laurie, trying to be a Good Girl, beseeches others to stop the fight between Marty and the guitar-guy but soon loves the fact that two men are fighting over her. In THE QUIET MAN, the Irish beauty played by Maureen O'Hara doesn't mind that John Wayne's character wins her heart by knocking out other men. Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls(though, in our globo-homo age, boys will be girls, and girls will be boys).

Pro-Law stance of Ransom is essentially beta-male-ish as force is used by legal institutions to secure rights and protection for all men. Still, even though Ransom is physically beta-male, he has alpha-male ego when it comes to pushing others to follow his lead.
Legalism can be advantageous or disadvantageous to whites. Clearly, laws based on equal protection eroded white power and privilege in the South vis-a-vis the Negro. But laws of equal protection, if properly applied, can be good for whites because individual fights for honor between blacks and whites will favor the blacks. If a Negro and a White fight over a steak, the chances are the black guy will win 9 times out of 10 or even 19 times out of 20.
Honor as a personal code is a wonderful concept. For example, if you give your word, the honorable thing is to keep it. But in the Western setting, honor wasn't so much a matter of personal ethos as proving one's worth by guns or fist. But force doesn't favor the good over the bad. A good decent man can lose a gunfight to a total son of a bitch. Such 'honor' is really a matter of might-is-right, and naturally, Ransom has to oppose it. But would most white males want such an 'honor' culture living with blacks? Most times when white guys decide to fight Negroes for 'honor', they get beat up and lose their 'honor' of manhood, which is why it led to White Flight. Also, the reason for higher death rates in the black community is they fight over 'honor' of who done 'dissed' whom. They shoot each other over who stepped on whose gym-shoes. They are crazier than Wild Bill of Walter Hills movie where people are beaten or killed over 'hats'.

Rance furtively buys a gun and sneaks off to practice shooting. Why the deception? Because he can’t really reconcile it with his self-image and the image he has established with the public.

Ransom isn't opposed to guns per se. It's about who uses it and how. Ideally, he believes, lawmen with the backing of the community should have the power of guns to do away with the likes of Valance. But more importantly, he keeps his practicing with a gun secret because he doesn't want to lend the impression that he's a gunman and draw the wrong kind of attention from Valance and the like, especially as he has poor chance of winning any gunfight. He keeps a gun as a last resort. It's like, if a bully is messing with you, you might take up martial arts lessons and weight-lifting but secretly because it will take time for you to learn how to build up strength and learn how to fight. If you do it openly, it sends the message that you're cruisin' for a brusin'. (Indeed, weaker nations build up their military without fanfare. The last thing they want is attention.)
Also, when Doniphan toys with Ransom by shooting cans and dousing him in paint, Ransom throws quite a punch and knocks Doniphan down hard. Ransom has quite a temper, just like when he stood up to Valance in their first encounter. One thing for sure, Ransom is the way he is out of commitment than cowardice.

There’s also a love triangle in the mix. Tom is in love with Hallie. Everybody sees it. But he hasn’t screwed up the courage to propose. It is his one failing of nerve as a man.

No, it's not due to a lack of nerve. Rather, he's so sure that Hallie will be his that he takes it for granted and goes about at his own chosen pace. It's like the hare that takes a nap in the race with the tortoise. He figures he will first build a nice place for them both and then ask her for marriage and then settle down. He's so sure of himself that he doesn't rush it with her.

Rance is pretty much zilch as a man, certainly nobody Tom would regard as a rival.

Dissident Right is full of brainy literary types who are more like Ransom than Doniphan, so I find it odd that Lynch would keep calling Ransom's manhood into question. Also, there are different kinds of power. There is brute power, but there is also the power of the mind and power of knowledge. In brute strength, Achilles and Ajax were far more manly than Odysseus, but Athena favored the latter for his intelligence. After all, what distinguishes man from beast is the mind. Most beasts are bigger and stronger than man, but man has dominion over horses and cows. Why? The power of the mind. In raw power, Uther was many times the man than his son Arthur, but Arthur is the one who creates the New Order based on righteous rule and theory of justice. With Uther, violence is the authority, i.e. whoever wins by might is right. With Arthur, might has to be backed by what's right.
In Hallie's eyes, brutishness is a common feature of the world she inhabits. She's used to seeing problems settled by guns or fists alone. But then, Ransom comes along with a higher/better vision of society, and she is impressed by something so rare in that part of the world. She becomes aware of another kind of manhood, based on knowledge, power of words, and justice. Also, it's a matter of personality. Some women like muscle men, and some women like mental men. Hallie is illiterate but naturally quite bright and curious. Ransom makes a natural pair with her.

