There are two kinds of justice in the world, metaphorically speaking. Jewish Justice and Palestinian Justice.
Notice that Jews & Israel can do just about anything. Build nukes, pass nuke technology to apartheid South Africa, aid ISIS fighters, shoot missiles into Syria, mow down Palestinian protesters, occupy Palestinian territory(and Israel itself was stolen in Nakba) & grab more land, use neo-apartheid against Palestinians, exploit Slavic women for white slavery, drug an entire nation on opioids, use the US and EU to wage Wars for Israel, rob Russia of its wealth, spread paranoia about Iran & Russia, and etc. Even get Jonathan Pollard out of prison even though his espionage led to the deaths of hundreds. And yet, all we hear from US politicians is WE LOVE JEWS, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF THE HOLOCAUST, GIVE MORE BILLIONS TO ISRAEL, HATE IRAN, HATE RUSSIA, HATE WHATEVER JEWS HATE. That is how Jewish Justice works.
As for the Palestinians? They were destroyed by massive Jewish immigration-invasion with the backing of Jewish bankers and the empires of UK, US, & USSR. Palestinians had no chance as the great empires all gave cover and protection to Jewish takeover of Palestine. Palestinians were provoked into war because the division of their homeland was imposed by foreigners. If China or Iran today were to send in tons of their peoples into Israel and then call for dividing the nation in two -- one for Jews, one for newcomers --, how would Jews react? They would rise up and resist. Palestinians understandably rose up in 1948, but they were crushed, and the war was used as pretext to ethnically expel the bulk of the Arab population by means of terror. And then, under more bogus pretext Zionists also seized West Bank in 1967, setting off endless Jewish migration-invasions that have drastically reduced Palestinian territory. But does anyone talk of Nakba in the US? Is there Nakba day or Nakba memorial? Nakba week or Palestinian Tragedy Month? Does any politician, Democratic or Republican, mention the utter injustice experienced by Palestinians? Has there been a single movie or TV show about Nakba or the Occupation? No. That is how Palestinian Justice works.
So, metaphorically speaking, which one are you? A Meta-Jew or a Meta-Palestinian? So many stupid whites thought that if they support Jews, praise Jews, hug Jews, indulge Jews, and worship Jews, Jews would treat whites as meta-Jews. But if Jews treated whites as equals, then whites would have the same rights and privileges as the Jews. Jews couldn't tolerate that because Jewish Supremacist Power -- Current Jews are addicted to supremacism like Japanese were addicted to Pan-Asian supremacism and Germans to Pan-European supremacism in WWII -- depends on white submission and subservience to Jews, just like Jewish possession and domination of Israel-West-Bank depends on Palestinian subordination to Jewish Might. Then, it was hardly surprising that Jewish power treated whites a Meta-Palestinians. Now, which groups did Jews promote as Meta-Jews? Blacks and Homos. Blacks could be used to paralyze white moral pride -- the stuff about slavery and endless remembrance of Emmitt Till -- and undermine white manhood pride(as black men can kick white male butt and win the respect of white women with jungle fever). Reduced to wussy cucks, white race has been made to feel a need for redemption and benediction from morally superior groups. Knowing this, Jews pulled a bait-and-switch. Bait White Americans mainly with guilt about blacks, but then steer white desire for redemption toward serving Jews and Israel, which is ironically doing to Palestinians what whites once did to blacks long ago under Segregation. Same with the manipulation of white guilt about American Indians. Tell whites that they must atone for the 'genocide' of Indians by letting in more immigration-invasion. Total Bait-and-Switch. If mass immigration destroyed the American Indians, why should there be MORE immigration? Well, it's good for Jews in their game of divide-and-rule.
As for Homos as Meta-Jews, they are useful in boosting minority-elite power/privilege as the New Normal of social, cultural, and political affairs Jewish minority-elites and homo minority-elites see eye-to-eye. Jews boost homo power, and all those homos in Deep State -- Washington DC is 10% homo -- serve the agenda of Zionist hegemony all over the world. Also, globo-homo craziness has been effective in replacing Christianity and traditional-natural-normal values that empower the normal goy populace. If all those straights have been led to believe that the highest value is 'rainbow' homos who indulge in fecal penetration and trannies who cut off penises(and beat up women in sports), then it means the great majority of normal people, de-normalized and devoid of moral confidence in themselves, must SUBMIT to the 'values' of the 'special' minority.
So, there is Jewish Justice for Jews, black Meta-Jews, and homo Meta-Jews. Whites sucked up to Jews in the hope of being considered as fellow Meta-Jews, but Jews said "No, you can't be our equal. You exist to serve us." Whites could have woken up and told Jewish power to go to hell, but they just cucked and keep their heads bowed. Uppity whites were denounced as 'white supremacist' and 'nazi'. But then, why shouldn't white elites debase themselves this way? They've lost all pride but do get fat paychecks from Jewish Power. Paul Ryan will make some serious money. The Bush Die-Nasty got a second chance with George W. Bush because it totally cucked to Neocons with Dick Cheney as middleman. The white elites are worthless cucks, but they get paid well for being such good dogs. The John McCain farewell was the biggest Good Dog pet funeral of all time.
Anyway, there is no Jewish Justice for whites. As Meta-Palestinians in the eyes of Jews, Whites only get Palestinian Justice. SPLC and ADL spread lies, but they are showered with tons of cash from Jews, favored by media, and get to defame anyone. Meanwhile, Jared Taylor has struggle and scrape to secure a place for a conference(despite the fact that among white advocates, he usually cucks to Jews). Antifa scum get to bash heads, but their violence is not denounced by the Jewish-run Media. They are indulged with favorable Jewish Justice. There are Jewish lawyers to represent them if they get caught, which is rarely the case as cops have been ordered to go easy on them. These scum can bash skulls with padlocks but get off scot-free. Meanwhile, people who push back and fight back are denied banking service, deplatformed, railroaded, and locked up behind bars. They get Palestinian Justice. And Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions have done NOTHING for white patriots. Despite the bogus rhetoric, Trump has gone along with the arrangement of Jewish Justice for Jews, blacks, homos, illegals, antifa scum AND Palestinian Justice for whites, even those who supported him despite getting attacked in the streets by globohomo thugs.
White people need to wake up to the fact that they will never be anything but Meta-Palestinians in the eyes of Jews. Sure, some whites will do okay if they collaborate, but then Palestinians who collaborate in West Bank are rewarded too. Just like there are two forms of justice in Israel-West-Bank -- one for Jews, one for Palestinians -- , there are two forms of justice in the US and the world as devised by hegemonic globohomo Jewish Power. As far as Jews are concerned, white patriots in US and EU, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and Christian Conservatives are Meta-Palestinians who deserve Palestinian Justice. Even when Jews wrong Russia, Russia gets blamed. Even when Jewish-controlled US is the aggressor against Russia, Russia is the guilty party. Why would hypocritical Jews who treat Palestinians like shi* treat the rest of the world any differently? Why did whites ever think that if they support Jews treating Palestinians like subhumans, Jews are somehow going to treat whites any better? After all, aren't both Palestinians and whites a bunch of 'dirty goyim' in Jewish eyes? Don't Jews think in terms of "Is it good for the Jews?" wherever they are and whomever they're with? The West looked the other way and even aided Israel's invasion of West Bank, but did this lead to Jewish gratitude to the West? No, Jewish policy toward EU and US follows the same dynamics as Zionist policy toward Palestinians in the West Bank. It is population replacement and destruction of goy nationalism on the arrogant Mono-Nationalist premise that ONLY JEWS are deserving of proud identity and nationalism.
The current formula is as follows:
Jewish Justice or JJ for Jews, Negro Meta-Jews, and Homo Meta-Jews.
Palestinian Justice or PJ for whites, Russia, Syria, Iran.
And then, there's the tricky part. If Muslims are OVER THERE, they deserve Palestinian Justice. Sanction them, destroy their economy, invade them, rain bombs on them, turn them into refugees. In their home nations, all these Arabs and Muslims are Meta-Palestinians. (There are exceptions. Saudis are Meta-Jews because they are such total cuck-dogs of the Zionist-US empire. Saudis can get away with anything: Murder, Torture, aiding terrorists.) But if Muslims are OVER HERE, they suddenly favored with Jewish Justice. Protect them, promote them, and coddle them as akin to New Jews, a vulnerable minority group that needs to be protected from MAGA-monsters. But then, if like Ilhan Omar, a Muslim in America talks about Jewish Money and Power, he or she is back to being treated with Palestinian Justice.
No matter what whites do for Jews, Jews will always regard whites as Meta-Palestinians. It's about time whites realized this. Only then can whites work toward equal justice for all peoples, one that will recognize the right of nationalism and sovereignty for all peoples(than just for Jews). What Jews mean by 'liberal democracy' is Jewish supremacism and privilege. Real justice would not favor Jews over whites or whites over Jews or Jews over Palestinians or Palestinians over Jews. It would say that Palestinians and whites are deserving of nations and national security, just like Israel as a Jewish state. It's utterly disingenuous for whites to complain about how Jewish power is undermining nationhood for white people when white people have supported the Zionist denial of nationhood to Palestinians. By assenting to Zionism's perversion of justice into a matter of Jewish Justice for Jews and Palestinian Justice for Palestinians, whites have encouraged Jewish Power to see the entire world as a macro-version of West Bank: One rule for Jews, another for goyim. White liberation/emancipation from Jewish supremacism begins with saying NO MORE to Zionist colonization of the West Bank. Any white person who supports this has NO RIGHT to complain about Jewish power doing the SAME THING to his own nation. If Bob supports Bill's attack on innocent Paul, why should Bob complain when Bill turns around and attacks Bob too?
Not sure Stalinism offers the best understanding of what is going on.
Communism had to be simple because it was about the pride of work, dignity of labor, simple virtues of proles. Back then, the bourgeoisie had all the privilege. Workers were barely literate or semi-literate. More literate in places like Germany but still less educated than the bourgeoisie with fancy taste and refinement. In the story of the princess and the pea, the girl notices the pea because she is really of royal background. If she were a true prole, she would have been content with a hard wooden bed with a bunch of peas. Just any place to sleep.
Especially because communism came to power in backward Russia(and later even more backward China), the themes had to be simplified even further. In USSR, communism was less about the workers inheriting wealth and property from the bourgeoisie(that had been hoarding it all) than about turning peasants into proles to build a modern economy. According to classic Marxism, the contradictions within capitalism would lead to revolution. But because capitalism would have already built a modern and wealthy economy, revolution would be about taking the loot of the rich and sharing them equally among the workers. Also, the workers would have collective ownership of factories, land, and resources. And with more leisure and less work, workers could lead moderate ‘bourgeois’-like lifestyles. They would work about 4 hrs and devote other time of the day to art, culture, ideas, and etc. The bourgeoisie would lose out as a class, but bourgeois-ness would remain as lifestyle. In habit, culture, and attitude, Marx was even more bourgeois than Adolf Hitler who was half-bourgeois and half-bohemian. He didn’t so much want to destroy everything bourgeois as elevate workers to a point where they too could partake of the good stuff enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.
No such luck for Russia and later China. When the Revolution happened, the majority were still dirt-poor peasants. Because there wasn’t much wealth to take from capitalists, a whole new economy had to be built. That meant the workers had to be driven to work even harder. They had to be tough. There was no time for nonsense. It was work, work, and build, build. So, naturally, the ideology had to be simplified for the masses. Trotsky scoffed at Stalin’s ‘second-rate’ intellect. Lenin and Trotsky were hyper-intellectuals. Marxist ‘Greeks'(as Nassim Taleb might describe them). Stalin was a Marxist ‘Roman’. He was about getting things done, and the fact was communism would have to build a modern economy from ground up as there wasn’t one to take and inherit from the bourgeoisie(that was much smaller in Russia). And then, later Mao made Marxism even simpler because China was even more backward than Russia. In the Soviet Union(at least until the 60s when there were some burgeoning signs of a consumer economy), the main theme was about the basic needs of survival. It wasn’t about choosing which pastry and wine but having enough bread and water. US was much better off than the USSR, but then, universal prosperity didn’t arrive until about after two decades after WWII. At the turn of 20th century, majority of Americans were still on the farm. Great Depression and WWII led to hardships and shortages. After WWII, 50% didn’t have indoor plumbing. So, even though there was certainly more choice than in the USSR, most people had to do with basic stuff.
But from end of WWII to the present, US and Western Europe have continued without a great depression. There were some recessions(some serious) along the way, but life got easier for more people. With everyone taking substance for granted in a world where even poor people grow fat, style took precedence. And this goes for ideology as well. When a lot of people were hungry, the ideology was about bread. And when wars destroyed so many lives of common folk, the ideology was about peace. But there’s no shortage of bread. And recent wars have killed just a fraction of lives lost in WWI and WWII. And there’s no draft. So, ideology has turned into a game of personal choice. It’s like shopping for various kinds of cheese, wine, candy, chocolate, and etc.
Oddly enough, consumerist mentality went better with leftist ideology. This seems counter-intuitive because capitalism was on the ‘right’ and socialism was on the ‘left’ during the Cold War. But if leftists are more likely to complain, nitpick, bitch, and fuss about social problems, it means their mentality is more like that of the finicky consumer with ‘customer is king’ mentality. Jews are known for haggling and negotiating things down to the last penny. Homos are known for being fussy and bitchy about everything. They are less likely to be content with any product. So, the consumer who is never content with any product and the progressive who is never content with society share the same kind of mentality. In a society where consumerism is king, leftism was bound to take on features of consumerism. So, today’s ‘progressivism’ is different from yesterday’s when the theme was Bread for Every Man. Same bread for every man? How boring. Just like consumers want lots of choice among various breads, cookies, and pastries, the new ‘progressivism’ is like 31 flavors of Ice Cream. Even within homo ideology, there is ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bi’, ‘trans’, ‘queer’, and many more. And people can mix and match their grievance products. So, a New Muslim can intersect his identity with ‘gay’ identity, feminism(which also comes in many flavors such as slut pride, vagina mania, corporate feminism, etc), and immigrant-identity(legal, illegal, undocumented, New American, New Jews, etc). Just like there are many kinds of Comfort Food, there are now many kinds of Grievance Products.
And capitalists appreciate this PC branding. As rich folks and big corporations are always worried about being called out for being greedy and profit-obsessed, how convenient for them to market grievance-approved products… like Gillette that is against ‘sexual harassment'(all by white men) and Nike that features Kaepernick. That way, they can rake in the dough while posing as ‘caring’. And the fussy consumer mentality and griping ‘progressive’ mentality fuse into one. Some snotty consumer who wants to buy the very best is also glad to know that the product is buying is also ‘woke’. It flatters both his status and standing. In a way, corporations appreciate micro-complaining and micro-bitching. Such gives them more of a rationale to crank out new and improved products. Sometimes, the new stuff is indeed better. Other times, like so many variations of smart-phones, it’s mostly hype to rake in more bucks.
Your average conservative is more likely to be ‘socialist’ in his tastes and outlook. He is more likely to focus on basic needs and basic values. Less likely to be fussy wussy about the very best. Less likely to complain that not everything is as he wants it. But people who are content with basic bread and stuff make less demanding consumers who want more and better. Can anyone imagine John Wayne character complaining that his coffee ain’t the fancy kind? In contrast, homos are always bitching about everything, and they can be a real pain in the ass. But you have to give credit where it’s due, and so much of improvement in consumer goods was driven by people who always found faults in something. Germans were hardy but also extremely thorough, which made them obsessed about creating the ever-more-perfect machine or system. It’s no wonder they built a greater economy than Russia with all its resources. Culture of Complaint can do some good… in the right measure.
Even as Jews increasingly vilify white conservatives(scapegoats for all problems) as the unifying theme for Jews and People of Color, they also increasingly draw on white conservatives to support Jews and Israel, because, after all, Grievance Politics among the POC often turns against Jewish privilege and Zionist tyranny. Jews depend more and more on the water from the well they are poisoning. With decreasing support for Israel and growing criticism of white-Jewish privilege among the expanding non-white and radical-white base among Democrats, Jews have to depend more and more on white conservatives for unconditional support for Jews and Israel. The vile Anti-BDS law passed with near-total support from Republicans while only 40% support from Democrats. Jews will increasingly have to rely on the very people they denigrate most in media, academia, law, state, entertainment, advertising, and corporacracy. But can Jews be assured of continued support among white conservatives when the latter is beginning to awaken to the fact that it's the Jews who are leading the anti-white derangement syndrome among the POC? But then, Jews must shame and blame whites in order to make them serve Jews. After all, the default position of any people is to feel good about their own kind and serve their own interests. Naturally, white Christians and conservatives should serve white/Christian/conservative interests. To make them do otherwise, they must be made to feel that the Other is somehow superior, morally or spiritually, to themselves. And Jews have done this by implanting 'white guilt' into the souls of whites, both liberals and conservatives. Thus, whites feel morally tainted by history and seek redemption by serving the Holy Other. As far as white conservatives are concerned, serving Jews(and maybe blacks and homos) should be good enough, and so, they go out on a limb to appear as 'good for Jews'. But for Jews, this isn't enough because there is still the possibility that whites may change their minds one day... and then what? So, the ONLY way to ensure permanent Jewish domination is via Diversity. That way, with whites relegated to minority status in the US, they won't be able to use electoral-demographic majority power to topple Jewish supremacy. Jews want more Diversity because, deep down inside, they know Intersectionality is really about Gridlock among Goyim. Even within the Proglob camp, so-called intersectionality has led to Demolition Derby or Roller Derby among blacks, homos, women, white working class, browns, yellows, and etc. It's turning into Road Rage politics... like the movie CRASH that won Best Pic.
Anyway, it seems more and more whites are waking up to the fact of Jewish hostility towards them. An obvious case has been Ann Coulter who, in 2016, mocked GOP candidates for droning on and on about the 'fuc*king Jews'. For such awakened whites, we need to end mass immigration as soon as possible because loss of white majority will mean end of GOP, and then whites are lost for good. But whites should take cues from the Jews on the Art of Power. If a people need majority power to rule, how does one account for the fact that Jews, who are only 2% of the nation, totally rules the US? So, how can whites threaten Jewish power even if they lose majority status in the US? They can make Jews have a taste of their own medicine. Jewish 'progressive' line has been 'diversity and equality are good, while privilege is bad'. Okay, then whites should take the Jews at their word and side with the POC against the most privileged people in the US, the Jews. Jeremy Corbyn is doing this in the UK with hilarious reactions from the Jewish community. Jews in UK have been dumping on white Britons as 'racists' and demanding that whites welcome and embrace non-whites. Well, that is exactly what Corbyn's Labour did, and guess how the Jews are reacting? They are flipping out because most non-whites don't give a rat's ass about super-rich Jewish bankers, Israel, Zionist imperialism, and Holocaust-Cult-Forever. This is why the US would do best to get rid of the GOP, have all whites join the Democrats, and then have whites side with POC against the Deep State dominated by Jews, homos, and cucks. Then, the current elites can be brought down, and then, the ensuing chaos will bring back the Restart of History from the terrible 'End of History' of Fukuyama's naive idealization.