But Rance is no longer a child. He has faced death in a duel over honor.

But Ransom was never a child. And everything he did took a good deal of courage, even before the showdown. In a way, it was all the more courageous because he stuck by his figurative guns and kept true to his ideals/principles. It would have been easier for him to just throw up his hands, accept the world as it is, get some guns, and shoot bad guys. Rather, despite all the obstacles and disappointments, he chose to do it right by his principles and conscience. Of course, it too is a kind of personal pride as he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, sort of like Albert Brooks character of BROADCAST NEWS who does care about journalistic ethics but is also driven by ego and pride.
What sets Ransom apart from most people in town? Most are resigned to rule by guns and tough guys. They keep their heads low. And tough guys like Valance and Doniphan also stick with the status quo as it favors them. In contrast, Ransom deviates from both norms, the passive one of most people and the violent one of tough guys. Like Cool Hand Luke, despite all the knocks, he won't give up and insists on doing it HIS way. And in the end, even Doniphan senses that Ransom's way is the better way and, furthermore, manly-in-its-own-right becauser Ransom struggles for the whole community whereas Doniphan's way was mostly for himself. Doniphan always lent a hand to the community but not his heart and soul.

When Tom sees them together, he knows that he has lost Hallie. He gets staggering drunk and burns his own house down in self-pity.

It's something far more than 'self-pity'. It is a genuine moment of personal tragedy.

...when he shot Liberty Valance, he became a man and a hero. It also launched his political career. But none of this sits well with Rance’s puritanical idealist streak. He feels that he bears the “mark of Cain” and is perhaps unworthy of public office.

No, he wasn't so much troubled by personal conscience over what he did. Rather, it's the Narrative pushed by the other side: Cold-blooded thug Ransom killed upright citizen Valance. The Narrative totally reverses the roles. So, he's perturbed by being painted as the very creature that he struggled against with his vision of law and order.
Also, it's one thing to have killed Valance the scumbag, but it's quite another to build a political career on the killing, which reeks of opportunism, like so many politicians who used their war experience to win office as 'heroes'. But regardless of whether Doniphan or he really killed Valance, it can't be win-win for Ransom. If he did killed Valance, he's vulnerable to be clouded by the rival narrative that he's a cold-blooded murderer. If Doniphan did the killing, then his career is built on the deed of another man. Still, when Doniphan tells him the account of what-really-happened, he feels obligated to go in there and fight. He owes Doniphan one, and he felt this debt and burden all his life.

I wonder, though, if Tom’s story is even true. Did it really happen, or did he make it up to spare Rance’s feelings?

What might be true is both Ransom and Doniphan shot Valance at the same time. But surely Doniphan was there on the spot with the rifle because Hallie asked him to, and he couldn't say NO to her. And, why would Doniphan care about Ransom's feelings if he did not shoot Valance? He feels responsible for how Ransom feels precisely because he, Doniphan, was there and took action. Given that Doniphan lost Hallie to Ransom, protecting the latter's feelings would be the last thing on his mind if indeed he did NOT kill Valance. In a way, by telling of his role in the killing, he is owning the narrative between himself and Ransom. Indeed, it serves him more than it serves Ransom. Ransom often derided Doniphan as hardly better than Valance, a tough guy beast and thug, but Doniphan, with the tale, reveals that he is a beast with a heart of gold and even violated the Western code to protect Ransom, even if it meant risking losing Hallie to him. And it is that account by Doniphan that makes Ransom and Hallie feel forever indebted to him and even attend his funeral long after the whole town forgot who he is. Doniphan takes on the role of the 'unsung hero'.

Now, it’s possible Ransom and Doniphan both shot Liberty who was inebriated and didn’t take the gunfight seriously. But one thing for sure, whether Ransom’s bullet did or didn’t hit Valance, Doniphan’s certainly did, especially as he's handy with the rifle, a far more reliable weapon than the pistol in Ransom's shaky hand.

In a way, Ransom took on a suicide mission. He had about as much chance as the sodbuster against Jack Palance's hired killer in Shane. Indeed, Valance shoots him in the arm and mocks him. He toys with Ransom like a cat with a mouse. Why did Ransom decide to fight? It was a matter of rage and honor; every man has a breaking point. Valance just pushed too far, like Tybalt in ROMEO AND JULIET. He beat up the newspaper editor nearly to death. Valance brought out the dark side in him. He has to prove to himself and townsfolks that he can be pushed only so far, live or die. So, he goes after Valance not with any real expectation of killing him but to vent his rage. He most certainly didn’t expect to win. He just wanted to die with rage and honor. But miraculously, he killed the bugger or thinks he did. It’s as if Clarence the angel in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE was looking out for him. He is relieved by the good fortune, comparable in odds to Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson.