I suppose Jews still got the homo card. Homo Power is mostly white-male, and it is reliably on the side of Jews because vain homos love power and privilege. It's no wonder that 10% of DC is now homo. Homos go there to seek power, and Jews have elevated them(along with cuck-dog Mormons) to serve as the missionary arm of globo-homo hegemony. Thus, homos, along with Mormons, have played a big role in Wars for Israel and new 'cold war' with Russia. Homos + Mormons = Homormons. Homos not only love to serve the Power(that is mostly Jewish) but appreciate the fact that Jews have decided to make Homomania the substitute for Christianity, indeed the Cult of the New World Order. As for Mormons, most of them are just status-strivers and moral-materialists, i.e. their moralism is all about making money, and money is the highest good. Also, ashamed of their history as an odd cult and ever so eager to appear respectable to the current globo-homo ruling elites, Mormons will go out of their way to cuck hard. Salt Lake City Mormons are the favorite dogs of Goldman Sachs and dutifully voted for Obama and Hillary. Mormons are the Sheep State within the Deep State.
Sometimes, it may seem as though the PC crowd just doesn't get the joke. Often, the problem is they do get it and just can't handle it. Likely, the Asian attendees at the event got the Nimesh Patel joke, and that is why he had to be Babu-ed or Baboo-ed. As well-trained dogs of PC(that serves as the manual for status-striving), Asian-Americans were predictably 'triggered'. Yellow dogs have a tendency to seek approval and follow, and in the Current Year, 'gay rights' are blessed Gay Rites.
Now, jokes are generally triggering and 'offensive'. Usually, someone or something is the object of mockery, the 'target' or 'victim'. It could be the other or it could be the self, usually the case with Joan Rivers and Rodney Dangerfield, the man who never got any respect.
Humor usually doesn't go well together with holiness and reverence, matters that call for sanctimony. When mockery of a sacred cow is tolerated, the once holy cow looks like holy shit. Perhaps, it was less Darwin & Marx and more Marx Brothers that did in Christianity & Bourgeois morals. One can never look at opera in the same way after NIGHT AT THE OPERA.
Peter Ustinov's take on an ill-fated production of Richard Wagner's SIEGRIED is hilarious. One can hardly watch that scene with 'solemnity' and straight face anymore. Video at 40:05.
And the Old Elites of Europe relied heavily on pomp and spectacle, the stuff of awe and reverence that kings and noblemen relied upon to justify their privilege and dominance.The Order sensed that, once people began to see the rulers as laughable and ridiculous, the status quo was doomed. Pompous elites could be weakened with humor or fanatical anti-humor. With the rise of modernity, mass media, and growing cynicism(especially in urban areas), people began to chuckle about kings, queens, and idiot prince who seemed increasingly out-of-place and even 'alien' in the New Order created by the power of money and machines. Sometimes, humor and rage aren't that far apart.
In the case of Iran, the mass revolt vilified the Shah as both a ridiculous clown and an impotent shill. The most fanatical within the uprising soon lost their sense of humor and thirsted for blood. Same in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge. And certain Russian/Jewish communists weren't big on humor either. Think of the character of Strelnikov in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.
But in the capitalist West, the general way(often Jewish) of subverting The Order was through humor(and pornography as in Weimar Germany). In some cases, laughter at one authority was the flip-side of grim commitment to another authority, the new boss. Consider how the soldiers laugh at the elite officer in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, but mockery is soon followed by brutal violence and bloodthirsty hate. Whatever the ultimate agenda or outcome, few things are as effective as laughter in de-legitimizing authority. This is why PC can't abide by humor directed at what it deems holy. If humor could bring down respect/reverence for kings, ideologies, and God Himself, it can bring down just about anything.
Why does the urbane sophisticate finally lose his cool in ALL ABOUT EVE? He becomes the object of laughter. He's used to being the wit than outwitted. And Humbert's biggest humiliation in LOLITA is that he's just a butt of jokes to Quilty.
Humor can be gentle or G-rated(like on the TV show HEE-HAW) but is most effective when racy and irreverent(or, at the furthest reach, surreal). (Potty-mouthed 'X-rated' stand-up routines with nonstop twaddle about sex and genitals are mostly tiresome with few exceptions: Sam Kinison and Eddie Murphy, esp. Mr T. as a 'faggot' routine.) Edgy humor stings its 'victims' with potency. It can be downright lethal. Granted, humor is often self-effacing or double-edged, passive/aggressive. It often mocks the mocker along with the mocked, like with the Mexican Restaurant scene in SANFORD AND SON, a show with many 'Hispanic' jokes that spring back on Fred G. Sanford as a black bigot. The passive/aggressive nature of humor elicits both self-pity and confidence in the audience. On some level, the audience identifies with the comic/clown(for whom nothing seems to go right) because everyone has problems. And by laughing at the comic's 'problems', the audience 'therapeutically' comes to laugh at their own with similar overtones. Thus, there is no clear line between comic-as-them and comic-as-us. Because the comic is given to exaggeration, the audience is relieved to find that their problems aren't so bad, and yet, the exaggeration is of situations all-too-familiar to many people. But then, because the comic has the balderdash to spell out his 'problems' and give the middle-finger to the world, he is also a figure of confidence, even arrogance. He becomes kind of 'heroic'. And yet, there is ambiguity in his middle-finger. Is it for the audience or for the audience?
Now, in our post-religious age, nothing should be sacrosanct, but as Jonathan Haidt and others have remarked, human psychology is drawn to righteous holy-schmoliness, and new 'gods' are elevated by cultural consensus shaped by elite academia and mass media. Certain figures and narratives become de facto sacred even if ostensibly part of secular culture & politics. MLK, (Harvey)Milk, and Mandela aren't regarded as gods in the literal sense but treated as figures of idol-worship nevertheless. Homos are associated with New Agey 'rainbow' colors, Jews always with the Shoah, and blacks with slavery(as an evil second only to Shoah according to the current Jewish-dominated narrative hellbent on milking 'white guilt' for all it is worth) and Civil Rights Movement, the Manichean Narrative of which is about stark Good vs Evil with no grey in between. Granted, there has been a schizo element in trying to sustain reverential thoughts about Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, even as Jews insist on being regarded solemnly as the Shoah People, their natural tendency is to be subversive, perverse, and insulting. So, when we think of Jews, the mask of Anne Frank often peels off to reveal Sarah Silverman. Blacks demand we see them as the 'We Shall Overcome' people, but so much of black culture is crazy, trashy, ugly, and demented(and proud of it). We live in the Age of Mandela and Twerking, of black reverends and black rappers. In a way, Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED conveyed this schizo aspect of Jews and blacks as Sacred Monsters: Consider their Moralism + Sadism, or Sado-Moralism. And then, there are homos. It's amazing how many people have been led to remember the AIDS epidemic as a kind of homo-holocaust when it was the result of sodomites butt-banging one another like rabbits-in-heat.
Now, what was Nimesh Patel's great 'sin'? It was simply that he mocked blackness and homosexuality. (Good thing he left out the Jews or else the controversy would have been greater.) Now, one could argue that his jokes were ultimately sympathetic to blacks and homos, i.e. those groups have a tough time due to 'racism' and 'homophobia'. Still, he made a joke of issues related to sacrosanct groups, and PC will not tolerate mockery of the holy-schmolies. It undermines sober reverence of the main idols of PC. Humor, inebriated with anarchic spirit, forgets what is holy and pokes fun at just about everything. PC demands a teetotaler brand of humor that is always mindful of what can and can't be said. One might say humor has entered the Prohibition Era, and who knows, maybe humor(with anarchic intoxicant content) will go underground as a form of gangsterism.
If Patel had joked in such manner about any other group, even Asians, there wouldn't have been a fuss. But Jews, homos, and Negroes are are not to be mocked; and the insistence is the product of both PC indoctrination/idolatry and craven cowardice. After all, surely the yellow dogs in college campuses know that the most vocal and hostile groups tend to be Jews, blacks, and homos. Piss off one of them, and all hell may break loose. So, to prevent homo and/or black outrage directed at Asians, Asians shut down a fellow 'bad' Asian to preemptively signal that they are with the PC program 100%. They understand that we must all revere and quasi-worship the Holy Schmoly Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
If anything, the joke-that-no-one-got within the purview of the recent event is that these Asians sure lived up to racial stereotypes as the ever-so-obedient, ever-so-conformist, and ever-so-predictable yellow dogs. They made it plain as day that they suck up to power and kowtow before the Official Narrative. Since blacks and homos are holy in the Jewish-controlled West, Asian yellow dogs worship at the altar of Obligatory Iconography. The perimeters of humor are to remain within permissible bounds. Because Jews control the Power and designated themselves, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three, most Americans are nervous about saying anything that might be construed as neo-blasphemous and offensive to precious sensitivities of the Holy Three. Granted, Jews can joke about Jews, blacks can joke about blacks, and homos can joke about homos... but everyone else better watch out, and furthermore, Jews, homos, and blacks must be careful not to step on each other's toes in their Holy Culture Waltz. As for Asians(especially yellow East Asians), they come from status-obsessed conformist cultures, and therefore, they(especially sheepish and dog-like East Asians) tend toward conformity with the Prevailing Dogma(of whichever society they happen to reside in) to gain status points. This isn't really about 'safe spaces' but about status-points. Especially because Asian Identity lacks intrinsic value in the Western PC scorecard, Asians yearn to latch onto one or all of the Holy Three. Asians-as-Asian having no value, Asians seek value in roles as Asians-for-Jews/Israel, Asians-for-blacks, and/or Asians-for-homos. In this way, yellows are like pseudo-white-people. Just like whites, having been robbed of autonomous worth by PC, have no choice but to gain moral worth by latching themselves in service to Jews, blacks, and/or homos(as the Holy Three), Asians feel they must also latch onto the Holies to have any worth. So, Asians-for-Asians is regarded as a yawn or irritation, and that means Asians can feel righteous only by cheering or championing the Holy Three. Because Asians-for-Asians is regarded as petty and selfish by PC(whereas blacks-for-blacks, homos-for-homos, and Jews-for-Jews are regarded as the noblest commitments), 'woke' Asians go out of their way to show that they prioritize the interests of Jews, blacks, or homos over their own. Whether it's Nikki Haley or Amy Chua sucking up to Jews OR the Asian Alliance at Columbia University sucking up to blacks and homos, it's obvious that Asian themes have no moral or spiritual currency in the West. Hindu browns and Far East yellows must suck up to the Three Holies. Incidentally, one crucial difference between whites and yellows is that, whereas whites lack intrinsic value due to the cult of 'white guilt', yellows lack intrinsic value due to their perceived 'lameness'. Asian women have some 'hot' value but as sexual subjects to be owned by other races.
Now, why are some peoples holier than others? After all, isn't our 'progressive' society all about 'equality'? One reason is Jews have the power, and Jews get to decide who is or isn't holy. It's simple as that, and Jews are of course going to favor themselves and their key political allies. The other reason is that the core formula for being part of Holy Three is as follows: Possession of Superior Ability + Possession of Victim Narrative. Why does a particular group receive more sympathy for its victimhood IF it is perceived as having superior qualities? Because there is the sense that a SUPERIOR and even god-like people have been wronged. Thus, it seems more tragic than if a 'lame' or mediocre people had been wronged. Why do we feel more tragic when a lion than a warthog is killed(even though warthogs are intelligent animals too)? It's because we admire lions as the superior hunter, the king of the jungle, whereas we regard warthogs as just ugly prey animals. After all, who ever got enraged in the West over some white hunter who killed a warthog?
Because blacks are admired as superior athletes, singers with louder voices, and studs with bigger dongs(or sexy ho's with bouncier booties), they are admired in the West as the superior race. People may not consciously think so but they sensually feel it, and feelings go a long way in shaping society. (It's like most men are more likely to help a pretty woman in distress than a fat ugly one. It's not conscious but subconscious bias. Most men probably see themselves as decent fellers who'd care equally for anyone in need of help, but reality plays out differently based on people's feelings.) Because of differences in perceptions about race, the history of slavery and Jim Crow seems especially unjust because blacks, a Superior People, were wronged. In contrast, there is far less sympathy for American Indians even though they suffered something worse than slavery. They suffered 'genocide' and permanent loss of their land due to massive immigration-imperialism. Given the 'genocidal' impact of immigration-imperialism on American Indians, one might think PC would associate immigration with imperialism & historical 'sin', indeed the Original Sin of America. But not so. Instead, all we hear about immigration is that it's especially great because Jews, one of the Holy Threes, gained so much from it. Also, we are told that the Original Sin of America is black slavery, not the 'genocide' of the Red Man. Why? Blacks are deemed holier. Because American Indians can't sing and dance, don't excel in sports, and aren't seen as super-studs, their victim-hood is acknowledged as sad but dismissed as boring. (In some ways, the American Moral Paradox can be explained in terms of a people trying to cover up 'crimes' with crusades. Because America was founded upon 'genocide', slavery, imperialism, and massive destruction of natural wonders, it is easy to paint its history with blood, sweat, and tears, a saga of greed and plunder. Because of this moral crisis, one way to justify Americanism was to tirelessly associate its growth with never-ending crusades. "Offense is the best defense" as they say. The most surreal version of this is Tim Cook fulminating about necessary crusades against the 'sin' of 'hate speech' before the ADL. As we all now, Apple is a vile, greedy, and corrupt globalist company that uses semi-slave labor around the world. It has no qualms about doing business with tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism. It is also joined at the hip with the neo-imperialist Deep State that pushed wars that destroyed millions of lives. As for ADL, it is a hateful Zionist-imperialist organization that seeks to silence any criticism of Israel's murderous policies against Palestinians. If anything, Apple and ADL have a lot to answer for, but notice that Tim Cook goes on the moral offensive and accuses other people of 'sin'. But then, it's hardly surprising that homo-supremacist Tim Cook is so deferential to Jewish-Supremacist ADL. After all, Jewish Power was behind Homomania that elevated homos and trannies to the status of angels and demigods. Jews made people like Cook the new gods of America, and homo vanity is just fine with Jewish power. With Anno Sodomini, homos get to decide what is 'sinful'. So, it is 'sinful' to refuse to appease the filth of 'gay marriage', but homos waging ugly war on true morality and decency is never 'hateful' since Jews and Homos get to decide what is 'hate speech'. Tim Cook is of Christian background, but post-religious ilk like him, having lost their faith, seek new meaning in New Age lunacies like Homomania, especially as it stokes their 'gay' vanity as a superior breed.) The formula for the Holy Three has roots in Christianity. If Jesus was just a man who got beaten and killed, it would have been just another sad story of a good man undone by powerful forces. Such men were dime-a-dozen throughout history. So, why did His story become so powerful? Because a Narrative developed that He wasn't just some guy with a helpful message but the Messiah. Humankind didn't just kill a Nice Person but the one and only Son of God. And so, Christians were filled with both great awe and massive guilt.
If white folks had brought over scrawny Vietnamese or meek Bolivian Indians to toil as slaves in America, there would have been no great respect or reverence for those peoples. And not much in the way of 'white guilt'. Even after Emancipation, such peoples would not have excelled in sports or pop music. And small Asian men or short brown men would not have been regarded as studs that can inspire 'fever' among white women and cucky-wuckery among white men(reduced to hapless 'white boys'). Also, as Asians and browns have weaker voices, men of oratorical power like MLK would not have emerged among them. Brown natives of Latin America suffered 'genocide', slavery, and oppression for centuries, but the attitude of even American Progressives is essentially "bring them over to cut our lawns, do our laundry, and change diapers." Americans of all ideologies regard browns as a race of permanent helots. In contrast, Americans regard blacks as the superior race due to black success in song, dong, and strong. Thus, whites feel more guilt about blacks because they came to realize that they'd once oppressed a 'cool' superior race of 'the greatest', as Muhammad Ali anointed himself. So, even though Americans like to tell themselves that they are all about 'equality' in terms of ideology, they favor some groups over others in terms of idolatry. Some groups have more idolatrous value than others, esp. because American sense of worth is largely determined by celebrity of sports, song, and sex.
Now, why do Jews and homos also have holy power? Jews are not successful in sports and the sexual attractive sweepstakes. Granted, many Jews were talented music composers(though often for black singers with more powerful voices). Still, Jews also have a combination of Superiority and Victimhood so essential to the Holy Formula. Jews can invoke the Shoah(as the greatest evil of all time) & history of persecution under Christians for their Victimhood Narrative. But Jews can also promote themselves as the Chosen People, the Genius People, the people of wit, and the people of wealth. So, Jews are regarded with awe. Awesomely tragic and awesomely triumphant. In contrast, Palestinians get no respect despite their undeniable victim-hood because they are seen as mediocre, uninspired, and lame. After all, where is the Palestinian Einstein or Mendelssohn? Where is the Palestinian Bob Dylan or Steven Spielberg? So, victim-hood isn't enough for a people to gain Holy-Schmoly status. To be one of the Holies, you need the formula of Victimhood + Superiority. Homos also concocted a victim-narrative for themselves(of course with the invaluable support of the Jew-run media), but no less crucial is their perceived superiority. Because homos tend to be vain and narcissistic, they've gained notable success in fashion, entertainment, and upper echelons of privilege. It's like the rich in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET feel prestige in hiring a 'gay butler'. And because homos love to rub shoulders and dilly-dally with the rich and powerful, the privileged classes have come to see homos as loyal partners-in-crime(with better taste in decor and design). Granted, the homo victim-narrative centered around AIDS relies on twisted logic. HIV spread far and wide among homos because they were indulging in wild orgies at all times in all places. But because Jews control the media and prize homos for Favorite Ally Status, they've spun a PC narrative about homos as saints & angels destroyed by some 'homophobic' tragedy. So, HIV epidemic was more the product of Ronald Reagan's wickedness.
Anyway, the reason why the Asian Alliance shut down Patel was simply because he mocked two of the Holy Three. He didn't show 'due' deference when speaking of homos and blacks. Asians are sheepish status-seekers and predictably conform to prevailing socio-cultural dogma. It's a pattern we see over and over. Why was it that East Asians, despite possessing intelligence comparable to that of Western folks, failed to achieve the kind of progress and revolutionary breakthroughs that came to define European Civilizations? Because the Asian Character tends to be sheepish, obedient, and conformist. So, their minds were used mainly to gain status and seek approval from the existing power structure than to expand freedom and seek truth(beyond the dominant dogma). If not for the impact of Western incursions into East Asia, yellow people there would still be preparing for eight-legged Confucian essays to pass exams to become the same-old-same-old bureaucrats mouthing the tired truisms. Then, it is not surprising that East Asians in the West are such unoriginal yellow dogs who predictably toe the dominant line. Furthermore, having no intrinsic value or powerful self-identity in the West, the yellow dogs seek worth by begging for approval from the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos. But then, dogs always seek out masters to serve. The main Asian trait is 'to serve' than 'to lead'. It is to be the dog than the master of history.
Apart from the Holy Three, no other people really matter in the West, especially if the people in particular have been wronged by the Holy Three. So, when blacks riot and burn down businesses, no one cares about the store-owners, many of whom are Arab or Muslim in depressed communities. Or when Zionists use brutal force on Palestinians, people look the other way or support Israel(as Congress and US presidents always do). Or when homos use their privilege to shut down bakeries & organizations that won't bend over to the 'Gay' Agenda, there is either sullen silence(among craven and cowardly 'conservatives' who dare not infuriate Jews who are behind Homomania) or ecstatic support of homo tyranny(among 'progressives' for whom immorality is the New Morality). The Holy Three are like the 'made men' in GOODFELLAS. They are free to roam and rule as they please. How about Muslims? They are mere cannon fodder. Since Jews are holy and control the US, they continue to steer foreign policy to destroy any Muslim nation reviled as a 'threat to Israel', even though Israel is the main threat to all peaceful nations in the region. As a result, millions of Muslims have had their lives ruined in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran through wars, invasions, terrorism(sponsored by US and Israel), and sanctions. But who cares? After all, Muslims are mediocre and have no special talents. Sure, Jews feign sympathy for Muslim 'refugees' while willfully ignoring the fact that those nation-less Muslims are the result of Wars for Israel pushed by Jews who control the US. Ending Wars for Israel will stop turning Muslims into refugees, but Jews keep using whore-politicians(Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump) to wage more Wars for Israel because Israel-Uber-Alles is the neo-religion of the West. Also, notice that Jews steer those Muslim 'refugees' into the West while Israel takes in not a single one(nor hands back stolen Golan Heights to Syria). If anything, Jews continue to steal more land in the West Bank. At any rate, the reason why Muslims get no love despite being victimized in a Jew-controlled world is because they aren't superior in wit(Jews), athleticism(blacks), or creativity(homos). So, who cares if millions of them die?