Later, he becomes distraught over the affair mainly because of the SPIN used by political rivals. Ransom isn't overcome with guilt about having killed Valance. But he is tormented by the narrative that paints him as a cold-blooded murderer of Liberty Valance, a decent citizen. Now, that’s total BS, but the narrative takes on a life of its own. The real Valance was a killer, but the rival press pushes the story that Valance was a good guy killed by Ransom the murderer. The narrative flips reality and makes Ransom out to be the wild man who resorts to violence to settle matters. So, Ransom’s very words are turned against him, and precisely because of what he’d preached, it hurts to see it boomerang back to him(despite its lack of basis in fact).
In the end, especially in politics, which is all about public perception, it isn’t so much what you are and what you did than what the public is made to believe. Ransom came to the West to create order out of chaos and rid the wilderness of killers, BUT he is made out to be the killer. That is too much for him. Being hyper-sensitive and a social person, he comes to be filled with self-doubt from the negative publicity spewed out by the other side.

Then, we can appreciate the significance of Doniphan spelling out the truth. At least on the personal level, this removes the burden of having killed Valance from Ransom’s shoulders. Also, Ransom realizes that he owes it to Doniphan to get back in the arena and fight. Doniphan did something he didn’t have to do. Also, even though the two men skip over it, Doniphan ended up sacrificing the girl because he saved Ransom. Indeed, Doniphan killed Valance as a favor to Hallie who was panic-stricken over Ransom. More than anything, Doniphan did it for her but didn’t know that she was really in love with Ransom. She meant more to him than anything in the world, and so, Ransom must go in there and keep fighting because Doniphan made the ultimate sacrifice.

Despite Valance’s intentions, his showdown with Stoddard officially counts as a duel, man-to-man. Thus, as both agreed to a shoot-out, it wouldn’t be murder no matter who died. But Doniphan wasn’t party to the duel, so what he did could be construed as ‘murder’.
If two people agreed to a duel but YOU secretly shot one guy to help the other guy, your action would count as murder by law.

But seen in context of what we know, Doniphan’s act wasn’t murder. Valance was a wicked guy and Stoddard was no match for him. Their duel was like the one between Palance’s character and the sodbuster in SHANE.

There’s another factor. Doniphan takes pride in being a tough guy, facing a man straight on. That he killed a man from the shadows isn’t his style. He did something ‘dirty’ even if justified in saving Stoddard. It violated the Western code of standing on your own feet and facing the enemy, live or die. By the code of the West, Valance should have won even if he is the bad guy. In the West, being good and right isn’t good enough. You must back it up with guns. Doniphan intervened to make Stoddard the heroic slayer of Valance, but it was actually a subversion of the Western way.

Worse, it’s not as if Doniphan took Stoddard’s place, which is what happens in SHANE. Shane knows that Big Joe is no match for Palance the Cobra, and so, he acts as champion. Still, he has to duke it out with Big Joe because the latter would rather die like a man than have someone else fight for him. Joe’s pride is hurt, but Shane’s pride is intact because he faces the Cobra face to face.
But Doniphan is denied even this pride of Western glory. He doesn’t take Stoddard’s place and goes face to face with Valance but shoots him from the dark. It’s almost like shooting someone in the back. He did something wrong(by the Code of the West) to do something right(for children and womenfolk), but it’s like the story of the dog looking into the water and losing its bone. Doniphan did it to make the West safe for womenfolk but lost his woman in the bargain.

Anyway, the movie is more relevant than ever. Look at the Iraq War. Never mind there being no WMD. The mass media in cahoots with deep state said there was. And so, there was war.
There was no Russia Collusion in 2016, but Jewish Media and Deep state said there was. It was the biggest attack on US since Pearl Harbor, said the Jews, and so many believed it.
In 2020, some worthless trash George Floyd died of overdose, but the Media pushed the legend of saint Floyd, and his family got 25 million dollars and there are sacral murals all over. Never mind the reality. It’s the narrative, just like ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ nonsense from Ferguson. And the 2020 election. Lots of funny stuff, but just tell yourself, it’s all ‘baseless’ and just trust the ‘adults in the room’. Of course, many people know it's all a bunch of lies but believe go on believing them as 'noble lies', therefore justified. And LIBERTY VALANCE makes us think of US history and all of history as more legend than fact because people demand myths like hungry chicks screeching to be fed.