Same with Asians. Americans may have killed up to a 300,000 Filipinos(by indirect as well as indirect means) in the US-Philippines War, millions of Japanese in WWII(in a conflict in which the Western Imperialists were just as much to blame), millions of Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War, and millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. The greatest killings done by the US were mostly in Asia. These wars resulted from US imperialist hegemony over Asia, but Asian victimization at the hands of the US doesn't count for much because Asians are seen as lame and boring grinds whose dominant theme is "Hey, be quiet, this is the library". Victim-hood without perceived superiority doesn't stir up much sympathy. A single dead Jew, black, or homo is regarded more tragically than a million dead Muslims or Asians because Jews, blacks, and homos are perceived to possess superior qualities, whereas Muslims and Asians are seen as masses of faceless lame folks. But then, it seems most Asian-Americans are indeed pretty lame, conformist, and predictable given their attitudes in the West. Most being mere teacher's pets, they just regurgitate PC fed to them since kindergarten. They are 'good little boys' and 'good little girls' who never had an independent idea or value in their heads. Even when they act 'defiant' or 'rebellious', it is in total imitation of other peoples, esp. Jews, blacks, and homos. Asians are yellow dogs and copycats. There are exceptions to be sure, but as they say, two swallows don't make a summer. Likewise, two yellows don't do it either.
Now, one could argue that Arab Muslims and East Asians are both superior to blacks in IQ. After all, the Arab World and Asian World are far more advanced than black Africa and better-run than black-dominated cities like Detroit. But not every advantageous trait is 'iconic'. After all, people with superior engineering skills just do their jobs. They are not celebrated as stars or celebrities. Only a handful of uber-smart people like Einstein become well-known to the world. To appreciate science, technology, and most brainy professions, it takes time and patience. In contrast, it is immediately fun to listen to music, watch sports, get excited about sex, laugh at comedy, and rhapsodize about celebrity. Homos are creative with fashion and celebrity, Jews are funny & brilliant as comics, and blacks dominate pop music & sports, both of which are closely aligned with sex culture. In some ways, Jews have both the easiest and most difficult task in maintaining their 'iconic' status. It's easy because they control media and academia; as such, they get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. But, much of 'iconic' Jewish value reside in elite levels of achievement. Jews gained renown as writers, intellectuals, and scholars. Despite the high regard for Jewish Genius among the educated classes, most people don't care such things. For every person who read Philip Roth, a thousand people heard rap songs. Jews have been dominant in comedy, but as culture becomes dumber and trashier, future Woody Allens may not be properly appreciated. Worse, PC is doing to comedy what HIV did to homos, and this is bound to cut into Jewish wit. And as athletes and singers, Jews have been unable to compete with blacks. Also, someone of Bob Dylan's vision and genius isn't likely to be highly regarded in future America where the culture just keeps getting stupider. The key to Dylan's success was wit and brilliance because he wasn't a conventional song-and-dance man. But, in an idol-obsessed world, there is less space for eccentric artists like Dylan. And Shoah is too much of a downer. In contrast, homos have the wild-celebration thing that gets people all excited, and blacks got song, dong, and strong. Straights can join in the celebration of flamboyant homos, and non-blacks can enjoy blacks showing off on the sports field, but how can non-Jews really enjoy Jewishness?
Anyway, Asian yellow dogs are a confused lot. In a way, they are almost like closet-white-supremacists. In Japan, they have all these animation or 'anime' where characters tend to look Caucasian. Japanese cultural identity is a fantasy of wanting to be white. And, a New Yorker article reported that South Koreans are champions of plastic surgery. They go under the knife to emerge with white-looking eyes and noses. They go for trans-racial fantasies. And they dye their hand blonde and pretend to be pseudo-white-people. Also, Asians prefer whites as sexual mates and want to have white-looking babies. Granted, Asian women have advantage over Asian men in this department because, whereas Asian women have high sexual market value, Asian males have the lowest. Men of all races want to have sex with Asian women(who are seen as very feminine) but women of most races have no attraction to Asian men(who are deemed a bunch of dorks). And in dating sites, Asian women prefer white men over Asian men. And Asian male homos prefer non-Asian men to bugger their bungs. Notice how George Takei's yellow homo-bung is the plaything of some white guy. When Yukio Mishima visited New York, he looked for a blond homo, apparently to bugger his yellow bung.
Also, in terms of immigration patterns, Asians always prefer white-made or white-majority nations. Asian immigration preferences are for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US. Or Europe. Asians don't want to move to non-white-majority nations. In fact, Asians would rather move to a white-majority nation than to a fellow Asian nation. Asians feel that whites will treat them better and fairer than other Asians will treat them. So, everything that Asians DO would indicate a preference for whiteness. But to hide this shame(of favoring another race while devaluing their own), yellow dogs bark lots of anti-white noises. But if Asians really feel that way, why not avoid white people by staying in their own Asian nations? Why permanently relocate to white-majority nations? Why prefer white-made institutions over their own? Why take white names instead of keeping Asian names? Why not have Asian-looking babies than having white-looking babies? Why dye hair into blonde or brunette? Why have plastic surgery to look white? Asians bitch about past American policies that excluded Asians, but why were they so eager to flee from their own kind in the first place to live in a white-made and white-majority nations? Aren't Asian immigrants favoring whites over their own kind? Aren't they trying to 'include' more whites while 'excluding' fellow Asians in their own lives? After all, by coming to white-made nations, Asians become part of a white-majority world while excluding Asian Civilization from their daily lives. Such total lack of self-awareness. We should judge people by what they do than what they say. In terms of what Asians actually do, they seem to be closet-white-supremacists who want to live in white-majority nations, have white names, have sex with whites, and have white-looking babies. And it seems to be matter of Like Yellow Father Like Yellow Daughter. Asians see 'becoming white' as a journey of social, racial, and civilizational evolution, improvement, and ascendancy. Whether via plastic surgery or race-mixing, Asians feel no intrinsic value. In the moral politics of PC, Asians suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos. As Evil Whitey is PC's main scapegoat, Asians join in on the Two Minutes of Hate against Whitey. But the fact is Asian immigrant-invaders moved to white nations because they favor whites over all other races, including their own. And despite their PC rhetoric, they try to settle in white areas and avoid brown and especially black areas. Based on what they really do than say, they are closet-white-supremacists. But then, so are Jews. For example, Jews revile 'racist' Nazi aesthetics of superior Aryan Beauty, but Jewish men have often longed for 'blonde white goddesses' while dumping Jewish women. Men like Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, and Arthur Miller had quasi-Nazi taste in 'Aryan-looking' women as the epitome of beauty and desire. And brown hordes seem to be closet-white-supremacists too. They run from fellow browns and Diversity to make it to the US that is still perceived as a white country.
Anyway, Nimesh Patel the brown Asian was silenced by yellow dog Asians because he violated the PC decree of worshiping Blacks and Homos. Asians, being lame and conformist, seek to appease the Holy Three and are deathly afraid of displeasing them. Patel dared to crack jokes about homos and blacks, and that was simply a capital offense in the minds of conformist and sheep-like Asian grinds whose idea of humor is to serve the Power. (If these Asians really care about justice, why were they silent about Obama and Hillary's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why don't they protest Trump's anti-Iranian and anti-Palestinian policies? And why were they silent when Jewish Madeline Albright was killing 500,000 Iraqi kids?) They're really a bunch of phonies.
Be that as it may, in some ways, PC may be saving comedy.
Comedy reached its greatest heights as a subversive form of expression. Someone like Oscar Wilde would have been redundant and irrelevant in a permissive society. Best kind of humor always had to be risque. Lenny Bruce certainly got mileage of going against the system.
For a time, there was total freedom for comedians to be as outrageous as they wanted to be. The burst of freedom greeted as liberation and was fun for awhile but became pointless and tiresome because wanton vulgarity saturated everything and become just another mundane feature of life. People using F-words and discussing graphic sex became the New Normal, from elite-educated to the unwashed. The only way comedians could remain 'edgy' was by getting grosser and more putrid than the next guy. It was like a bunch of drunkards wallowing in their own vomit and urine.
But now, PC is once again creating a climate of repression and taboos, and that means real comedy can become risque again. But what is especially perverse is that PC considers itself to be edgy and subversive. After all, PC is the dogma of 'radicals' who take pride in their subversive attitude toward society. (Of course, the mindless dogs of PC, lacking agency and individuality like Mao's Red Guards, must be told by Central Command what to 'subvert' and attack. So, if Big Sister tells feminists to subvert the dead horse of 'patriarchy', you bet feminist dogs do just that and only that.) PC's delusional rationale for repressing free speech(now almost synonymous with 'hate speech') is to protect ‘radicalism' in a safe space. (It's as if 'radicalism' is now an infant that has to be babied and nursed. But then, we live in an infantile age.) It’s like a blade that has to be perpetually sheathed to keep it from blunting or breaking. But, this defeats the knife's purpose. A knife is designed to be a sharp instrument in order to cut. Then, cut it must despite the risk of tear-and-wear. The radicals once took pride in being edgy, but that edginess has been institutionalized. The blade has been placed as a sacred relic in the PC museum, and any weapon that dares to call on the knife to a knife-fight must be silenced & suppressed because the knife, having been consecrated as holy, no longer needs to prove itself. Everything institutionalized comes to be protected and preserved, shielded from further challenges. So, PC’s radicalism has become in name only. It is a protected blade that remains in the safety of the sheath. And the Power tells us there is no more needs for duels or knife-fights to see who or what is better because the 'debate is over', that's that, so you better shut up, and just learn to love PC and the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
But this provides a new opportunity for comedians to subvert the Power. Political Correctness, in the name of protecting the 'weak', has come to protect the powerful. Once this state of affairs is exposed for what it really is, comedy comes alive again. We are living in a time when Jews, homos, and blacks wield immense power. Pretending that the Historical Clock stopped in the late 50s or early 60s is pure fantasy. Blacks today aren't like blacks back then. Jewish Power today isn't like what it was back then. And heaven knows homo privilege today isn't anything like homo reality back then. It's like the Chinese today aren't the coolies of yesteryear pulling rickshaws carrying white imperialists. Time passes, and things change. In a world where homos can destroy bakeries for refusing to bake a 'gay wedding cake', it is laughable to treat homos as some pitiful victim group. (What is the next frontier for 'marriage equality'? Same-Family or Incest Marriage?)
Whether a society is theocratic or ideocratic(defined by secular ideology), certain ideas, images, idols, and/or icons are held up as holy, sacred, divine, and/or irreproachable. It goes beyond factual value or utilitarian worth. It is what makes the society feel justified, redemptive, inspired, uplifted, and/or righteous(and maybe better than other societies).
Sacramentalism has value insofar as it provides emotional or spiritual(or quasi-spiritual) meaning(and even uplift) to the people of that culture. But it comes with a certain danger: When something is held up as sacred or holy, it becomes taboo to say or do anything that offends the official sanctimony. Now, if what is upheld as holy or sacred is the absolute truth, it may cause little harm to prevent views or actions that threaten to demean that truth. For example, if people are forced to accept 2 + 2 = 4 as truth and forbidden to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, could it really do much harm?
But few things in life can be said to constitute the absolute truth. Even hard sciences undergo paradigm shifts. Social sciences and social values(being more heavily influenced by societal norms, political power, and ideological biases) are suspect as final arbiters of truth. So, in order for there to be advancement in our understanding of humanity, we need a spirit, culture, and system of free inquiry and open exchange of ideas. Ideas and views that challenge the Official Truth may or may not have lasting value, but unless there is freedom to challenge the Official Dogma, what we have is Sacramentalism as the dominant cultural authority. And this is no less a problem in modern secular societies as in medievalist theocratic ones. Consider the two stories:
The first story happened in Saudi Arabia, a medievalist theocratic state. The second story happened in UK, a modern secular republic(or democracy). No two societies couldn't be more different. And yet, there is an eerie similarity to the two stories. What are they? They are both the result of Sacramentalism.
In Saudi Arabia, Islamic Law is sacred. For non-Muslim observers, the death of Saudi girls in the fire in the above-linked story sounds horrible and totally unjustified, and I would concur. But we don't share in those sacramental Islamic values. For ultra-devout Muslims for whom their religious laws aren't merely the rules of man but the divine decrees of God, what is Holy is more precious than mere mortal lives. I'm sure even hardcore Muslims were saddened by the deaths of those girls in the fire, BUT more sacred to them was the preservation of Islamic Laws and Tradition.
In the case of UK, there is the neo-religion or neoligion of Diversity and 'White Guilt'. Generations have been drummed with the PC mantra that 'diversity is our strength' or DIOS(the new deus of the West). It is not to be disputed. To disagree or dissent from Diversity-as-Sacred is to be a bad evil person, a 'racist', gasp gasp. It is an article of faith to worship Diversity. Also, white Britons have been weaned on 'white guilt' that was supposedly inherited from crimes of British Imperialism. (But then, there is also an element of closeted-white-pride among some Britons insofar as non-white masses seem to prefer white UK over their own homelands ruled by their own kind. Thus, UK is remade into a mini-facsimile of the Old Imperialism for those who secretly hark back to the Age of Empire: UK as theme park of Britannia ruling over diverse peoples. Also, even though 'white guilt' is supposed to browbeat the white masses into timid obeisance, it has also become an opportune article of neo-haute faith among the snotty elites who turn up their noses at the hoi polloi who ask, like Oliver Twist, "Can we have a little less invasion?" HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR SUCH, YOU LOWLY RACIST!!) Since Diversity and 'white guilt' are sacrosanct in the new UK, any fact or revelation that exposes PC assumptions as falsehoods(or half-truths at best) must be suppressed, indeed denounced as demonic. And those who dare to speak inconvenient truths must be castigated as heretics. The result was silence from law officials who knew all-too-well what was happening in Rotherham. But they remained mum out of fear of being condemned or excommunicated as 'racists' if they'd bothered to sound the alarm about those white girls being abused by Muslim sex traders and rapists. Likewise in the US, many military men who suspected something wrong about Nidal Hassan(the Fort Hood shooter) kept silent lest they be suspected of desecrating the magic spirit of Diversity(as our 'greatest strength'). So, the shooting that could have been prevented based on troubling signs in Hassan's behavior was allowed to happen.
Also, one of the airport security officials said he sensed something strange about Ansar-Al-Fatah on 9/11, but he didn't say or do anything since it went against the spirit of 'Diversity' as America's greatest strength. And then, consider all the time and energy wasted in the US by having everyone(even old white ladies) inspected at airports when young Muslim men are prime suspects as terrorists. All that wasted energy and resources were also due to the sacramentalism of PC.
Due to the Sacramental place that blacks occupy in the US narrative stemming from the Civil Rights Era, it's nearly impossible to speak honestly about the problems of race, especially as they pertain to crime and violence. The Holy Narrative would have us believe that these saintly and wonderful blacks suffered so nobly as slaves. And blacks were completely in the right and white segregationists were completely in the wrong during the Civil Rights Era. So, blacks are tragically holy, whereas whites must atone for their great 'sin'. Now, there was slavery and oppression of blacks in American History. And there were morally compelling themes in the Civil Rights Movement. But the real history is far more complicated than the Ken-Burnsy fairy-tale we've been getting forever. True, blacks had to labor as slaves, but slavery was hardly unique in the world. Also, the only reason why many black slaves seemed relatively docile and nice(in Uncle Tom-ish ways) was out of the fear of the white man's whip and gun. It had nothing to do with the innate nature of the blacks, which is more aggressive and brutish than the natures of other races. And segregationists were partly justified in their fear of the Negro as the black man is bigger, more muscular, stronger, tougher, and more aggressive than the white man. And the ensuing racial mayhem committed by blacks all over the US(and not just against whites) attests to the problems of real differences among the races. So, even though there are compelling arguments in favor of the Black Narrative, the counter-narratives are valid in their own way. There is no single truth that explains everything. No social or historical truth is so sacrosanct that nullifies all other narratives. (It's like the Narrative of Jews-as-killers-of-Christ-as-Son-of-God is just one side of the story. For one thing, Jews don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, so even if they were to claim responsibility for His death, they wouldn't feel that they killed the Son of God or the Messiah. Jews are not tainted for all time because of what they did to Jesus nor are they holy for all time because of Shoah.) But PC insists that we treat the Black Narrative as holy, the only acceptable one. As our society worships the Magic Negro, MLK cult, and Civil Rights Movement as a battle between angels and demons, we can't have a honest discussion of race and racial problems. The narrative keeps reeling back to some old movie with Gregory Peck defending an innocent Negro falsely accused. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is like the GROUNDHOG DAY of the American Narrative. No matter what Negroes do, we are back to ground zero of Innocent Saintly Negro vs all those wicked white 'racist' bigots. That serves as the template of our discussion of race even after blacks rob, rape, riot, and rampage.
As for global affairs, the most dangerous 'Sacramentality' of America is the Icon of the Holy Jew. Because of the Holocaust-as-neo-religion, we are supposed to worship Jews. We are not supposed to say anything critical of Jewish Power lest it be 'antisemitic' which may soon degenerate into 'Nazism', thus paving the way for new holocausts. Now, if Jews were powerless or just regular folks in the US, such protection of Jewish sensitivities couldn't do much harm. But Jews are the most powerful people in the US, the most powerful nation in the world. Worse, Jewish control of foreign policy led to Wars for Israel that decimated innumerable people in the Middle East: Mostly Muslims but lots of Arab Christians too. Also, Jewish bitterness at Russian sovereignty(as barrier to total Zionist takeover) led to the 'new cold war' that may even turn hot. It's interesting that Conservatives express outrage at Saudi Arabia for sacrificing 15 girls to defend Islamic sacraments, but these Conservatives seem unaware that their near-worship of Jewish Power has made them turn a blind eye to how megalomaniacal Jewish Power has steered US foreign policy toward wrecking entire nations, killing 100,000s of people, and uprooting millions into refugee status. 15 dead Saudi girls, that's an outrage. But 100,000s of dead Muslims and Arabs and all those US soldiers who returned in body bags or with mangled limbs? Who cares?
As Jesus said, "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her." Americans, who in their worship of Holy Jews, hurl bombs all over the world and destroy entire nations, should be the last ones to be casting blame on others for sacrificing lives for an idea or icon.
And then, there is the problem of Millennials and the Cancerous Bunghole, aka the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse. How did this happen?
We know why. Due to the rise of Homomania -- the worship of homos as holy-schmoly -- and promotion of kinkiness(in our degenerate culture), society has been reluctant to teach kids about the dangers of fecal penetration, aka 'anal sex'(which really should be called 'poopjob' since it's like a blowjob or handjob except that the penis is rubbed against the muscles of the poopchute). With all the homotion(homo promotion) and kinkery, millennials have been raised to worship homos & trannies as the secular saints of America and to 'experiment' in sexual adventurism. Actually, Homomania is really a neoligion(or neo-religion) and even threatens to take over churches and become the new (satanic)christianity. According to Anno Sodomini of gaytianity, Jesus died on the Cross to bestow blessing on men buggering one another or cutting off their puds and nuts to get fake poons.