What is the true nature of power? It's probably like Angela Lansbury’s speech in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. Psychology of power is dark and perverse, and John Ford’s movie, which came out the same year, hints at it. In Ford’s movie, the only truly wicked character is Valance. And yet, even good people need lies to keep it together. Fairytales for adults.

Incidentally, both THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE proved to be prescient of the Kennedy Assassination and its controversie, not least theories about the Grassy Knoll.

(Ransom) no longer thinks his public esteem is based on killing, but shouldn’t he be bothered that it is based on a lie? Perhaps he can live with the lie by telling himself that he is doing good things for the people. But couldn’t he say the same thing about killing Liberty Valance?

Though not stated by Ransom and Hallie, I think the biggest sense of guilt on Ransom's part(as well as Hallie) is not about the killing or the matter of justice but that he took Hallie from Doniphan. That part is shown to us in the movie but surely not told to the newspapermen as Ransom tells the tale. (What we are shown is much more than what Ransom tells the newspaper man.) But what really complicated the three of them was Doniphan gave up Hallie. Seeing her in Ransom's arms, she still belonged to Doniphan if he'd asked for her hand. Not only did he court her for a long time but even saved Ransom due to her pleading. They both know this. But Doniphan knew that if Hallie married him, the bigger part of her would regret it and truly be in love with Ransom. He would rob her of true happiness. So, he let her go. He knows it, she knows it, and Ransom knows it. So, even though Ransom told the truth to the newspaper, he didn't tell the deeper truth, which was personal than political. The real issue involving Doniphan isn't "who shot Liberty Valance?" but "Who took Doniphan's girl?" Doniphan killed Liberty, but in a way, Ransom killed Doniphan who spent the rest of his life rather like Noodles in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. Feeling sad, going to bed early.

The deeper truth that Rance evades is that, for civilization to come to the West, somebody needed to shoot Liberty Valance. It doesn’t really matter who.

Civilization would have come with or without Valance. Cities have always been full of crooks, thieves, and killers as any gangster movie makes clear. Valance is a bad guy but rather crafty and adaptive. Lyndon B. Johnson was equally a crook and politician; he may even have been a killer. What happened with Jeffrey Epstein is a clear indication that civilization is a gangster-operation at the top, and Japan and Italy have been known for fusion of organized crime and politics.

Also, it does matter who kills whom. After all, outlaws, thugs, and criminals are always killing one another. But when a thug kills a thug, the thug is once again triumphant. Had Valance been killed by another Valance, thug would be replaced by thug. So, it matters who does the killing and why. Doniphan is half-Ransom and half-Valance. Like Ransom, he's a good guy and sides with the good people in town. Like Valance, he relishes the wild anarchy of the West where a tough guy is king-of-the-hill, a natural nobleman. He doesn't use his might for evil, but he rather likes might-is-right as it favors his kind of skills. Doniphan is someone who could have thrown his lot with the Valances of the world, but he chooses Ransom, even though he could have had more fun and better relations as a partner of Valance who respects other tough guys. So, that Doniphan kills Valance is significant as it symbolizes the struggle in the heart of power between the good and evil. In killing Valance, he kills a part of himself. It's like the circular opening scene of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID that suggests Garrett's killing of Billy the Kid was essentially killing himself. But if killing the outlaw is a good thing in LIBERTY VALANCE, it is a bad thing in PAT GARRETT.

The possibility that the story is false is supported Ford’s frank exploration of noble and ignoble lies later in the movie. Although the newspaper editor has pried the story out of Rance by insisting on his “right to the truth,” once the tale is told, he burns his notes and tells Rance he will not print the truth. “This is the West, Sir,” he says, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