Since homos are holy, we can't say anything that might offend their sensibilities. So, the younger generation was not informed of how fecal penetration or poopjobs increase the chance of anal cancer by 17 times. Also, insofar as pornography promotes homosexuality and interracialism among young ones, it too was allowed to spread all over the internet, and the result is young girls grew up with the idea that taking it up the butt is part of the 'new normal' in sexual behavior. The result is many more cancerous bungholes, some of which will lead to deaths. But there is no concerted effort to inform young people of the dangers of fecal penetration because homos are sacrosanct(and kinkery is so 'cool'). But then, this is a country that still cannot face up to the fact that the MAIN REASON why all those homos dropped dead like flies in the 80s and 90s was because they were buggering one another all over the place in wild abandon. But homos, like Jews and blacks, are holy according to PC, so they must never be blamed for anything. Just blame it on "Reagan's Indifference".
So, all those who feel smugly superior to Saudis who allowed 15 girls to burn to death in the fire should really look in the mirror. They say nothing in face of the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse.
Ziad Ahmed wrote 'Black Lives Matter' 100x times on his application essay and was rewarded with admission to Stanford University, beating out other applicants who took their essays seriously. (Stanford's act of 'social justice' was clearly a case of corruption whereby worthier candidates were passed over in favor of the trendy virtue-signaler. How ironic that justice, which is supposed to defend fairness against corruption, is utterly blind to its own corruption of favoring the correct over the credentialed. Worse, the fact that there was no real effort to challenge Ahmed's undeserved admission indicates that America is not only increasingly corrupt but utterly craven. Apparently, blacks are holy and magical. That being the case, it wouldn't be good sport to reverse the admission of a kid who wrote BLM a 100x, right?)
Anyway, does Ahmed's fame(or notoriety) signal the rise of Muslim power in America? Are Muslims prepped to join and ultimately challenge Jews for the mantle of American 'Liberalism'? Should Jews be worried?
No, Jews need not worry about his ilk since he is a Bangladesh Muslim whose beef is with Hindus than with Jews in the Middle East. He is a Safe Muslim. Even though all Muslims around the world pay lip-service to the plight of Palestinians, non-Arab Muslims really don’t care. (And even most Arabs don't much care since the main rift in the Middle East is Sunnis vs Shias than Muslims vs Jews.) That said, a Muslim is still a Muslim, and Jews don’t like Muslims and vice versa.
The ONLY reason why Muslims have received some favorable coverage of late is because of Donald Trump. In order for the US to continue with the INVADE policy(military intervention and proxy wars) in the Middle East, it must mask its imperialism with Humanitarian gestures of INVITE(taking in 'refugees' with shows of 'compassion'). So, when Trump endangered the policy of INVITE, he also endangered the policy of INVADE, and that enraged the Supra-Semites(Jewish Supremacists) who want perpetual wars among Arabs/Muslims to further hegemonic Israeli interests. US makes a show of offering a helping hand to strike with the other hand holding the hammer.
Now, surely many Muslims see right through the duplicity of the Supra-Semitic US foreign policy. They most certainly understand how Jewish-controlled foreign policy is messing up Muslim nations. So, why are so many Muslims, abroad and in the West, allied with Jewish-Zionist globalists? Because for many Muslims, their main hope is gaining entry to the good life in the West, not some high-minded principles about protecting Muslim nations from neo-imperialism emanating from the Zionist-controlled US. So, even though Muslims detest the brutality of the INVADE strategy, they much appreciate the INVITE policy(at least for themselves and their close ones) and therefore are opportunistically allied with Jews(who are behind the US foreign policy of using Saudis, Turks, and Qatar to undermine Syria).
Even so, there is no real love for Muslims among Americans, not even among Progs addicted to Virtue Vanity. Muslims are just political pawns(against Trump) for Progs and globalists to toy with and feel good about. (The Jewish way is to attack Trump as a 'xenophobic racist' for his wariness about mass immigration-invasion from the Muslim World but then to pull the strings to effectively silence and strangle the BDS movement calling for justice for Palestinians still struggling under occupation. Perversely enough, Jews in the UK are freaking out about close ties between the Labour Party and Muslim groups. Jews pressured the UK to take in all those African and Muslim immigrant-invaders and refugees. But because the plan didn't pan out as Jews wished when the White Left made common cause with Muslims who loathe Zionism, the very Jews who'd admonished the UK into taking in all those Muslims are now throwing tantrums about how Jeremy Corbyn is overly sensitive to the concerns of Muslims against the supremacist interests of Zionists. In a nutshell, Jews had intended to use non-whites against whites in the UK, but Corbyn's alliance of the White Left with non-whites & Muslims against the Zionist strange-hold over the UK is making many Jews go batshit crazy.) The proof that White Progs feel no special love for Muslims was quite evident when most Progs said nothing and did nothing while Obama-Hillary team was destroying Libya(with no-fly-zone air war) and Syria(by working with allies to undermine Assad). Well well, so much for their ethical concern for Muslim lives!
Now, this Muslim kid Ziad Ahmed surely has an inkling(even if only subconscious) of how the political-moral game is played in the West. That is why he ran with BLACK LIVES MATTER than MUSLIM LIVES MATTER(even though countless more Muslim lives have been destroyed by the US war machine than blacks were killed by American Police).
Despite all the PC talk of equality, some groups are more equal than others in Western Political Morality. Notice how Mandela the Negro is revered while Arafat the Palestinian has been disappeared down the memory hole in the West. (Also, notice how Israel touts the memory of Mandela, as if to own him, when, in fact, Israel was the main ally of apartheid South Africa and currently practices apartheid against Palestinians in the West Bank.)
Certain groups are designated as holier by the sacraments of PC. So, to gain political advantage in the US, your people need ethno-consecration via association with officially recognized holy groups IF your own group is deemed unholy, uncool, or unimportant. If you’re black, Jew, or homo, you are holy and justified just for being what you are. But most racial/ethnic/cultural/religious groups mean little or nothing in America. So, in order for them to gain the aura of righteousness, they must associate themselves with one of the holies. Their own group must be presented as being in good graces with one of the Holy Three, or their own cause/interest must be shown to reflect or further the prestige and authority of the holies. (So, Ziad Ahmed went with BLACK LIVES MATTER than SAVE CHRISTIAN ARABS FROM US IMPERIALISM.) Trump also played this card by hugging blacks and flattering homos as people for whom he feels special consideration. He said he wanted to vet Muslims to protect homos, a holy people. He said he wants to limit immigration to help them Negroes in Detroit(who are being out-competed). And of course, Iran must be destroyed to save those poor poor Jews in Israel.
In the US, you won’t gain much if you belong to a non-special people. Also, your cause or movement doesn't mean much if you express sympathy for a people who are not of the Holy Group pantheon. For instance, so many Christian Arabs have been brutalized or killed since the Iraq War. So many lost their homes, so many got raped, and so many were exiled. It’s a sad story. But they are ignored and passed over because they are deemed a Holy People; the Glob-Homo Media all but ignore them. (Jews hate Christian Arabs because the latter rely on secular Arab leaders like Assad for protection. As Assad is allied with Iran and Russia -- nations hated most by Jews -- , Jews hate Christian Arabs who support him.) So, it doesn’t matter how much you champion the plight of Christian Arabs. No one listens and no one cares. Also, it has long been political poison in the US to champion the cause of Palestinians because doing so offends the Jews, the holiest of the holies. So, despite all the injustices suffered by Palestinians, there's been either silence or compliance with Zionism as the supposed 'outpost of Western values'. The reason why the GOP cuddles up to Zionists is because white gentiles lack autonomous holiness and therefore need to rub themselves on Jews for some holy static. Groups without holiness are like men suffering from scurvy who crave fruits with vitamin C. Likewise, the non-holies rely on the holies for doses of sanctimony and righteousness. The service is costly. It's like Russia, a non-holy nation by canons of globalism, must associate itself with Chabad Jews to obtain and stockpile its supply of holiness. (Given Russia's great sacrifices and suffering in WWII and its victory over Nazi Germany, you'd think the Russian Brand would be blessed with eternal holiness. But the globalist narrative is controlled by Jews who have denied this aura to the Russians. So, political holiness is less about real history than who gets to spin history.)
Jews, homos, and blacks are designated as holy, so they don't need to rely on others to feel justified and righteous. But, a people who aren’t one of the three must associate themselves with one or all to earn moral pokemon points. And that is what Ziad Ahmed did. Black Lives Matter indeed.
Alex Jones would never call himself a leftist. He wouldn’t necessarily call himself a rightist, but his politics clearly leans to the Right. He likes to see himself as a Libertarian Patriot who believes the greatest threat to mankind comes from Globalists who have forged a monstrous fusion of Big Business and Big Government now widely known as the Deep State. Jones is much hated by the Anti-Trumpian Left but has had fans among certain Leftists and Liberals for his anti-government stance. Not for nothing has his operation been centered in Austin, the most ‘progressive’ and bohemian city in Texas. When Bush II decided on the Iraq War, Jones was among the ones opposing the war. (To the extent that the once hawkish Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson are now more likely to question the War State and warmongering, Jones and others like him have had a very real influence on American political culture.) Just like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan found some common ground in the 1990s in their opposition to globalism, ‘free trade’, and financialization of the economy, Alex Jones has, over the years, made common cause with some on the Left. But then, we must ask, which left? So much of what goes by the Leftist Brand bear little or no resemblance to the Classic Left of a bygone time when it was a Movement for Workers’ Rights led by disciplined cadres of intellectuals and commissars. Much of today’s ‘leftism’ is really the decadent and/or degenerate product of consumer-capitalism that, since the 1960s, raised successive generations on Pop Culture, hedonism, cult of youth, narcissism, vanity, and egotism. The logic of today’s ‘leftism’ goes like this: "Celebrities are cool because they are rich and flashy. They have all the goodies and all the love, so EVERYONE deserves that kind of love." So, many ‘leftists’ just want free stuff. And, even the fat and ugly among these 'leftists' model themselves on famous celebrities and idols. Their view of humanity and 'justice' is like that Chris Crocker.
Lena Dunham(who looks like Burt Young with a wig) was turned into poster-girl of this mentality. She was fat, ugly, and unremarkable in every way but apparently had some 'right' to be famous and 'sexy'. Despite lack of talent, She was entitled to feel like a ‘star’ and was made into one by a degenerate media. Of course, her stardom didn’t last long as people soon tired of her fat ugly stupid self.
But the fact remains that so many millennials have only Pop Culture as source of values, meaning, and inspiration, and they see the world through the prism of idols and celebrities. Even if they can’t be stars, they feel entitled to being starlike and even pressuring the 'world' to play along.
Such sensibility is at the center of Homomania and the Tranny-Pronoun lunacy. On average, a homo is far more vain than any man, even any woman. Not only are homos high-strung with narcissism and vanity but their mindset feeds into fetid delusions. Excitable like Pee Wee Herman, they are bubbly with joy. But joy over what? The fact that their ‘sexuality’ revolves around fecal penetration and buggering each other? Given what homos do, it’s understandable why most people have looked down on them as filthy and tainted, even sick in the head. This led to a great contradiction in the homo mind. On the one hand, they were naturally disposed to acting bubbly, whoopity, pee-wee-like, and euphoric. They love to feel ‘gay’, excited, and top-of-the-world. They want to be loved and flattered. But, the fact is homos indulge in unsavory behavior of sticking penises into fecal holes of other men. Penises get smeared with fecal matter, and bungs get loose, even cancerous. Also, most homos are not attractive, and many are downright repulsive, like Barney Frank. Elton John once had musical talent, but he was always one of the ugliest people in show business. Now, most ugly people just accept their ugliness. Burt Young never pretended to be Rudolph Valentino. But this was never easy for homos because of their excitable Pee-Wee-ish nature.
Whatever homos want, they gotta have it. Michael Jackson pretended not to be homo, but even if he wasn’t, he had a ‘gay’ mentality that favored fantasy over reality. If he wanted to see himself as a white woman, he did everything to look like a cross between Mickey Mouse and the young Elizabeth Taylor. Homos are both insistent and fragile. Determined to transform into their fantasies but so sensitive to those who laugh at them. Of course, it’s natural to laugh at homos and trannies since they act so silly. Many homos are limp-wristed floozy-boys who talk with lisps. And most trannies make us laugh like the guys on MONTY PYTHON in women’s dresses.
Because homos wanted their joyous giggle of fancy narcissism materialized into reality but were met with derision, ridicule, and mocking laughter, they developed the irony of camp. Homos and trannies wanted to be admired and celebrated by the world, but they simply didn’t get the love. Worse, there was a time when homosexuality was criminal and/or seen as a mental disease. So, what do you do when you want people to share in your laughter of celebration but instead just laugh at you? You take refuge in the sensibility of camp. That way, you do pursue the fantasy of vanity and narcissism in the hope that people will adore you like a movie star, BUT you also pretend to laugh at yourself along with the others who find your ‘gay’ shtick ridiculous. Play the phony champ with the plasticity of camp. Thus, the culture of camp provided homos with a playing ground to romp around in and indulge their fantasies of being ‘hot stuff’. But it was padded with irony so that your ego wouldn’t be wounded so badly if your self-image took a fall. In a world where attitude toward homos ranged from extreme hostility to tolerant ridicule, homos found camp most useful. But despite the air of self-mockery and jest, the real dream of homos was to be like neo-aristocrats, fairies and angels, and demigods of fashion and style. Deep down inside, they didn’t want to laugh at themselves or be laughed at. They wanted to be adored and adulated.... like Michael Jackson in his Neverland.
A similar kind of mentality developed among blacks. In the white-dominated America, blacks weren’t taken very seriously. They were seen as, at best, sidekicks. Black music was caricatured by Minstrel Shows. Whites treated black culture this way because it was so different, so wild and crazy. But blacks couldn’t help being what they were and were making all these kind of rambunctious music and dance. As blackness wasn’t taken seriously, much of black culture had to develop a culture of self-irony and self-mockery. Since blackness was often met with derision or rejection, blacks couldn’t be thin-skinned about it. They had to act like they were laughing along with the white man(and Jews), agreeing with the white man(and Jews) that, "Yep, Negroes shoooooo be craaaaazy". But fun-crazy. But of course, deep down inside, blacks wanted respect. But this wasn’t always easy because the nature of so much of black music has been wild, savage, and anti-civilizational. It is ugity-bugity. And yet, its high energy and rhythm had appeal to white folks as well. So, for a while, the compromise between blacks and whites was a ‘campy’ kind of Negro-hood.
Thus, blackness would be enjoyed but as a kind of jive-ass act that couldn't be taken too seriously. And since those were the terms of cultural commerce between blacks and whites, even blacks played along as it allowed a leg-in the system. Perhaps, the most famous practitioner of this was Louis Armstrong. Undoubtedly talented as a Jazz performer, he also knew he had to do some ugity-bugity stuff to keep both sides laughing if for different reasons.
Just as whites found black culture problematic but enjoyed its high energy, straight folks found homos ridiculous but found something of value in 'gay' sensibility. Since homos are naturally so vain & narcissistic and since most of them lack the beauty & grace that they crave, they've gone to excessive lengths to create the fantasy-of-perfection by decor. They design dresses, jewelry, hairstyle, and shoes. Since homo men would look silly in them — people still have a hard time keeping a straight face when looking at most trannies — , they make all these beautiful stuff for the idealized women of fashion. As homos gained more access to the rich & privileged and gained influence in key industries, they began to shed their Camp sensibility. Camp was necessary when homos were at a moral and cultural disadvantage, when they were laughed at and mocked. Back then, when ‘gay culture’ was derided by everyone(even Liberals), homos needed a sense of humor, the ability to laugh at themselves, to cope and carry on. But deep down inside, they didn’t want to be laughed at. The emotional core of homo sensibility is queenie-meanie, bitchy, fancy-pants, and aristo... like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY, a movie the homos picketed because it exposed too much about their true nature.
In their heart of hearts, homos wanted the world to adore them, love them, and shower them with praise as a superior breed. So, it isn’t surprising that once homos kept gaining more and more power, they decried any joke about homos as ‘homophobic’, which really means 'neo-aristophobic'. As members of the New Elites, the homos, without the slightest tinge of irony, associated what they do(which is fecal penetration) with the rainbow colors. Homos even demanded that marriage be radically redefined to make-believe that what homos and trannies do — fecal penetration or penis-and-balls-cutting-to-get-fake-vagina — has equal value with normal people committing to one another to have real sex to produce real life. So, just like Jews used Free Speech as a tool to ultimately destroy Free Speech, homos used the laughter(of camp) as a tool to finally create a culture where laughter at homos would be forbidden. When traditionalists held much power in culture and morality, Jews with radical will needed Free Speech protections to subvert so much of America. But once Jews gained the power, they’ve been doing whatever they could to shut down free speech of people they fear or don’t like. Likewise, homos initially lowered the moral defenses of Americans(who found homosexuality to be gross or ridiculous) with the campy culture of self-mockery and laughter. It was as if homos were saying, "Look, we know we are ridiculous. We are just having some fun, and all we ask for is a bit of tolerance." But deep down inside, homos wanted to rule over everyone like princes over serfs. We were to be their serfs bowing at their feet. In PRODUCERS(at 40 sec of video below) by Mel Brooks, we laugh at the homos, but they take themselves so seriously.
So, even though homos lowered straight society's cultural guard by pretending to be just a bunch of deviant-sexual comedians(rather like the Marx Brothers of fashion), they were dead serious in gaining influence and power so that they could eventually dictate what we can and can’t laugh at. So, Jews now control what can or can’t be said. Jews who gained power via Free Speech are now forcing ‘hate speech’ laws on us. And homos who gained so much freedom through the cult of laughter now wage war on laughter that still laughs at homo ridiculousness. Today, any funny or cutting remark about homos is ‘homophobic’. Even the factual observation that homo fecal penetration is gross and filthy will lead to firing and blacklisting. Worse, the alliance between megalomaniacal Jews and ultra-narcissistic Jews is the most crucial in America. This is why so much Jewish-controlled globalism is about Globo-Homo Worship. In terms of Jewish Will to Power, at the root of ‘Marx Brothers’-ism was ‘Karl Marx’-ism(as personality if not ideology).
Anyway, Alex Jones’ star didn’t rise in the way Rush Limbaugh’s did. Limbaugh played the populist and appealed to many American Conservatives with his plain talk. He courted controversy once in awhile with comments about blacks-in-sports(hardly surprising in sports-obsessed USA) and feminists. But overall, Limbaugh stuck to the Establishment Narrative. His style could sometimes be outlandish, but he didn’t rock the boat of GOP Inc. He was for ‘free trade’, globalism, Wars for Israel, trust in American Institutions, and mockery for the radicals with roots in the 1960s. His positions were aligned with Wall Street and War State. With Las Vegas and Big Corporations. He was all for Walmart and heaped praise on anything associated with capitalism and big money. Whatever the military wanted was good. US generals could do no wrong. Limbaugh was born in 1951, so he was Core Boomer. In radical 1968, he would have been 17 yrs old, his formative years.
Back then, it was the Left that most distrusted US institutions, questioned the US military, opposed the Vietnam War, saw FBI-CIA as monsters, hated the police, distrusted authority, and cooked up all sorts of theories about power. And this wasn’t like the old Democratic vs Republican divide. 60s radicalism came to a head under and against Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. As the Vietnam War had escalated under LJB, the New Left went after him and establishment Democrats. The riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago were about angry Leftists vs Establishment Liberals. Things got especially heady because John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in 1963. There was a lingering sense among many on the Left that maybe Kennedy had been killed to push Johnson into power. (Of course, many historians have argued that Kennedy was also committed to defending South Vietnam from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese patriots.) Also, the widespread use of drugs made the kids especially paranoid and warped in their thinking. And yet, the fact is there were tons of lies surrounding the Vietnam War. Also, the government and media had been colluding to tell lies about America’s role in the world. But as the war just got worse and worse, even the Media began to turn against the war. (This change of heart would be paralleled in the media’s initially euphoric endorsement of the Iraq Invasion that soon gave to disillusion and bitter antipathy toward the Bush regime... though not as hostile as during the Vietnam War. After all, if most Jews saw the Vietnam War as arrogance of the Wasp military elite, the Middle East involvement was really a Zionist baby.) The Leftist opposition in the 60s turned deranged and stupid, but it did some good in raising some serious question about the nature of power in America. Also, even though the American Right tried to be patriotic in its support for troops and anti-communism, in retrospect there’s no denying that the Left was on firmer moral ground than the Right on the Vietnam War. It would have been much better for everyone if the US had never gotten involved in the first place(going all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower’s fatal role in dividing Vietnam into north and south). On the other hand, the Left was overly zealous and naive about the nature of the conflict. Though North Vietnamese were indeed courageous patriots, their communist agenda for the entire nation would prove to be economically disastrous. As for the kind of ultra-Maoist leftism that took hold of Cambodia, that has to rank among the most horrific crimes of the 20th century. While the Left was good to be skeptical of War State and other institutions of America, they were willfully naive and even stupid about Marxism-Leninism, even Maoism. As a skepticism of ideology than reason, the Left easily became useful idiots of the Other. This was also a time when so many whites were besotted with blacks as icons of sacredness; this would later turn into Magic Negro Myth. And this was also the time when American Indians came to be idealized by the Counterculture as organic children living in harmony with nature and smoking some stuff and getting high and being wise. It was a time when Marx merged with Lennon. Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan were seen by many youths as poets and gurus, the spokesmen of the generation. So, even pleasant tripe like "All You Need Is Love" could become a global event.
Rush Limbaugh loved Top 40 Rock music and teh materialism of the go-go years but pretty much hated everything else about the 1960s. He opposed the Counterculture and the radicals. Even though the American Right has a long pedigree of being anti-Big-Government, it also generally stood firm in total trust and devotion in certain segments of the government, especially the military and the intelligence services: Anything that has to do with rooting out domestic insurgency and foreign threats. So, the American Right in the 1960s saw the US military and intelligence services as performing patriotic duties as defenders of the American interests, guarantors of American security, and agents of American security. Vietnam War wasn’t about the US as the neo-imperialist Big Bad Wolf destroying a poor Asian nation thousands of miles away. It was about the US at war with World Communism. Vietnam was just a proxy of evil Red China and the Soviet Union. Besides, it was noble to defend the good decent pro-American folks of South Vietnam. It was unpatriotic to ask too many questions. It was wrong to see US soldiers as anything but the noblest warriors with the finest hearts. Americans never lost a war, as George C. Scott in PATTON said. (PATTON was a huge hit and Richard Nixon’s favorite movie. While the anti-war crowd was flocking to see M*A*S*H, the conservatives preferred PATTON. Though one was about the Korean War and the other about WWII, both were relevant to what was happening in Vietnam. Franklin Schaffner who directed PATTON would next direct NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDER, a story about a leader who is embroiled in scandals and brought down by the tragedy of war. Though Tsar Nicholas and Nixon couldn’t have been more different, the movie anticipated Nixon’s problems with war, radicalism, and scandals.) Though totally forgotten today, GREEN BERETS was a huge hit, and the song, "The Ballad of the Green Berets" was the second biggest hit of the year. That was what the American Right still clung to in the 1960s. To the Left, it seemed so old-fashioned, simpleminded, and trite. Unlike the Right that was seen by the Left as either crusty & stale or naive & trusting, the Left embraced all sorts of social experimentation and free expression. They were edgy, hip, and cool. But then, this very conceit blinded them to their own naivete that, in some ways, would prove to be even dumber and idiotic than the Red, White, and Blue mentality on the Right. It’s like the hippie-types in Robert Altman's NASHVILLE are, in their own way, just as silly and deluded as the Country Music patriarch who runs a Ross-Perot-like campaign. Back in 1969, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper were regarded as so cool in the EASY RIDER. But the film dated quickly, and Fonda and Hopper over-indulged in drugs. Hopper became insane and impossible to work with. Later, he finally got half-sober and took on roles as villains and crazies. Near the end of his life, he was something of a pro-Bush Republican, especially after 9/11(though some noted a rightward turn already with COLORS, attacked by some on the Left as a pro-cop movie). It’s too bad that just when Hopper chose American Patriotism, the president was the idiot George W. Bush who embroiled the US in the Iraq War on the advice of lowdown Zionist Neocons.
To most Liberals, Rush Limbaugh was just an Archie Bunker on the radio. With barroom wit and humor, he made ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘greed’ fun and cool, American as Apple Pie. While there were racial undertones to Limbaugh’s shtick — but then, what isn’t affected by race in American politics and culture? — , he never dealt with the issue head-on like Sam Francis would later do(and get fired like Jimmy the Greek). If anything, Limbaugh was careful to point to his sidekick being Bo Snerdly, a black guy. HIGBF, or "Hey, I got black friends." And even though Limbaugh attacked feminists as extreme ‘feminazis’, he bought into the whole ‘equal opportunity’ ideal between men and women. Limbaugh’s boorish antics could be only implicitly racy and ‘dangerous’ because he had too much to lose. As part of Talk Radio, he was working for a major conglomerate, and his huge earnings owed to advertising. Limbaugh had to remain within the ‘mainstream’ as defined by the Dominant Narrative. Because he couldn’t honestly touch upon racial and sexual issues, the ‘raw meat’ he threw at his audience had to do with safe targets like ‘Chicoms’, Muslims(especially Iran), supporting Israel(as America’s closest ally), and symbolic issues like kids reciting the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’. He used to make fun of homosexuals, but once Homomania gained footing as the neo-religion of America, he probably muted himself on that. (I haven’t heard his show much since the 90s.) Limbaugh’s thorny obsession with football illustrates the problem with his kind of Conservatism. Limbaugh would like to believe that there is nothing really racial about the NFL. If there are lots of blacks, it’s all on the basis of may-the-best-man-win. So, it’s meritocracy and has nothing to do with race. Also, football is American-as-apple-pie, the favorite sports of Conservatives. But since the 1960s, the game has been getting blacker every year as Jimmy the Greek once said. (Though Jimmy the Greek was wrong about the Mandingo-theory as to why blacks have an edge — it owes to 100,000 yrs of evolution than 200 yrs of slavery — , he was right about racial differences and got canned for what he said.) As much as white American Conservatives love football, the fact is most players are black, and they feel loathing and contempt for ‘white boys’. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, see Republicans as diehard ‘racists’, despise white men as slow and weak ‘white boys’, and are amused that all those cucky and ‘faggoty’ white boys are cheering black athletes for whupping white ass and humping tons of white pussy. Black attitude toward whites is a combination of victim-cult and racial supremacism. Blacks cling to the Slavery Narrative that conveniently blames whitey for everything that is wrong with the black community. Also, it makes them feel noble as the Sacred Race held down by White ‘Racism’. This aspect of black attitude paints blacks as noble strugglers against White Power. But the other side of black attitude is one of sheer supremacism. Like Muhammad Ali said, he be the ‘greatest’. Whatever blacks may think in terms of ideology, they FEEL contempt for whites as the inferior race. As blacks judge the worth of everything on the basis of fist, dong, booty, rhythm, and funk, they are convinced that they are the most superior race since they can whup ass, got bigger dongs, bouncier booties, louder voices, and jungle boogie. Because blacks feel superior in being able to kick whitey’s ass, they think they should be dominant in everything. (It's like in the USSR, Stalin was so revered that many young ones assumed he must be BEST at everything, even science and math.) Of course, it’s fallacious to think, "Because I can kick his ass, I must also be smarter than him", but blacks really think thus. Because they be so ‘badass’, they think they deserve to win in everything and get all surly when they don't; soul train turns into sour train. Also, when blacks say they are more ‘creative’, it really means they are more expressive when it comes to ugity-bugity stuff. To a Negro, a rapper who yaps and makes apelike motions is more ‘creative’ than Beethoven or Wagner because "you can’t dance to that faggoty classical shit." So, a kind of racial schizophrenia exists in the US. On the one hand, whites feel blacks as the sorry race that were enslaved, got lynched(on occasion even though Jew-run MSM would like for us to think it was happening relentlessly all over the place), and was called ‘nigger’. But they also worship the Negro as the superior race with more muscle, bigger dongs, bouncier booties, and louder voices. As for Negroes, they see white folks as representing this evil White Power structure that is so powerful and shit. But when they see whites as individuals, they see ‘faggoty-ass white boys’ whose asses could easily be whupped. And if white boys can be whupped, it means white girls must come over to the Negro men as the superior jocks and studs, thus practicing ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
Sadly, complexity about the race issue is acknowledged by neither the American Left nor the establishment American Right. The only allowed Narratives/Contexts have been (1) Blacks were so horribly oppressed and traumatized by Evil White ‘Racism’ that still lingers to this day in so many subtle forms that a colorblind society is not possible, at least for many decades or even centuries. It will take a long long time to undo the damage whites have done to blacks. So, we must forgive blacks for hating on whitey, and whites must not judge blacks like everyone else. Blacks deserve special recognition, love, affection, and support. This view is favored by the American Left. (2) While it’s true that blacks did get the short end of the stick in the past and all good Americans must share in the apology, things have improved so much in America. ‘Racism’ is a thing of the past, and most Americans of all colors are good people, and it is time for blacks to drop their resentments and excuses and feel goodwill towards whites who are filled with goodwill toward blacks. This is favored by the American Right.
As far as Limbaugh sees it, he loves football even though it’s filled with black guys who hump tons of white women. So, unlike ‘racist’ whites who discriminated against black athletes in the past, Limbaugh is all for blacks dominating football since it is meritocracy in action. Since sports have demonstrated that there is no ceiling for blacks in success and fame, blacks should compete fairly in all endeavors and let the chips fall where they may on the basis of meritocracy.
But blacks are not buying this. No matter how much Limbaugh and fellow white Republicans say, "We love the NFL even though it’s black-dominated, and you Negroes can even marry my daughter and hump my wife" and no matter how many times they invite rich black celebrities to their homes and festivities, blacks will continue to see White American Conservatives as ‘closet-racist’ wussy ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys with too much money and power they don’t deserve. White Conservatives don’t mind blacks beating whites in sports, but blacks do mind whites beating blacks in many fields. As far as megalomaniacal blacks are concerned, there’s no way a race as awesome as themselves could miss out on blings in ANY FIELD unless it’s rigged in a ‘racist’ fashion against blacks. How could a race that is so cool, creative, and badass not have the Midas Touch when it comes to everything? Such megalomania feeds into black paranoia. Whenever blacks see a prize(bling) in any field, they feel THEY deserve it. 'Gots to have me!' It could even be an endeavor most blacks show no interest in, like nuclear physics. But when blacks hear of such a field, they be wondering, "Why ain’t a black guy the top scientist with all the bling prizes, daaaaaaang?" It must be ‘racist’. It’s made worse because the Magic Negro Myth and the Cult of ‘Anti-Racism’ have made so many whites want to believe in the same thing. If blacks are divine Magic Negroes, they should be best at everything. Because Negroes be so holy, the reason must be intractable ‘white racism’ and more effort is needed to root out the evil so that there will be as many topnotch black computer coders as among whites, Jews, and Asians.
At any rate, people like Limbaugh have been indulging in a delusion. They’ve been trying to be colorblind with issues and matters that cannot be divorced from color. After all, even if it is true that black domination in the NFL and NBA is due to meritocracy, it is about Color than Color-blindness. And if meritocracy favors blacks over all other races in sports, it must mean races are indeed different. And that means that black athletes will never regard their white fans on an equal footing. Blacks will feel alpha and see the cuckish white fans as beta. This leads to feeling that range from amused condescension to outright contempt. Since blacks see themselves as the alpha males in sports and school hierarchy(where they gamely kick white kids in the butt), they see no reason to regard whites on an equal footing, especially when so many white girls are deserting white boys and going with black boys. Human nature says those who feel alpha deserving of everything and expect to be served by betas. Because blacks feel alpha in the areas that Americans are most obsessed with — sports, pop music, and sex culture — , they feel they are the rightful rulers of America and that whites and other non-blacks exist to serve, honor, and celebrate blacks. So, the fact that blacks aren't #1 in finance, science, technology, and all else deeply angers blacks. Blacks want to believe in HIDDEN FIGURES myth that blacks are brimming with intellectual genius from head to toe but have been held back by white ‘racism’. Blacks want to believe in the Wakanda Myth that they are the smartest people on Earth and the ONLY reason why Africa is a mess is due to white ‘racism’, sheeeeeeeiiiiit.
When the only permissible Narratives is (1) blacks are holy because of special suffering, and we must do everything to help and honor the Negro and (2) "why can’t we get along?" on the basis of color-blind idealism, then it’s no wonder that so much of the racial discourse is so retarded. Even on the so-called Race-Realist Right, the discussion is mostly about I.Q. when, in fact, lower IQ among blacks should be the last of the worries facing the white race. It is black fist and black dongs that are doing the most harm as they whup and emasculate the white man into 'white boy' and then into wussy-ass cucky-wuck.
For those familiar with 70s American TV show ALL IN THE FAMILY, the main attraction was the comic sparks set off by the friction between Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic, aka ‘Meathead’. Archie Bunker was the bigot-patriot who trusted authority and the American way, whereas Meathead was deeply cynical of the power-structure and wasn’t so enamored with the Red, White, and Blue. And yet, despite Archie’s faith in American Power, he was distrustful of the kind of people who actually ran the institutions. He was loyal to the symbolism of American Power while disdaining many in government, media, and other elite institutions. In contrast, Meathead, while skeptical, even cynical, about much of the American Narrative and the folk culture of Patriotism, was deeply invested in the Liberal-dominated institutions of actual day-to-day control of power. An English major and ‘intellectual’, Meathead believed in an improved society dominated by more educated and more ‘progressive’ people. Bunker loved the idea of American Power but disliked the people who actually ran the system. In contrast, Meathead opposed American Power but was far more trusting of the people in the institutions. Still, outwardly at least, Bunker was the patriot(albeit a bigoted one) who had faith in the American Way, whereas Meathead thought America had been deeply flawed from its founding, what with the eradication of Indians, Slavery, and imperialist wars, like the one raging in Vietnam. Bunker’s outward message was ‘God bless America’, whereas Meathead’s was ‘America must atone’.
The funny thing about Alex Jones is he’s like a combination of Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic the Meathead. This is partly due to his roots in Texas, a state known for both arch-conservatism and maverick cowboy individualism. Texas has had many rightists with strong libertarian streak, and many leftists with something of cow-punching spirit. In the 1960s and 1970s, the aspects of the left and right merged through shared experience of Rock and Drugs. In DAZED AND CONFUSED, set in a high school in Austin suburb in 1976, we see how everyone from a left-wing Jew to a right-wing good ole boy(and everyone in between) share in the culture of partying, drugs, and the cult of youth.
Despite the ideological polarization, there may have been less social polarization because Texas was less ethnically diverse than say, New York, where one group, such as Jews, would be at one end of political spectrum, whereas other groups could be at the other end. In Texas, whether you were a Republican or Democrat, there was a greater chance than in places like NY that you shared ethnicity and even kinfolks with your ideological rivals. So, you were likely to hang out with them even if you disagreed with them. In contrast, leftist Jews in NY might mostly hang with other leftist Jews while Italians, Irish, and others would stick with their own kind. Texas always had a large Mexican and black population, but Mexicans are not an intellectual people. Their power emerges only with heavy demographics. And with blacks, the politics has always been rather simple: Tribal than Ideological.
Because of the nature of Texas, the Liberal director Richard Linklater has certain libertarian, and even conservative, tendencies. The notable thing about DAZED AND CONFUSED is the shared sense of camaraderie for everyone, even the loathsome a**hole played by Ben Affleck. Some are more likable and admirable than others, but they are all part of the culture and community. It is a sensibility so different from that of, say, Woody Allen where the divisions among Jews, Italians, Wasps, intellectual class, working class, and etc. are so stark. Even as Allen loves the freedom of NY, there’s always an acute sense of borders and ceilings among groups separated by race, culture, intelligence, or class. In contrast, despite the wide array of characters in DAZED AND CONFUSED, there is a sense of ease and rapport among them. Its central character is ‘Pink’ the school quarterback who is also something of an intellectual and nice guy. Clearly Linklater’s alter-ego, he easily moves in and out of any social group or niche. PC was slower to affect Texas not only because of its general conservatism but because the Texan style has been about taking things ‘easy’ like a cowboy. The spirit of freedom and/or pride of power trumped commitment to ideology. It is then not surprising that Richard Linklater has been friends with Alex Jones despite their ideological divergence. Linklater is generally easy-going whereas Jones is hyperbolic and intense, but both share in the attitude that one’s feelings count for more than any single idea. So, if Linklater feels okay with certain people, he can overlook ideological differences. Similarly, despite his passion and rage, Jones has never been an ideologue. If anything, his anti-globalism is intensely anti-ideological. Jones’ world-view is that most people are good decent folks who would thrive best with freedom, individuality, patriotism, and spirit of independence. There is no ideology that can explain all the world and there is no power that should rule all the world, so Alex Jones thinks. But globalism, as controlled by mega-corporations, elite academia, Deep State, Wall Street, and Media conglomerates, seek to impose a one-world government and mindset on all of us(as sheeple) to further the interests of the oligarchs, plutocrats, and ideologues who either want all the power or think they know what is good for all of us. Though Alex Jones has entertained certain conspiracy theories, they were never in the service of some ideology. Jones has never been intellectual in quite that way. His main impulse has been to rebel against anyone or anything that seeks to gain power and domination over others by taking away people’s freedoms, undermining national sovereignty(to subordinate American power to some globalist entity controlled by plutocrats and their well-funded think-tanks), and addicting the people to all sorts of degeneracy and indulgences(which is rather funny because for someone who rants so much about the harmfulness of junk food, Jones is pretty overweight).
Jones has charged into the media landscape with a right-left combination of Bunkerism and Meatheadism. Like Archie Bunker, he loves the symbols of Red, White, and Blue. His is a no-holds-barred kind of patriotism that loves to bang the drums and pour gunpowder into the barrel. His patriotic shtick can be over-the-top and make even Rush Limbaugh blush.