This makes no sense. The motives of Doniphan in telling his account to Ransom and of Ransom in telling the truth to the newspaper editor are totally different in kind from the motive of the editor in burying the fact. Doniphan really wanted to get it off his chest, mainly because he lost Hallie to Ransom. It was his way of saying, "I saved your ass and lost my girl to you, so you better go in there and fight." He gave up the world as she meant everything to him. And Ransom tells the tale partly out of idealism and partly as tribute to Ransom. There is still that idealistic part of him that believes in truth and etc., and he sees in the newsman his younger self starting out in the West. But he also feels that Doniphan, so long forgotten that few even showed up at his funeral, should be credited as the unsung hero who really killed Valance and saved Ransom's life. Both Doniphan's and Ransom's motivations are in favor of truth. In contrast, the newsman's decision to edit out those facts is political or social. Why overturn a beautiful myth when so many people have come to believe in it? He figures the truth can do more harm than good.
And yet, even his reasons are in sync with Doniphan and Ransom on some level. After all, there is a reason why Doniphan told no one but Ransom and why Ransom kept it a secret all these years. They all understood that it'd be better for themselves and the world if it was kept secret. Doniphan wanted it that way, and in a way, Ransom's revelation is both an act of tribute/reverence and betrayal. He told the story in honor of Doniphan, but Doniphan wanted to take the secret to his grave. And perhaps, the editor understood that as well, and it's no wonder Ransom doesn't object when the editor says, "When legend becomes fact, print the legend."

But why replace the truth with legend? What’s wrong with the truth? The superficial truth deals with who shot Liberty Valance: Tom or Rance? If Tom shot Liberty, he can’t be punished now because he’s dead. Rance, of course, kept the secret. Perhaps there would be legal consequences for that. But the real need for deception has to do with the deeper truth: somebody needed to shoot Liberty Valance so that civilization could come to the West,

But that doesn't make any sense. If what really mattered was that, in order for civilization to take root in the West, SOMEONE-ANYONE had to shoot Valance, then what does it matter if it's revealed that Doniphan did the killing? The editor would have been perfectly happy with the new fact as SOMEONE killed Valance. If the main issue is 'Valance had to go' and therefore, 'someone, just about anyone, had to kill him', then the story of 'Doniphan as killer' would be just as acceptable as 'Ransom as killer'. It'd be a case of "What does it matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice?"
But in LIBERTY VALANCE, the story is rejected precisely because it is an issue of WHO. The official story has been about Ransom Stoddard, a man who bridged the East with the West with high ideals and vision. He wasn't only a man of books but soon became a man of the West. He stood up to a killer face to face and shot him dead and proved his mettle. And he built a career and served his community and nation well. He is a local hero, even a national figure. So many people have come to admire him and pay him respect. So, it would be a big deal to say that another man actually killed Valance and that the much admired Ransom built his career on a lie. It's like John McCain's career was built on his undying loyalty to America despite being tortured endlessly by the North Vietnamese. Actually, it was a big lie, and McCain and those around him knew the consequences of the lie being revealed. Granted, Ransom's lie wasn't ignoble like McCain's. Ransom really believed he'd killed Liberty, and when he found out otherwise, he knew Doniphan told him the tale to make him go into the political arena and fight. It's not like he stole the glory from Doniphan. Rather, Doniphan did him a favor and wanted him to follow upon it. Still, a lie is still a lie, especially in the public eye.

Liberalism seeks to do away with force and fraud in human relations.

No, liberalism seeks to concentrate force in the state governed by laws. Also, liberalism accepts that fraud is a part of life and ineradicable, and therefore there must be laws and procedures to deal with fraud and violations that will always be with us. Liberalism isn't utopianism, a vision of future where all people will be free, equal, and just. Liberalism is based on tolerance than perfectionism. Liberalism says we will never have perfection, and so, we must learn to tolerate the flaws and failings, but there is still a workable solution by systems of laws and enforcement to ameliorate the worst abuses of society.

Of course, 'liberalism' has many meanings. It could mean classical liberalism or libertarianism. It could mean the New Deal and Big-Governmentism. It could mean high taxes and social-democracy. It could mean the Welfare State and Great Society. It could mean the Nanny State where the state passes ever more rules and regulations(about guns and smoking) to make us do what's right. Or, nowadays, it could mean Neo-Liberalism where the globalists oligarchs, deep state elites, and ivory tower operatives all conspire to gain more control via monopolization, more wars, and hate propaganda against whomever they hate. Currently, what is called 'liberalism' is just Jewish Supremacist Gangsterism with globo-homo and magic-negro as gods.

Liberalism, in short, depends on illiberal men and extralegal violence for its very survival. But, instead of questioning their own ideological premises, liberals simply lie about this fact.

There is much truth in the above statement, but such hypocrisy isn't limited to liberalism. When barbarian lords became kings and fancy aristocrats, they begin to put on airs. Their power was based on violence and brutality, but the kings invoked some divine right. And aristocrats acted as if they were born of finer blood and that their authority was based on culture and sophistication than on exploitation of the masses who toiled in the fields. The Christian Churches pretended their authority was the blessing of God when it depended on an alliance with the military caste that rarely acted according to Christian ethos. Liberalism inherited than incubated such hypocrisy.