But, there is another side to Alex Jones that has roots in 1960s leftism and radicalism. It is a deep-seated and even knee-jerk kind of skepticism and distrust of the Official Narrative. If the kind of people who raised the biggest doubts about the Kennedy assassination were once on the Left, such mentality has become prominent on the Right, and Alex Jones played a part in the cultural shift. Granted, there were elements of the ‘paranoid right’ in the 1950s and 1960s, but Mainstream Media and Respectable Conservatism(most famously represented by William F. Buckley) more or less worked together to push that kind of the Right to the fringes. But just when the ‘extreme right’ was pushed off the margins, the rise of the ‘paranoid left’ wasn’t only tolerated but even encouraged and welcomed increasingly by the mainstream. During the Cold War, it wasn’t unusual to come upon glowing or at least sympathetic accounts of Castro’s Cuba or Mao’s China. Also, the university increasingly came under the power of Jews who identified with the Left. And the media, heavily controlled by Jews, were also often sympathetic to the ‘paranoid left’. So, even though the Mainstream Media generally stuck with the Official Narrative on matters like the Kennedy assassination, the ‘conspiracy theories’ from the Left were at least intermittently given a hearing and even favorable coverage(whereas any ‘conspiracy theory’ from the Right was suppressed). According to the Jewish-dominated Media, Joe McCarthy had been ‘rabid and virulent’ and ‘paranoid’ about communists-under-every-bed. He’d been part of the Red Scare, a hysteria. Thus, the real danger posed by communists(many of them Jewish) in the 1940s and 1950s was swept under the rug of the Official Narrative. Jewish media didn’t want the people to realize how many Jews had been involved in the espionage for the Soviet Union and how many had been committed to subverting America through media, academia, and government. While certain anti-communists in the 1950s were clearly over-the-top in their suspicions and claims(though nothing like the ongoing lunacy of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’), there really was a communist/Soviet menace, with infiltrators even in the uppermost ranks of the US government. And over time, many were exposed and removed from power, proving that the anti-communists were not pushing some wild ‘conspiracy theory’. Their fears were well-grounded in facts. But with Joe McCarthy’s downfall(mainly because he targeted the US military), a New Narrative arose about how the American Right had been hallucinating about the Red Menace. Especially because McCarthy looked rather repugnant and unpleasant, it wasn’t difficult for the Left and the Media to associate his unseemly washed-out and alcoholic image with the Red Scare. In other words, Anti-Communism was nothing but the drunken paranoid fantasy in the minds of Joe McCarthy and all the good people he’d suckered. But this was really a counter-conspiracy theory. If McCarthy’s ‘conspiracy theory’ said, "There were many more communists in hiding," the counter-conspiracy theory said, "McCarthy and his enablers got together and just made up everything out of the thin air to scare the nation into supporting the ‘paranoid’ Right." Because Joe McCarthy was a one-trick pony, it was as easy to bring him down as it’d been to build him up. He had one trick up his sleeve, and when he lost it, he too was lost.
This is where Alex Jones has been different. While there are certain parallels between the demagoguery of McCarthy and the wild-man antics of Jones, the latter has had many tricks up his sleeve because he hasn’t been so ideologically easy to pigeonhole. Unlike most Talk Show Conservatives, Jones hasn't been reliably on the side of the GOP against the Democrats. Though generally harder on Democrats than Republicans, Jones has been ranting tirades at both parties as the enemies of the people. Jones really got passionate with electoral politics because Donald Trump tore up the GOP script and ran a nationalist campaign as a maverick champion of the people against globalism. Prior to the arrival of Trump on the scene, the only politicians Jones felt any real love for were Ron Paul the perennial loser and perhaps Rand Paul, who doesn’t always go by the Republican script. The difference between Ron Paul and Alex Jones is the former at least tries to be consistent and principled(and as factual as possible) whereas Jones always lets his emotions run afield and sometimes falls into contradictory statements and positions because his gut instinct is to embrace anyone or anything that is expediently anti-establishment at the moment. So, it hasn’t been unusual for Jones to welcome as temporary allies even those on the Left or opposing sides if he could find common ground in their opposition to globalism and the elites. Indeed, in the Bush Era, Jones even made common cause with the Left in opposing the Iraq War and globalism that, back then, was associated in the minds of many ‘progressives’ with Wall Street and War State that were seen as staunchly ‘conservative’. Also, many ‘progressives’ were still the impression that the FBI and CIA were all right-wing organizations.
So, why did so many ‘progressives’ change their tune when it came to corporations and US foreign policy? One was Homomania. Jews promoted Homomania among ‘progressives’ as the next great moral crusade, one that would break the back of the Christo-Fascist Right. For many proggies, ‘gay marriage’ became their version of the Second Coming of Jesus. It became their holy of holies. Many proggies probably thought that the 'gay' cause would face opposition from greedy Big Business as well as from the Christian Right. But, as it turned out, the Big Corporations were the biggest sponsors and promoters of Homomania(and eventually the US Deep State and War State also got on the 'gay' bandwagon). So, all of a sudden, it dawned on proggies that Big Capital was on their side in the so-called Culture War. Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, and Big Retail were all into Homomania. With ‘gay’ issues being so central to the proggies, the fact that Big Business were pro-homo went a long ways to change the Proggy’s view of capitalism. Even as they still muttered socialist cliches, they became far more supportive of Big Money because it was so lavishly celebratory of Homomania. And since New Capitalism = Globalism, the proggies no longer became so hostile to globalism, or Globo-Homo-ism. If capitalism is pro-homo, it can’t be that bad. And if capitalism is okay, then globalism is also okay since it is fueled by capitalism. And ever since the US military became the globalist strong-arm of spreading Homomania, it became 'cool' too.
In 1999, there were massive leftist riots in Seattle over globalist-capitalism. But such protests subsided as globalism came to be associated with capitalism that came to be associated with Homomania. Also, top capitalist oligarchs began to adopt and push the Cult of Diversity to make capitalism more appetizing to the proggies whose heads were drummed into chanting ‘Diversity is our strength’ over and over because it’s all they heard in schools and on TV. Oligarchs and top executives had no reason to oppose diversifying the work-force in favor of non-whites? After all, the uppermost tier would be far less affected by Diversity, which would be for the birds on the lower pecking order. It’s like Jews on Wall Street may hire more Diversity and hurt the chances of whites at mid-level and lower-level, but the uppermost levels will always be held by the Tribe.
Jewish Goldman Sachs is for Homomania,the Proxy Weapon of Jews against National Cultures and Christianity.
Anyway, as corporations did so much to push for Homomania and Diversity, they were no longer seen as the enemy. Also, if proggies had once seen US capitalism as the carrier of White Imperialism, the association of capitalism with Homomania convinced many proggies that US capitalism is the greatest force for good. After all, it was the main purveyor and preacher of Homomania and Diversity(of consumer units) to all the world.
So, when Russia said NO to Homomania, most American proggies sided with the US neo-imperialism and capitalism as forces that may one day break down the wall of Russian ‘homophobic’ evil and convert all those ‘heathens’ to the ‘more evolved’ faith of Homo-Worship. Another reason why progs became pro-deep-state, pro-military, pro-capitalist, and pro-globalist had to do with Obama. Though he won the presidency as a kind-of-socialist, his first move was to bail out the banks and give Jews everything they wanted. Even though this upset many socialist-leaning proggies, they stuck by Obama because symbolism trumps all else in the realm of PC. As Obama was a ‘historic black president’ and Mr. ‘Hope-and-Change’, most proggies felt it was their duty to support him as an icon if not necessarily as an individual. So, whatever Obama did, no matter how foul or against even bedrock leftist principles, it had to be forgiven, overlooked, or even endorsed. Obama had promised that his administration would be the most transparent. It was actually the most secretive, especially as the Deep State, academia, and the media were all on the same page. Also, the powers-that-be knew that the American Right was too afraid of being called ‘racist’ to really challenge Obama’s presidency and that the American ‘Left’ was too reverential toward the ‘historic black president’ to really do anything that might jeopardize his 'legacy'. After all, the core mentality of so many Americans, especially on the ‘left’, has been to appease and applaud the wonderful Jews, sacred blacks, and holy homos. So, whereas someone like Edward Snowden would have been regarded as a great hero had he spilled the beans during the Bush yrs, he became an object of intense hatred by the proggy community because he made Obama look bad. He also exposed the hypocrisy of the proggies who, when push came to shove, favored power over principles. Worse, to make Obama look good at every turn, the proggy community supported the horrible Libya War, cheered the ‘new cold war’ with Russia(especially over Ukraine), and sat silently while Obama & Hillary(at the behest of Jews) sponsored terrorism to mess up Iraq and Syria to undermine the so-called Shia Crescent.
Finally, as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As proggies began to realize that their kind control most of media, academia, and other elite institutions(and even big industries), they were flush with power & megalomania and wanted more and more regardless of their abuses and repercussions. To understand the nature of this corruption, just consider the Mueller probe into the so-called Russia Collusion. There is absolutely nothing there. We know it, Mueller knows it, FBI knows it, CIA knows it, NSA knows it, and Big Media know it. But they push the nonsense because they can and because it prevents Trump from doing anything to ease relations between the US and Russia for the good of both nations. The Deep State do not want compromise with Russia but total domination, not least because Jews control so much of it and because they hate what Russia stands for.
In a way, the political dynamics of ALL IN THE FAMILY anticipated the Things-To-Come in the later decades. Even though Meathead constantly yaps about the abuse of Power and the People, he feels little rapport with Archie Bunker, a white prole. If anything, he feels contempt for the white working class as the electoral and cultural bedrock of the American Right(embodied by Richard Nixon) that stands in the way of justice and progress for everyone, especially the ‘colored’ and the minorities. And yet, there is little chance that Meathead will spend much time with the ‘coloreds’(which back then were mostly blacks and browns) because his ambition is to earn a college degree and secure a profession in academia or some white-collar job. Meathead seeks to move up the social ladder(way above Archie Bunker and the white working class) but also to care for the downtrodden. He uses his mind to move up, yet his heart goes weepy-poo over the ‘oppressed’. And even though his kind will gain power over the white working class, it won't see itself as the new oppressive class(with elite positions in society) because it professes to care about the non-whites being oppressed by the white working class(that has less than the white upper class but feels more tribal and ‘stingy’[or clingy] about what it has). The white elite class became blind to its power over and abuses toward the white working class because of its moral narcissism of caring for the ‘colored’ folks being wronged by the white ‘deplorables’.
Now, in the actual TV show, Meathead doesn’t rise very high. He becomes a well-to-do teacher at some college. It’s nothing spectacular, but his position in life exemplifies the mindset of many boomers who strove to rise higher in station, status, and ‘consciousness’ over their parents who came to be regarded as overly materialistic, reactionary, and/or small-minded. Of course, as the stagflation 1970s ground on, the Boomer optimism of the 1960s soon evaporated(also in Europe), and the dreams of Counterculture began to seem sillier. No, ‘Love’ and ‘Peace’ couldn’t change the world. John Lennon was not the second coming of Jesus. Justice didn’t prevail all around the world because US withdrew from Vietnam. And with hedonism and drugs amok, new batch of young people were into Rock culture just for the fun than meaning. We see this shift in DAZED AND CONFUSED. Woodstock the event may have been rather stupid in retrospect, but there was an earnest collective desire to believe in returning to the Garden. But the youths in Richard Linklater’s film are just looking to have a good time. Stones, Beatles, and Dylan came under pressure in the 1960s to represent the generation and its aspirations. Even the Monkees got into the act of ‘significance’. But no one was making such demands on Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, and KISS in the 1970s. By mid 70s, Lennon and Dylan had lost much of their iconic status, and Paul McCartney was content to crank out silly love songs. And all those college-educated boomers didn’t want to be part of the working class. Even if they came from working class backgrounds, that culture-and-community was something they wanted to leave behind than identify with. It's like the kid in BREAKING AWAY who hangs with working class kids eventually goes to college and will likely become one of the yuppies.
For all their egalitarian sentiments, Liberal Boomers wanted something ‘clean’, ‘cool’, or ‘classy’. They wanted to work in office buildings — corporate or government — than in factories or on farms. Indeed, these white-collar boomers began to see white working class as just a bunch of losers who were stuck in their stations because they were either too dumb or lazy to make the climb. And since lower-tier jobs lost their luster, the boomers were more than willing to bring in tons of non-whites(especially from south of the border) to take all those ‘loser’ jobs.
One of the big themes of the 1960s was unrestrained pursuit of bliss. Don’t let anyone or anything stand in your way. If you want sex and drugs, go all out. The culture of Rock and strange drugs emboldened this attitude further. Thus, 60s idealism was incredibly exuberant in its naivete. Much of the attitude was based on ‘feels’ than on thought or ideology. Counterculture boomers had vague ideas but strong feelings about everything. What could be done about the race issue? No one was sure, but they were so damn sure it was something about ‘racism’ and more marches were needed. But as the 70s dragged on, the naivete faded with rising crime(as blacks really got out of control, especially as they came to regard slower and weaker whitey like predators regard prey), stagflation and high unemployment, and the sense that so much of the 60s was just a passing fad. Anyone who dressed like a hippie and spouted flower-power sentiments would have been laughed at by the late 1970s. Also, it dawned on everyone that the real game-changers weren’t the hippies, idealists, and counterculture people but the nerds, hustlers, and the commissars. Nerds became good at technology and computer-related fields. Some of these geeks would go onto found some of the biggest corporations ever. And the American ‘auteurs’ of the early 1970s film-making increasingly lost favor among the audience(and even the critics), and the real visionaries of the New turned out to be George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, the two most tech-savvy members of the Film Generation. While many successful boomers strongly identified with the Counterculture, they weren’t really a part of it. Steve Jobs loved Bob Dylan and the Beatles, but he was essentially a status-and-money-obsessed hustler. He merely appropriated the creativity of others to concoct his own brand(and cult). And Wall Street was filled with people who were half-nerd and half-hustler. They were good with numbers but also adept at talking people into anything. Finally, there was the commissars who either entered government, academia, or media. Unlike the true mavericks of the Counterculture, these commissars weren’t willing to stake their own turf and go their own way. They didn’t have a prophetic bone in their body. They were averse to taking chances. They were the priestly class who preferred the power of organization, conformity, and consensus. They are the sort of people Camille Paglia detests most. Lacking in real ego, individuality, and courage, they stick together like a herd and are animated by group-identity and group-action. No matter how loudly they bark, most of them have no agency of their own; they only bark on command or in unison. Granted, even their master can be mauled in the long run by the sheer frenzy he set off among the dogs. Now, one cannot be a master without some independence of mind. Indeed, others look to a certain person for leadership because he sees and speaks ‘truth’ beyond what most people can sense. But when the master, out of sheer megalomania or cynical manipulation, inflames his minions with extreme ideas, the passion may run so wild that the dogs may turn on the master when he is perceive to be insufficiently enthusiastic about his own agenda. It is then hardly surprising that older feminists were later hounded by younger feminists who came to regard the elders as insufficiently committed to the Sisterhood(and Tranny-hood). And the Red Guards unleashed by Mao got so out of control that they wouldn’t stop smashing things even when Mao pleaded with them to stop. So finally, Mao called on the military to shoot down a whole bunch of them and then sent millions of young ones to the country-side to help out the peasants. Just like today’s NY elites are eager to get rid of unruly Negroes, Chinese authorities sought to minimize the madness of the Cultural Revolution by making the students practice their idealism in the countryside, far away from the cities.
To better understand Boomer Neurosis, consider the career of Oliver Stone, a rather strange figure because he’s seen American History and its place in the world from both the Right and the Left. He grew up believing in the American Way. Thus, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY is like a dual biography, that of Ron Kovic(played by Tom Cruise) and Oliver Stone. Kovic, like Stone’s alter ego(played by Charlie Sheen) in PLATOON, grew up believing in the Red, White, and Blue. He wanted to be like John Wayne in Vietnam. He trusted the government and the military. He believed in Americana and protecting the American Way and the Free World from the Godless forces of communism. Granted, Oliver Stone was never that naive as he was smarter and grew up with better education than working class Kovic. Still, Stone wanted to be like a Hemingway-like manly hero in Vietnam. But the combination of the War and the Counterculture made Oliver Stone lose faith in the System and the Power. He grew so skeptical of everything that he began to see conspiracies behind everything. A lot of people have a hard time processing reality when the core assumptions that they’d taken for granted are turned upside down. Kovic went from a hard-line Cold Warrior to a fanatical anti-war activist. (Stone was artist enough to show in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY that Kovic’s transformation had as much to do with personal and medical issues as with idealism and politics.) And Stone went from someone willing to die for the American Way to someone who distrusted anything from the official channels of power. It’s like Paul Nehlen really lost it when he learned about Jewish Power from reading Kevin Macdonald’s CULTURE OF CRITIQUE. But Nehlen is a real dimwit whereas Stone is a pretty smart guy. The transformation of Oliver Stone from a rightist to a leftist is understandable given the times and the experiences he went through. After his tours in Vietnam, he would have noticed that those on the American Right were sticking with the same old narrative of ‘we are fighting communism’ whereas those associated with the American Left were more willing to question authority and ask big questions, like what really happened with the Kennedy assassination. Besides, many Republican(and Democratic) big-shots in business and government pulled strings to keep their own kids out of Vietnam: Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, son of Lloyd Bentson, just like Neocons make son of goyim fight and die in Wars for Israel.
Also, this was a time when Hollywood was in total paranoid mode. Loathing Richard Nixon, Hollywood Liberals made a series of movies that made THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE’s paranoia seem mild by comparison. (Besides, there really turns out to be a communist conspiracy in John Frankenheimer’s movie.) Movies like THE CONVERSATION & THE GODFATHER PART 2(Francis Ford Coppola), ALL THE KING’S MEN and PARALLAX VIEW(Alan J. Pakula), SERPICO(Sidney Lumet), DAY OF THE DOLPHIN(Mike Nichols), THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR(Sydney Pollack), THE KILLER ELITE(Sam Peckinpah), NIGHT MOVES(Arthur Penn), CHINATOWN(Roman Polanski), CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, and many others all pointed to dark forces in the government or corporations pulling the strings among the unsuspecting populace. https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/19/the-parallax-view-kennedy-assassination Even Ingmar Bergman, though working in Europe, got into the act with THE SERPENT’S EGG. (Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader's TAXI DRIVER was something of an exception because it located the source of 'paranoia' in urban decay and mental breakdown than in the machinations of some dark nefarious power.) And when people were obsessing over Watergate scandal as the cancer of Nixon’s presidency, the biggest movie in America was THE EXORCIST, a horror story about a young girl in the Washington D.C. area possessed by the Devil. Even movies that were deemed ‘right-wing’ had a powerful anti-establishment message. DIRTY HARRY and DEATH WISH said you could not trust the authorities to do the right thing in cleaning up crime. Only rogue cops or well-armed vigilantes could do the job.
For many boomers(especially Jewish or Liberal), one of the defining issues of the 60s was the Vietnam War. While much of the American Right stuck with John-Wayne-Patton-ish sentiments about how US never lost a war and must not in Vietnam, the Anti-war movement ranged from Cold Warriors who saw the Vietnam as a hopeless quagmire to far left ideologues who idealized the Viet Cong as saint-warriors. As it happened, Saigon fell one year after Nixon left the White House, and it seemed the American Left was vindicated, not least because Jimmy Carter won in 1976, the Bicentennial of the American Republic. But there was no socialist paradise in Vietnam. If anything, the main news about Vietnam became the Boat People fiasco, a story of countless people trying to flee from communist tyranny. It was an eye-opener because the Left had been saying that most Vietnamese wanted Americans gone and that Vietnam would prosper without the presence of destructive Americans. But what Americans saw on TV were images of so many Vietnamese(many of them of Chinese origin, as it turned out) willing to risk their lives on the high seas to escape from communism. And then, the story that came out of Cambodia was even more grim. Next, the US public was told that China and Vietnam were at war and also that the Chinese were considering moving away from communism to pro-market policies. So much for the brotherhood and triumph of Marxism.