This is why we need fascism that is most honest in exploring and explaining how power really works, but fascism was disgraced by the Ridiculous Fascism of Mussolini and Ludicrous Fascism of Hitler who turned fascism into mindless personality cults.

Stewart wasn’t a manly man but he was certainly not effeminate, not to mention ‘gayish’, like Farley Granger. Also, we have to take Ransom's motivation into account. His rejection of the Wild West way is a matter of courage and principle, not cowardice and passivity. There’s a difference between refusing to pick up a gun out of fright and out of principle. Also, most men in town have guns but still cower before Valance. Guns alone are as useless as the Law alone. Guns need to be backed by skill, ability, courage, and resolve(and even a bit of reckless derring-do). People are anxious about resorting to violence not only in fear of bad guys but in fear of the state that might charge them of murder. In our time, patriots who use guns to defend their lives and property are often smeared and charged by the Jew-run system.

Ransom’s long-term vision is the right one. The only way to secure real peace is by everyone working together to create a stable system. That’s the only insurance against men like Valance. If the town relies on men like Doniphan to keep the likes of Valance at bay, it becomes a matter of whim and chance. It’d be like Greeks relying on temperamental Achilles in the war against the Trojans. Sometimes, Achilles feels like fighting, sometimes he does not, even if the Greeks are getting battered. Also, what if there is no one like Doniphan around? The good folks would be totally at the mercy of Valances of the world. So, for there to be real justice, there has to be a system of law enforced by the state, and that system can come about only with everyone playing his part instead of looking to the good tough guy to fend off the bad tough guy. (In SEVEN SAMURAI, the ronin not only defend the village but teach the farmers how to organize and fight.) Of course, until such a system is established, a man like Doniphan sure comes in handy but only as a temporary measure. For justice to be permanent, an impersonal system is essential.

So, Ransom is essentially right. He is wrong in his reluctance to resort to rough justice in the interim period before a more stable system is possible. Still, it’s a fault of detail, a matter of degree, than of design.
That said, one could argue against Law and Order on grounds that people don’t deserve it, i.e. good times for good folks lead to decadence and degeneracy among the young ones who take things for granted and put on dumb attitudes. The ‘greatest generation’ did so much to create a new order for the boomers, but what did the latter do? Indulge in sex, drugs, and rock & roll. And law-and-order did wonders for cities in the 1990s and 2000s. Crime rates dropped precipitously. But instead of being grateful for the relative peace, the progs virtue-signaled about ‘racism’ and waved BLM signs, and we are back to chaos again. And Western Europe got progressively worse because of the prolonged prosperity after WWII. Generation after generation taking the good times for granted and making a mess of everything. Then, maybe good times based on law and order aren’t so good for the people. Once people's concerns deviate from elemental needs, they grow decadent and stupid.

Ransom is troubled by the killing of Valance because he wants to lead by example. But the killing has been characterized by his rivals as cold-blooded murder of an upstanding citizen. Of course, his supporters have no problem with the killing of Valance, a bad guy, but they don’t have a lock on the local Narrative. It’s no different today. We know George Floyd died of overdose, but the Narrative favors the ‘murder’ story. And the officials sabotaged Charlottesville by setting Antifa goons upon Alt Right people, but the Jewish Supremacist Media that control the Narrative blamed it all on ‘white supremacists’.

Ransom is in the long line of heroes who try to do the right thing in the wrong place. Kirk Douglas’ character in PATHS OF GLORY is similar. What decides matters in his world is ‘politics’, but he sticks to principles. There’s nothing he can do to stop the executions of the accused men, but he still does his best. That the men will die is pre-ordained, but he goes against the currents nevertheless in a lost cause. The pragmatic thing would have been to just play along, go through the motions, and further his own career prospects. But he stands by his principles and is called a ‘fool’ by the devious general who is ‘wise’ about the ways of power.

That Trevor Lynch is so harsh on Ransom is a bit odd since he himself is involved in the ‘effeminate’ calling of ‘letters’. Also, he has eschewed the confrontational tactics of Alt Right politics in favor of the Contest of Ideas with books like THE WHITE NATIONALIST MANIFESTO with the hope that the world will accept ‘white nationalism’ as a moral principle; there’s less chance of that than Ransom’s vision of the New West. He was also taken aback by Amazon’s decision to ban his books, as if the corporate world(in cahoots with the Deep State) ever played fair. Could he be projecting onto Ransom some of his own self-doubts?

Ransom is caught in a moral trap. If he sticks by his idealistic guns, he is strong on principle but weak in practice. If he picks up the guns, he’d be stronger in practice but weaker on principles. Not gifted as a natural fighter, his power derives from an innate advantage of intelligence.
Still, he’s not a pacifist nor opposed to the possession of guns. He just believes justice shouldn’t be a matter of which side has more guns or has the faster draw. After all, such ‘justice’ will always favor might. If Valance were to kill Doniphan in a gunfight, then the ‘law’ would be on the side of Valance. It’s almost as if Ransom is his own hostage in this moral trap. It'd be like justice as roll-of-dice as the bad has 50/50 chance of winning against the good. It's just been the convention of the Western that the good guys win the end, thereby creating the false impression that guns in good hands triumph over guns in bad hands.

Ransom is like Kirk Douglas in PATHS OF GLORY in that both men are essentially liberal(minus the current connotations). They do have principles but, when push comes to shove, accept the world as it is and compromise. This is different from Tom Courtney’s characters in KING RAT and DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is honest to a fault in KING RAT but unlikable because of the setting where pride of virtue is a fool’s game. In DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, he’s more admirable as a purist radical. He won’t make his men do anything he himself won’t do. He charges into battle ahead of his men, and his commitment to the Revolution is total and selfless(as well as ruthless). His radicalism is very different from Ransom’s liberalism, but they have something in common in the insistence of doing it by the letter of the book, be it the laws of liberty or laws of history.
In a way, what happens in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA lends a clue as to Ransom’s dilemma. Lawrence initially looks upon the Arabs as a cruel and silly people who live by petty tribalism and superstition. The Arabs say, “It’s written”, i.e. things are what they are, and nothing can be done about it. One must resign oneself to what is ‘written’. When a man falls off a camel in the desert, Lawrence goes to retrieve him when others just give up on him. His death is ‘written’, or willed-by-Allah, the Arabs say. But Lawrence believes in free will, in agency. So, he goes to rescue the man and brings him back alive. He has taught the Arabs the lesson of Western freedom, the power of the individual will against adversity. After all, he’s leading a campaign that seems impossible, doomed to fail. But later, the very man he saved must be killed by his own gun. Perhaps, the Arabs were right after all. It is ‘written’. Lawrence could alter the script a bit here and there, but in the end, it was as ‘written’. Ransom is a far humbler character than the vain Lawrence bordering on megalomania, but both men believe in their rightness and destiny. In the Wild West, people act as it’s ‘written’ or ‘branded’ that guns decide what goes and that’s that. The Law of the West is written in blood. Ransom has a better vision of the West and works to create it… but in the end, he ends up using the gun according to the Western script. (And of course, it’s ‘written’ in the Western genre script that all roads must lead to a gunfight.)

In a way, Ransom is a pain-in-the-ass, but people like him are why the Anglo World created better institutions and fairer laws than the Latin World and beyond. To be sure, men like Doniphan were also instrumental as to why the Anglo world turned out better. The Doniphans had the balls to stand up to bad guys, and the Ransoms were sticklers for the law and made it stick. In contrast, Mexico had few Doniphans. Most people were like the passive peasants in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexico also had few Ransoms, men of the law. The result was a world of corruption and passivity.
And consider THE GODFATHER. It begins with Michael determined to be like a Good American, but an incident turns him overnight into a tribal gangster who no longer has any use for the American Way. Once he goes ‘Sicilian’, he never looks back.

Ransom’s way isn’t easy. And it’s even harder for one who's fallen but vows to crawl out of the hole, the scenario in PRINCE OF THE CITY, a story of a NY cop who joined his partners in corruption but tries to set things straight and de-tox himself of the betrayals. But it means giving up his partners, something he promised he’d never do. Whichever loyalty he chooses, to the Law or his partners, he ends up betraying something. Treat Williams played a labor activist in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA who tries to be clean but soon joins with gangsters as protection. He does the realistic thing but is corrupted in the end.

Cattlemen often fought for land and water with other cattlemen. So, they too put up fences and barbed wire. Cattlemen were very territorial AGAINST other cattlemen. They were for ‘open grazing’ only within their own territory. Indeed, many cattle wars flared up over access to water and pathways. It wasn’t as simple as laid out in SHANE.