And whatever problems faced the US, it appeared the USSR was faced with even greater difficulties in the 1980s. With Reagan’s victory and resurgent patriotism, Hollywood even allowed movies like RED DAWN, RAMBO, and UNCOMMON VALOR. To an extent, many boomers(even Liberal ones) had to concede that communism turned out to be a terrible idea and that maybe just maybe, the hawks had a point in trying to roll back communism in proxy wars such as in Vietnam. (One thing for sure, the media were overwhelming supportive of US aid to Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Occupation.)
Still, Vietnam had been a huge topic of contention in the 60s, and its symbolic value was too great for the American Left to concede the narrative-banner to fools like the cartoonish Sylvester Stallone and POW-MIA crowd. There was the landmark PBS documentary VIETNAM: A TELEVISION HISTORY that was generally sympathetic to North Vietnam. And then, there was Oliver Stone who exploded on the scene with PLATOON. Though Stone had gained a reputation as a screenwriter — MIDNIGHT EXPRESS and SCARFACE — and garnered praise with SALVADOR, it was PLATOON that really put him on the map. Many boomers eagerly welcomed PLATOON as a corrective to the amnesiac fantasies of Reagan-and-Rambo that waxed over the Vietnam War with either sentimentality or sensationalism. Unlike Stallone, Oliver Stone had really been there, and PLATOON was lauded as a most necessary film that reminded people what it was really like in the jungle. Though Stone’s film was hardly the first critical or harrowing look at the war, it was the first major Vietnam film made by someone who’d fought in the war. Though the film was overwrought and emotionally crude in many ways, it was one of the most frightening war movies made up to that time. Oliver Stone became something of a hero to the American Left. It was as if PLATOON gave a black eye to Reagan-and-Rambo revisionist myth-making of the 80s.
And yet, Stone was in a precarious position in the fast-changing political landscape. He came to prominence just when the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. And China had turned to market economics. Also, Asian nations that were under US ‘imperialism’ had not only done much better than communist nations but even moved toward democratic reforms. In contrast, communism had led to Maoist madness in China, mass gulags in Vietnam, and an all-out democide in Cambodia.
Because the Vietnam War and the 60s were such formative influences on Stone, he tried to explain events in the 80s and 90s via the dynamics of 60s politics. But even as people like Stone seemed to be winning the Culture War, the International Left had lost the historical war big time. With SALVADOR, Stone tried to suggest a New Vietnam was brewing in Central America. But it simply didn’t happen. And even though Stone made THE DOORS(1991) in MTV style to appeal to the ‘Generation X’, it was a confused mish-mash of styles. It was too slick for the Boomers and too dated for the X-ers. Most problematically, despite Stone’s ideological commitment to the People(the losers of the world), his ‘idol-ogical’ obsession was with the winners, the men of power, the conquerors, the warriors. He hit pay-dirt once again with BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY(not least because Tom Cruise starred in it) in 1989, but it was the previous movie, WALL STREET, that had the biggest lasting impact on culture. Ostensibly a damning criticism of New Wall Street and the culture of greed, it made a whole generation of kids want to be like Gordon Gekko. It was almost like a sequel to RISKY BUSINESS, another movie that is ostensibly critical of capitalist ethos but ends up celebrating it just the same. (And of course, everyone is awed by the robot in THE TERMINATOR and Hannibal Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.)
Oliver Stone’s egocentric and era-centric view of history tended to see all the world’s problems as stemming from unfinished business of the 1960s. From his series UNTOLD HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY, it's obvious that Stone has a deeper sense of history(than what happened in the 1960s), but he shares in the boomer self-regard that everything came to a head in the Counterculture Moment. While great things happened in earlier eras in history in different parts of the world, the Future of Humanity was to be decided in the 1960s. Why? For most of history, even in relatively prosperous America, most people had to struggle to have enough to eat. They were living for survival or subsistence. The majority of the people didn’t belong to the middle class. It wasn’t long ago that most Americans were farmers or factory workers. But after WWII, unprecedented numbers of people attended college, and their kids, the boomers, had an even greater chance of attending college and living a life based on personal meaning than moral dogma or material need. They didn’t have to worry about hunger or basic needs. Despite American Ideals of equality and justice, there simply hadn’t been enough to go around prior to the postwar boom to make the American Dream possible for most people. But in the 60s, the colleges were overflowing with students. And American industries were producing more than Americans could consume. So, the good life could be offered to just about any American(and its model was being exported all over the world). In material terms, America had overcome the economy of want. So, there was no more excuse to hold back the social and cultural revolutions. Even though past racial discrimination was unfortunate, could we really be too judgmental on white folks who also faced hard times and were desperate to find work? Or had to toil on farms from dawn to dusk? People who labor all their lives tend not to be the most generous people.
But postwar America was an affluent society, a land of plenty. So, the 1960s was a time to make things right for all Americans. America could finally afford it. And as the overseas European empires all faded, there was the promise of world peace. And even if US and USSR didn’t see each other eye-to-eye ideologically, weren’t both liberal democracy and communism founded on the same principles of the dignity of man? And unlike too many young people of earlier eras who had to find work right after basic schooling(or were held back by overall cultural conservatism), the youths of the 1960s had more time to read, dream, travel, think, and be creative, like in the Simon and Garfunkel song "America". They could seek out meaning and ask why instead of just grasping for what.
So, the boomer generation could be the most educated, knowledgeable, poetic, and philosophical. But the racial dynamics became derailed almost as soon as blacks won their greatest victory. Cities were burning, and blacks were running wild. And instead of peace, the US got embroiled in a war that never seemed to end. And the Counterculture became plagued with ‘bad vibes’ right smack in the Summer of Love. There was so much hope and promise, but so much went wrong. So, what happened? Well, I would say too many boomers were over-drugged idiots who got too immersed in childish hedonism and decadence. Also, the differences between the US and USSR were far deeper than many presumed because both systems were predicated on the notion that it’s vision of the future was the End of History. It wasn't easy to just end the Cold War there and then. One side had to win. As for the black issue, the problem was never just white ‘racism’. It was black genetics that led to the BAMMAMA factor, or Blacks-are-more-muscular-and-more-aggressive. Blacks were biologically predisposed to act more unruly, wild, and predatory, especially toward the weaker races. So, when blacks got more freedom, a lot of it was bound to be used on raising hell and acting like pathological lunatics.
Also, history is not guided by magic, and no moment in history, however pregnant in potential and promise, can fundamentally alter the core dynamics of power-lust and madness that will always determine the overall trajectory of mankind. There is no happy apotheosis in history. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the 60s had its share of tragedies as well as triumphs. But a fairytale-like cult grew up around the 1960s that wanted to believe that all that hope and glory for America(and all the world) was aborted because of a series of key events: The killing of John F. Kennedy and the coup in Camelot, the death of MLK and the resilience of white ‘racism’ that simply couldn’t give blacks a fair chance, and the Vietnam War. But many historians believe that Kennedy would have gotten the US involved in Vietnam. They also point out that Kennedy was not a ‘radical’ president and, if anything, Lyndon Johnson gave the Liberals pretty much all they demanded in terms of legislation. It is also possible that without the Vietnam War, the domestic situation could have been worse. After all, even as the war divided many people, it also galvanized support from broad swaths of Americans of all races. And before the media elites and even some in the military began to lose hope in winning the war, it had united both parties under Johnson. Indeed, the current polarization of America suggests that a nation can be badly divided during peace-time. Though the US is still embroiled in Afghanistan and Syria, it hardly makes the news and is barely picked up by the radar of public discourse. The current divisions in America are almost entirely a domestic issue, even though the large number of foreigners and foreign-born people in America complicate the issue of domestics vs international.
Oliver Stone is an interesting figure because he's been so hopelessly behind the times yet so eager to stay relevant in the changing world. Except for WALL STREET and TALK RADIO(which I still haven’t seen), the bulwark of Stone’s films were either set in or defined by the 60s(which would include the early 70s). SALVADOR takes place in the 80s, but it replays all the themes about Vietnam and Cuba. He made the Vietnam Trilogy: PLATOON, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, and HEAVEN AND EARTH(one of his best but dismissed by both critics and the audience). He made THE DOORS, JFK, and NIXON(his best work). His documentaries about Latin America and Russia(and Putin) are informed by Stone’s worldview that developed in the 60s and early 70s. According to Nixon, the US could have had good relations with the USSR and Latin America even during the Cold War. The real aggressor was not the communist bloc but the US and capitalist world. While Stone clearly overstates his case(and showed excessive enthusiasm for has-been Fidel Castro[who really missed his chance to be a great man] and the repugnant idiot Hugo Chavez who, in his own way, was as idiotic as George W. Bush, his arch-enemy.) But if the Cold War was the excuse for the rift between the US and USSR(and its allies) in years past, why are relations between the US and Russia worse than ever? Of course, we know why — Jews control the US and they hate Russia — , and most likely, Oliver Stone knows too, but he knows he can’t go there. If Stone was overly zealous about the US as the source of most problems during the Cold War — most likely due to his sense of betrayal by the national institutions during the Vietnam War — , he has grown into a kind of elder-statesmen among cultural figures in the 21st century. He has been critical of Obama as well as of George W. Bush. He admires figures like Edward Snowden who blew the whistle on the NSA violations of civil liberties. He is generally above partisan politics. He will call foul on both sides even if he’s been on the American Left. Stone identifies the real locus of American Power not in the government but in the Deep State. Though his depiction of this power was rather loony in JFK, the recent events with FBI, CIA, NSA, and their close relations with big media, academia & think-tanks, and corporate power to bring down Donald Trump indicates that Stone was onto something, and it has gotten even scarier over the years with the virtual ethno-monopoly of all institutions and top industries by Jewish Supremacist Power. While Stone can empathize with men like George W. Bush(his movie W. is pretty solid) and Obama, he doesn’t respect them. They are too phony, too manufactured, too controlled. And too willing-to-be-controlled for personal ego or gain. As critical of Nixon and contemptuous of men like J. Edgar Hoover as Stone has been, I would wager he has more ‘respect’ for them than for cardboard cutouts like Bush II and Obama. NIXON the film is a tragedy of a politician as a perennial outsider who, being so disliked and detested by the Establishment, felt compelled to do things his way because it was the only way it could be done in the Capitol where so few were willing to work with him in good faith. Hoover is presented as a sinister figure in NIXON, but he understands what real power is... as does Mao whom Nixon eventually meets. These are all men who, by hook and crook, moved mountains to get their hands on real power. It is with Kennedy that Stone gets a bit soft-headed, probably because of the assassination that opened up a whole can of worms about ‘what really happened’. Was Kennedy just another sleazy politician who was killed by some lone lunatic? Or was he killed by the System because he was about to smash the CIA and pull back from Vietnam and work toward some kind of rapprochement with Russia? Did the Bay of Pigs fiasco alert Kennedy as to the psychotic nature of the Deep State? Did Kennedy begin as just a pretty face born with a silver spoon but grow into a transformational president as he became genuinely inspired and affected by the spirit of the age in the early 60s? Historians disagree, but the Kennedy Myth(more than the Kennedy the man) is useful to Stone as the last chance for the Dream to prevail in America. According to Stone, Kennedy’s death led to Johnson who brought us the Vietnam War, and the death of Bobby Kennedy led to the triumph of Nixon. And yet, Stone has a begrudging respect for Nixon because, all said and done, he was so hated by the system. (Indeed, Nixon's gripe was that the system loved Kennedy too much.) In some ways, he was hated far more than Kennedy ever was(if he was). In one way, Watergate was triumph of US democracy. Stone said that, as a young man, he was riveted by the movie ALL THE KING’S MEN, but upon doing his own research, he realized that it’s mostly BS. Even though NIXON doesn’t suggest it, Stone likely wondered if Watergate was used by the System to remove Nixon. Could it have been a palace coup?
At any rate, one has to respect Stone for never having lost his fire as a critic and challenger of the system. So, if so many on the ‘left’ chose to shut their mouths about Obama’s continuance of Neocon policies in the Middle East and needless provocation of Russia, Stone called out on it. He didn’t play the role of partisan hack. The very progs who sided with Latin American leftist regimes against Bush were suddenly silent about Obama-and-Hillary’s maneuvering(at the behest of Jewish globalists) to undermine every leftist regime in Cental and South America. The very progs who cheered Wikileaks and Bradley Manning in the Bush era were either silent about or hostile toward Edward Snowden who spilled the beans on the NSA during the Obama era. And when Wikileaks released information on DNC collusion, especially against Bernie Sanders, the progs turned into total partisan hacks and attacked Julian Assange and even called for his assassination. Also, the very progs who had opposed Bush’s warmongering activities around the world were totally on-board with Obama’s ‘new cold war’ with Russia(all at the behest of Jewish globalists who totally controlled him). And after Trump won in 2016, the very people who’d been harping about the evil of Red Scare and Joe McCarthy over several decades pushed the most ludicrous hysteria about Russia behind just about everything that is going wrong with the US. Even though Obama himself endorsed BLM, we are to believe that the racial divisions stemming from BLM had to do with a few Russian ads bought on Facebook. Even though the Big Media and Deep State clearly colluded with the DNC to push Hillary over the top, we are believe that the real collusion was between Putin and Trump. All this hysteria is a testament to how foul, ugly, and venal Jewish personality can be and how idiotic and moronic the cuck-mentality can be.
But then, we've had a two party system and a school of journalism where the Truth is whatever the holy-wonderful-fantastic Jews say it is. Since Jews insist on and push the crazy narrative on Russia, it must be true. The reason why Trump wants better relations with Russia must owe to Putin having something on Trump. The sheer insanity of such willful paranoia and deception has resulted in at least one thing. More Americans are waking up to the fact of how utterly deranged Jewish personality and power are. Also, it’s becoming pretty clear that goy cucks are either really stupid(and will believe anything, even stuff that Jews privately don’t believe) or opportunistic(and will say ANYTHING to get their leg up in the Jew-run media; of course, if the Jews were to hand out orders to stop with the anti-Russia hatred and start calling Putin ‘uncle’, these cucks will do just that).
Oliver Stone, who'd been a useful cudgel to the Boomer Left in the Reagan 80s, has become an albatross around its neck. The Boomer Left promoted Stone too far as a name and brand to totally disavow him now. After all, Stone was a much celebrated figure who was awarded with Oscars and favorable press. He was seen as the bane of the American Right, and the American Spectator ran a story about him as Leni-Riefenstahl-of-the-Left(even though Stone’s montage-laden works have more in common with the Soviet great Sergei Eisenstein, though not too much). And over the years, Stone has gained many fans from the younger generation of ‘progressives’. For awhile, he seemed like a miracle: The only out-of-the-closet radical film-maker working in Hollywood. In the 80s, Hollywood Democrats found Stone useful against Reaganist triumphalism(as Cold War drew to a close) and what they saw as Vietnam Revisionism. After all, wasn’t the consensus after the war that it had been a huge tragedy(if not a crime) for the US to have gotten involved? Now, Ronald Reagan wasn’t willing to re-fight the war. His idea was that America did what it felt was right at the time, and that Vietnam veterans should be honored, especially as so many of them had been insulted and defamed as ‘baby killers’ and worse. But the RAMBO phenomenon was something else, especially with similar-themed movies about how the US could have won if it had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by politicians and the media. Stallone's muscle-head war porn was preceded by the less insane UNCOMMON VALOR, but these movies all seemed to re-fight the war in the realm of fantasy, like professional wrestling. So, if the Vietnam War Memorial represented the need to bury the hatchet, these neo-patriotic gung-ho movies dug it out(if only for box-office play). For all its problems, PLATOON was a necessary film because of this cartoonish stupidity on the ‘Hollywood Right’. (Stallone’s degeneration from the wonderful writer-actor of the first ROCKY to the Jock-Moron of RAMBO and ROCKY sequels was hard to stomach). While the Media commemorated the 60s and the boomer generation with so many articles in the 80s, the overwhelming mood was that the 60s were so over and had no relevance in the era of "I Love L.A." and "We Built This City". Jefferson Airplane, one of the edgiest and confrontational acts of the 1960s, had in the 70s turned into a mellow hit machine called Jefferson Starship that, in the 80s, cranked out a few plasticine tunes for MTV(though I rather like them). As if to accentuate the passing of the last remnants of the 60s, the 1980 ended with the death of John Lennon. If the Beatles livened up America after the death of the young John F. Kennedy, it was up to elderly Reagan to restore American patriotism and confidence in the aftermath of the 1970s that had been like one long coda to the battles of the earlier decade. Up to the fall of Saigon, the US found it difficult to shake free of the cultural and psychological debris of the 60s. There was promise of new beginning with Bicentennial and the Carter presidency, but America got mired in host of new problems, and the ghosts of the 60s came back hard with the Boat people fiasco. And even though US didn’t get involved in Iran, the taking of US hostages was like the Fall of Saigon all over again. (It also anticipated all the problems the US would have in the Middle East, not least because Carter began the process of arming Afghan rebels against the Soviet occupiers.) As for cultural fads, disco was very big for awhile, but it faded faster than hippie-dom because it was without any meaning. As for the punk culture, it would have a baleful effect, especially in the UK. One of the worst trends was the popularity of cocaine that, along with its derivative crack, would ruin so many lives, indeed far worse than pot and LSD ever did. Also, the sexual revolution that began in the 60s really took off in the 70s, especially among the homos, and this would lead to the AIDS epidemic in the ‘gay’ community. A lot of these awful trends continued well into the 80s and, in many ways, never went away(or got worse with drugs like meth). But for awhile, it seemed like America really was coming back. There was an economic boom of sorts, and America really began to surge in high-tech, which it would totally dominate by the 1990s with the rise of the internet. Also, the relative and precipitous decline of the USSR made the US seem even more powerful. As for Japan, it was a double-edged sword for the US. On the one hand, it made for great propaganda for the ‘free world’. Capitalist Japan allied with the US was so much richer than Red China and USSR. But, for a time, there were fears that Japan would become #1 with its work ethic, cohesiveness, and mercantile practices. Reagan was popular because, deep down inside, he wasn’t really a conservative ideologue or a man of ideas. He was a conservative in the emotional and cultural sense. He liked symbols and slogans that reminded him of American pride, patriotism, and prosperity. His main beef with the 60s generation was their ungrateful attitude. Though Reagan didn’t approve of the beatnik manners and hippie fashions, what really angered him was the lack of patriotism and respect among what he deemed to be spoiled rotten kids. But his ease with celebrities of all kinds suggests he was willing to be tolerant of a wide array of people as long as they were patriotic and not anti-American. He was good friends with a number of Hollywood fruiters. And that is why so many people in the 1980s found Reagan to be endearing. Even though Reagan was allied with the Christian Right, he wasn’t an overt moralist or sermonizer. He seemed willing to live-and-let-live as long as Americans of all stripes shared in the general sense of pride in the American nation.