Also, unlike the Indians who went away, cattle barons were there to stay, and it’s been a big part of the West ever since. In the long run, the biggest challenge to them was less real estate speculators than Big Government that finally stepped in with regulation and protection of wilderness.

Perhaps, the real dirty secret, one that Ford’s movie doesn’t touch upon, was that the partnership of American ‘progress’ was really between the Stoddards and the Valances. The Stoddards of the world weren’t so clean, and they needed people like Valances, sociopaths willing to do anything for a cut.
Take THE IRISHMAN. Jimmy Hoffa is a legit labor union boss but has goons working for him. Indeed, US government itself is about legit-seeming politicians and officials out in the public, but behind them are sociopaths in the deep state who do the dirty work. US military works alongside mercenaries, soldiers of fortune. And most soldiers joined for benefits than patriotism. The thing about Doniphan is he has too much pride and integrity to do dirty work for powerful men. He wants to be left alone and do his own thing. He likes being his own boss. In contrast, Stoddards of the world want to gain power over others(for reasons ostensibly good) and need others to do the bidding for them: Valances of the world will do anything for anyone for pay; they can be bought in the way that Doniphans of the world cannot be. Valance, though a maverick, is willing to be a flunky for pay. Thus, he is more useful to the powerful than Doniphan is.

In ALL THE KING’S MEN, an idealistic politician soon learns the ropes and surrounds himself with a bunch of Valances, tough guys who play as dirty as the other side, sometimes dirtier... to get things done. After all, civilization in the West wasn’t only about womenfolk & churches and children & schools but saloons and prostitutes. Las Vegas is part of civilization but more about whores and saloons than schools and churches. Indeed, vice industries provide the revenues to run the schools and libraries. And churches took dirty donations from the beginning. And the biggest sinners sometimes had the most money to give.

Perhaps, this is why myths are so important. It’s like the Joni Mitchell song “Both Sides Now”:

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all

So, there are two layers of myth in LIBERTY VALANCE. The myth within the story that has the public believing that Ransom slayed the fire-breathing dragon-beast Valance. The truth is Doniphan is the one who did the killing.
But one may surmise another myth, one outside the story, i.e. that the entirety of Western Narrative is a myth, the Manichean one about civilization and progress coming to the West to drive out the savages and outlaws for the sake of womenfolk and the children. Rather, it was about gangsters taking over from cowboys who took over from the Indians. In Sergio Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, the railroad oligarch hires the likes of Valance; indeed, it's significant that Leone hired Henry Fonda, usually associated with virtue in Hollywood movies, to play the hired killer. Outlaws like the bandits in THE WILD BUNCH had to be hunted down, but outlaws willing to work as strongarm of the New Order were highly prized.
It’s like the myth of the Good War Narrative where all the War Criminals were supposedly brought to justice. In fact, especially due to the Cold War, the US protected and worked with ‘war criminals’ in Germany and Japan. While some high-profile ones got hanged, many were made ‘respectable’ as collaborators with the New Order.

The problem with certain facts is it doesn’t end with the fact alone. Pull on the string of factuality, and the whole fabric may come apart. This is why Jews don’t want to give an inch to the Palestinians. If even a key fact of history is conceded to the Palestinians, it may lead to other facts that lead to yet more facts, with the result that the whole foundation of the Zionist myth may crumble like a house of cards. Jews surely know this from their dealing with Anglo-Americans or Wasps. White Power gave an inch of moral authority to the Jews, and Jews kept pulling and pulling on that thread until the whole edifice of White Power came unraveled.
So, the fact in LIBERTY VALANCE isn’t just one fact or single fact. It’s like a brick within the foundation of building. It is hidden and cannot be seen but plays a crucial role in holding up the entire structure. Keep it hidden in its Atlas-like work of holding up the building while people credit the outward design for what makes the building work; it's like people focus on faces, not the intestines. Some facts are mere facts, mere trivialities, but other facts are like keystones or centerpieces. It’s like the game of Jenga. Removing a certain piece, especially near the bottom, profoundly compromises the whole structure.

This is as true of personal myth as public myth. LIBERTY VALANCE is about public myth, whereas MULHOLLAND DR is about personal myth known only to the character of Diane Selwyn. This myth, dark and perplexing as it is, gives her hope and comfort whereas the stark truth is morbid and depressing. She lives in her myth and lives in fear of a certain ‘key fact’ that may break the spell and lead her back to drab and dreary reality where she isn’t just a loser but the murderer of her friend. When dream becomes reality, follow the dream.