But for some on the Democratic side, especially the Jews, Reaganism represented so much of what they detested about America. By the 1980s, most Jews were not communist or even socialist. They were deeply invested in the success of capitalism, and even many former 60s Jewish radicals had found lucrative positions in the market economy. And some were about to become super-rich like no one could believe. But both the brazenly capitalist Jews and symbolically leftist Jews(who also practiced capitalism in practice) despised Reagan. For nasty Wall Street Jews, Reagan was a dupe and fool who really believed in all that stuff about free enterprise and American liberty. As far as they were concerned, Reaganism was a license for the savvy and devious(such as themselves) to find ways to rig the game and steal as much as possible. Reagan sincerely believed that fewer regulations would lead to more competition and best outcome for everyone. But especially in the labyrinthine world of finance and high-tech, this wasn’t going to happen. Because both elite finance and elite tech were understood and mastered by so few, they were bound to be a game of insiders and the well-connected. And the collusion of high-tech and big finance led to the Dot.com bubble fiasco of the 1990s. By hyping the optimism of the Internet Age, the matrix of Finance, Media, and High Tech(all heavily dominated by Jews) fooled almost the entire nation that everyone was going to get rich by investing in all these start-up companies, 99% of which turned out to be worthless. So, while the savvy Jews appreciated what Reagan did for people such as themselves in the New Economy, they laughed at his sincerity and naivete as to what would really happen if psycho-nerds were allowed to run wild on Wall Street and Silicon Valley. As for the Jewish Leftists, despite their private acknowledgment that capitalism was definitely superior to communism/socialism, they’d staked too much pride(as Jews and ideologues) in their commitment to ‘progress’ that had become synonymous with the Boomer Left. But with the fall of communism and triumph of capitalism, what were these Jews supposed to do, especially since they were making lots of money as capitalists too? The New Leftism just became anything associated with themes and idols that happened to be anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-traditional, and anti-goy-nationalist. And for awhile, anti-military. After all, Reagan put military buildup(especially the making and deployment of more nuclear bombs) at the centerpiece of his rollback policy against the ‘Evil Empire’. And with movies like RAMBO, it seemed as if the American Right was revved up to take on the world.
Then, it is understandable why someone like Oliver Stone seemed so heaven-sent to the Hollywood Left in the 1980s. The message of PLATOON seemed to condemn American jingoism and neo-imperialism. After all, the Anti-War stance was crucial to the Counterculture and opposition to both Johnson(seen by some as usurper of Kennedy’s throne) and Richard Nixon. As Vietnam War ended badly and Hollywood’s creative departments liberalized for the good part of the 1970s, there were a number of sour anti-war movies about Vietnam. COMING HOME and APOCALYPSE NOW were championed by many critics(though some later questioned if Coppola’s treatment of John Milius’s screenplay was really anti-war). THE DEER HUNTER was also praised by many critics as an anti-war movie with grim scenes of violence, but there was a backlash from some critics who said it was really a right-wing movie since the Viet Cong were made out to be a bunch of sadistic degenerates and because, despite the film’s ambivalence about America’s role in Vietnam, the American soldiers/veterans were presented as capital fellows deserving of our love, support, and sympathy. Oddly enough, Stallone’s first Rambo movie, FIRST BLOOD, was politically ambiguous and could be seen as anti-war and pro-war. On the one hand, Rambo was like the characters in EASY RIDER: Just some guy minding his own business harassed and wronged by petty small-town folks. But by the end of the movie, it seems he’s really angry because the system didn’t let him win the war, the only thing he was ever good for. As the decade progressed however, the violence in movies grew more outlandish and cartoonish. Compare ROCKY with ROCKY III and especially IV. Compare DIRTY HARRY with THE TERMINATOR. Tough guys turned into muscle-heads. Was it the influence of video-games, rise of Lucas-Spielberg, MTV aesthetics, and soulless yuppie narcissism/materialism? Did it have something to do with rise of ‘gay’ sensibility, a mutation of disco silliness? Even as violence got more extreme, it seemed less real(something that couldn’t have been said about Peckinpah, Scorsese, and Coppola’s use of violence in the 1970s), like in James Cameron’s ALIENS that was like RAMBO in outer-space. With certain movies, as with ROBOCOP, some critics maintained that such films were actually sly satires on the fascist-ization of America in the law-and-order Reagan 80s. When such violence was limited to fantasy, perhaps they couldn’t have done much harm. Who’s going to mistake PREDATOR with any kind of reality. But Oliver Stone likely and justifiably took umbrage at movies like RAMBO that extended cartoonish fantasies to real events and real moral issues, such as "Could the US have won the war in Vietnam?" And it was for this reason that PLATOON was such a landmark movie at the time(though, in retrospect, it wasn’t all that great; year earlier, the Soviet Union made COME AND SEE, also a war movie with some of the grimmest depictions of violence; oddly enough, even though COME AND SEE and PLATOON are far more realistic in their presentation of violence, they too are not without cartoonish and maudlin elements in characterization and dialogue; the Nazis in COME AND SEE are cartoon villains, and Willem Defoe and Tom Berenger in PLATOON are like ‘angel on my shoulder’ and ‘devil on my shoulder’; also, Stone, as the writer for works like MIDNIGHT EXPRESS and SCARFACE, often indulged in sensationalism and overstatement).
Anyway, even though the anti-war message of Stone’s movies was useful to the Hollywood Left as cultural ammo against ‘militarist’ Reaganism, Jews had mixed feelings about opposing the American military. For one thing, putting down the US military was never good for elections. Also, the reason why Reagan in 1980 got over 40% of the Jewish vote was due to fears that the US would not be fully prepared militarily to come to the rescue of Israel in the Middle East that was, back then, filled with Arab regimes with close ties with the USSR. And the 80s was also the era of ‘Save Soviet Jews’. Furthermore, as Reagan and Gorbachev moved closer to a nuclear deal, maybe the Gipper was NOT about to blow up the world with nukes and leave us with the Day-After blues. Finally and most importantly, some forward-looking Jews were surely thinking of the post-Cold-War future. Via contacts with Jews in the USSR, they would have known that the Soviet Empire was on shaky legs and could soon be no more. Then, with the US as the sole superpower, just think of all the stuff that Jewish elites could do around the world to further Jewish interests and crush the enemies of Israel. So, why be so anti-war and anti-military? Consider the Jews who were divided about the Gulf War. Due to their roots in the Anti-war movement of the 60s, many of them had a knee-jerk antipathy toward supporting another war, especially as Iraq was hyped as a fearsome power. Many predicted that tens of thousands of Americans would die in the war. It would be Vietnam all over again. But many powerful Jews of both political parties wanted Iraq crushed because it was one of the viable rivals of Israel in the region. Also, some of the biggest opponents of the war were Paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan and goy columnists like Mike Royko. (Buchanan was accused by Abe Rosenthal of 'blood libel' for suggesting that white and black soldiers would be sacrificed at the altar of Zionist interests.) And later in the 90s, with Russia on the ropes, Jews in the Clinton administration were eager to get the US involved in the Bosnian War to take over the region. Also, by making a big stink about how the good ole USA had come to the rescue of Muslims against Christian Serbs in Bosnia, the US could use it as moral leverage when it later invaded Muslim nations: "How could the US be anti-Muslim when it’d gone out of its way to defend Muslims from Serbians in Bosnia?"
With changing world dynamics, Oliver Stone increasingly became something of a burden to the Hollywood Left that was essentially Zionist and Jewish-supremacist. Indeed, even the Jewish Left's opposition to the Vietnam War hadn’t been entirely ideological. Rather, Jews regarded it as a Wasp War that would disgrace and discredit the right-wing military if the US were to lose. But by the late 80s, Jewish position in media, academia, finance, and much else was far more secure, and since civilian power controls the military in the US, Jews understood that the Pentagon was on the cusp of becoming the War Toy of the Jewish-Zionist Globalists. (Jewish Hollywood generally makes paranoid & antiwar movies during a Republican presidency and pro-government movies during a Democratic presidency. Notice that THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT was made at the height of the Bill Clinton presidency. And while there were no movies about dead Iraqi kids and anti-war movies about Bosnia during the Clinton presidency, there were the BOURNE movies, V FOR VENDETTA, and a host of anti-war movies during the Bush II presidency. There was almost no anti-war or anti-Deep-State ‘paranoid’ movies during the Obama presidency. And during the Trump presidency, the Deep State is seen as the last hope by the Jewish-run media.)
Indeed, JFK became a problematic movie for Jews and Liberals as years went by. Made during the George H.W. Bush presidency, it was useful as a ‘progressive’ assault on government power. Because Republicans held the presidency from 1968 to 1992 except for the Carter years and because the Cold War came to an end only in final yrs of the 1980s, many on the Left still regarded the Government with deep suspicion. Maybe the state was into neo-Red-Scare hysteria and promoted neo-jingoism. And wasn't the CIA was up to nasty stuff all over the world by propping up ‘right-wing’ regimes? And for most of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the FBI was associated in Progressive minds with federal war on leftists, radicals, blacks, and American Indians. (Michael Apted and Robert Redford collaborated on INCIDENT AT OGALA: THE LEONARD PELTIER STORY. Redford later directed THUNDERHEART.) For the longest time, the FBI was synonymous with J. Edgar Hoover in the minds of the Left, and the CIA was the organization that took out leftist darling Salvador Allende in Chile and had something to do with funding Contras in Nicaragua when William Casey ran the show. So, it’s understandable why Stone's JFK was much beloved by Liberals. Roger Ebert(and it's difficult to think of a more mainstream movie critic) wrote in his review: "Well, do you know anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald acted all by himself in killing Kennedy? I don't. I've been reading the books and articles for the last 25 years, and I've not found a single convincing defense of the Warren Commission report, which arrived at that reassuring conclusion. It's impossible to believe the Warren report because the physical evidence makes its key conclusion impossible: One man with one rifle could not physically have caused what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. If one man could not have, then there must have been two. Therefore, there was a conspiracy... Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone. Who acted with him? Who knew?"
Gene Siskel(on the TV show with Ebert) said JFK is a necessary movie because it reawakened the nation what happened in 1963. Supposedly, the killing had been so traumatic and benumbing to the American psyche that it led to prolonged amnesia and apathy about politics, and Oliver Stone deserves credit for stirring American Consciousness to revisit the event. But, I must ask, does Siskel not remember the 60s? The ten years following the Kennedy assassination was anything BUT apathetic. The apathy set in only in the 70s because everyone was burned out from the riots, war, civil strife, and scandals.
Anyway, while Hollywood had made many movies about conspiracies before, JFK was different because it didn't merely allude to a historical event but accused the Entire Power Structure of having carried out a murderous coup against the President of the United States. Hollywood was playing for very high-stakes. JFK the movie came out in 1991 when many Liberals weren’t sure that a Democrat or Boomer would win the presidency in 1992. They were desperate to undermine traditional trust and authority to create a space for Boomer takeover of power against Bush, once a CIA man. In the election of 1992, the Liberal Media exaggerated a mild recession as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Jews and boomers were that desperate to get their guy in.
And, Bill Clinton did win(signaling the twilight of the 'Greatest Generation'), and it heralded the Boomer takeover of the American Establishment. All the elite institutions and industries — Wall Street, High Tech, FBI, CIA, Ivy League, etc, — increasingly came to be dominated by the Boomers, and Jews were the most powerful and successful among them. While Jewish power among the ‘Greatest Generation’ had been considerable, it was NOTHING like Jewish power among the Boomers. So, while a movie like JFK was useful against American Conservatism and Republican presidencies, it became problematic as Liberals gained control over just about everything that mattered. Then, it is not surprising that Hollywood gave the world THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and the Martin Sheen TV series THE WEST WING. And of course, one of the biggest cultural events of the 90s was FORREST GUMP, a movie that says goyim best be dummies who should just leave it all up to fate(while Jews are pulling all the strings) because, golly gee whiz, you might end up with a box of chocolates on your lap. (And in CONTACT, the government is all good while the real danger comes from some blonde-and-blue eyed Nazi Christian lunatic. Apparently, the government is trying to unite all the lifeforms in the galaxy while national-earthlings want to keep things local.) All of a sudden, the Power was good. People should trust the government. THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT was directed by none other than Rob Reiner, or Meathead on ALL IN THE FAMILY who was always so distrustful of the Official Story and the Power. The rise of the Homo Agenda also didn’t like the fact that one of the arch-villains in JFK was a twirly-headed tootkin played by Tommy Lee Jones(in one of the most ridiculously funny roles of all time).
JFK didn’t just question the Warren Commission but boldly(and recklessly) speculated(in a style that might make Alex Jones blush) that ALL the government agencies(and even LBJ himself) were involved in the hit. As years passed, a certain discomfort, if not hostility, would grow in Liberal circles. Even though Stone could indeed be nutty and over-the-top(and contradictory), he was genuinely committed to playing a contrarian and oppositional role in American politics. (The contradiction was that, in decrying US hegemony, he sometimes over-idealized and even cozied up to anti-American dictators and demagogues like Fidel Castro.) So, while many Liberal Boomers were no longer interested in anti-government politics since THEY now had the power, Stone stuck to it. While Liberal boomers tolerated Stone throughout the 90s and then found renewed interest in him during Bush II years, their ambivalence turned into outright hostility during the Obama years when Stone publicly said Obama furthered Neocon wars & needlessly alienated Russia and that Edward Snowden is a hero of sorts. This was too much for the Power Progs who have zero sense of principles. For Power Progs, ‘hysteria’ is what Joe McCarthy did in the early 50s, not what they are doing now. It's like 'hate' is an emotion felt only by their enemies, not by themselves. According to Prog Power logic, defending free speech is what radicals did in Berkeley in the 1960s, not the struggle against PC(enforced by Jewish control of media and big tech). Whistle-blowing is what Daniel Ellsberg did during the Nixon administration, not what Snowden did. While Snowden did have a considerable following among certain more principled Progressives, the Power Progs accused him of treason and would love to hang him high, not least because he ended up seeking sanctuary in Russia(though not by choice).
Meanwhile, Oliver Stone’s star has risen among some on the Right. Even though many on the Right still find his ideology too nostalgic(for the 60s) and outdated, they can’t help but acknowledge his courage and independence(relative, of course, in a world of weasels and sharks that dominate journalism and academia) as a Public Intellectual-and-Artist. And even though Stone tends to make crap when he gets carried away — JFK is a ridiculous movie that turns into self-parody — , he has the capacity for empathy, nuance, and even bigness of heart that made NIXON and HEAVEN AND EARTH into works of art. NIXON was especially interesting as it seemed to imply that the boomer generation that had grown up by defining itself against the Man may have become even worse and more corrupt. WALL STREET, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and NATURAL BORN KILLERS seem to indict that the financial, idolatrous, and cultural world dominated by Boomers was many times more nihilistic, brazen, and excessive than anything prior. With NATURAL BORN KILLERS(failed satire if there ever was one), Stone even acknowledged partial blame for the sensationalization of culture. He desperately tried to moralize Tarantino's nihilistic script.
According to Stone, America was always about greed BUT the Wall Street of Old(his father’s generation) still had some sense of limits. And in depicting Nixon’s childhood, Stone shows how shame and morality were once vital to American ethos. (Granted, Stone’s view of Old American moralism is ambivalent. It was about tough men and women laying down the law and raising their kids to be righteous and hard-working. But it was also harsh & repressive and suppressed the development of souls at ease with their own nature. So, when Nixon the young moralist came face to face with the way of power, he could only become an obscene hypocrite.) With THE DOORS, Stone both glorified the liberating energies of Counterculture and lamented its ugly self-destructiveness. The fire had been lit but consumed so many souls. Jim Morrison was one of the many casualties of the Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll lifestyle. Stone found it especially tragic in Morrison’s case because he aimed to be something more than a star; he wanted to be a poet, maybe even a prophet, the Lizard King. But he died pathetically in a bathtub. (But then, Elvis Presley, who railed against 60s drug culture and made common cause with Nixon, also ended up as bad as Morrison and Nixon.) There was always corruption, but the dividing line between the Before 60s and After 60s was the element of shame. Prior to the rise of boomers, Shame had been a cardinal feature of American culture and politics, for good and ill. In the positive sense, public figures genuinely felt ashamed and contrite when they were caught in some scandal. In the negative, it was easy to find dirt on anyone and use it for blackmail in an overly moralistic society, the theme of ADVISE AND CONSENT by Otto Preminger. J. Edgar Hoover and Media Moguls often used dirt on others not to make society cleaner but to pull even dirtier tricks. It’s like what happens to Welles’ character in CITIZEN KANE. A crooked politician derails Kane’s candidacy with a sex scandal.
A good thing about a more shameless society is that people are more tolerant of the imperfection of men. So, when they find out that some politician did some hanky-panky, they don’t get overly triggered or outraged. But the dark side of the loss of shame is a society that is outlandishly, excessively, and trashily exhibitionistic about its filth and ugliness. At the very least, there was the theme of liberation in the 1960s, a sense of rebellion from repressive social norms. But look at the kids in DAZED AND CONFUSED. They grew up into a world of shameless excess. They are not bad kids(and can be funny as hell, especially pothead Slater), but they seem totally comfortable with their mostly stupid self-indulgence. And now, it’s gotten even worse and more shameless, what with even people who graduate from elite schools acting like whores, getting ass tattoos-piercings-purple-hair, and wallowing in the pornification of culture. Also, it’s one thing to tolerate flaws in people. It’s something else to encourage and celebrate the excessiveness, whether it comes from Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. Of course, it’s so disingenuous of the progs to bitch and whine about the uncouth and boorish aspects of Donald Trump when they were the controllers of TV, Hollywood, music industry, fashion, pornography, and Homo agenda that utterly vulgarized society. To progs, even Churches should be decorated with symbols of homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. Magazines for young women urge them to strap on dildos and ‘peg’(or anal-brutalize) their men. Nowadays, feminists have nothing to discuss but ‘my vagina this’ and ‘my vagina that’. And yet, these vulgar and trashy idiots are also throwing fits about Trump the ‘pussy grabber’ and wallowing in the #MeToo movement. One of the downsides of a shameless culture is it also leads to a less reflective and less self-aware one. The romantic streak in Oliver Stone relished the liberating Dionysian force of 60s Counterculture, but the moralistic side of him recoiled from the demonic forces it had unleashed. At the very least, the Counterculture came with big themes. Even as they were having a good time, it wasn’t only about that. In THE DOORS, Stone portrays Morrison as a seeker of truth, a poet, a shaman, a man on a Vision Quest. Sure, he likes to party and flies off the handle sometimes, BUT he also sees American Indians in his drug-induced reveries and seeks reunion with the long buried pagan soul. So, he wasn’t using drugs only for recreation(like how kids smoke weed in DAZED AND CONFUSED and yuppies snorted coke in the 80s). Drugs were seen as aids to the Other World, as suggested by Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, and other characters. But over time, the themes had evaporated and all that was left was the thrills and the kick. And that is why Stone was so appalled by the culture of the 90s depicted in NATURAL BORN KILLERS. It had roots in the youth rebellion and free love movements in the 1960s, BUT the addiction to the High was no longer rooted in anything real, substantive, or meaningful. The Indian in NBK says to the killer, ‘Too much TV’. A yuppie version of NBK, made about a decade earlier, was LOST IN AMERICA by Albert Brooks where all the talk of freedom and rebellion(and touching Indians) turns into a Winnebago vacation until the money runs out(in Las Vegas of all places), which takes the couple to NY, NY. Another film that caught the new mood was TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. by William Friedkin. And I had no idea back in 1985 that AFTER HOURS by Martin Scorsese would be so utterly anticipatory in the rise of a soulless globo-homo NY. When the boomers finally captured power in the 90s with the Clinton presidency, the only thing that really mattered was creating a world fit for Lawyers in Love. Clinton signed onto Free Trade, Deregulation of Wall Street, pandered to the worst hedonistic tendencies, unleashed the vain & narcissistic Homos, and rode high on the Dot.com Bubble Economy. If people like Newt Gringrich were upset with Billy Boy Clinton, it was because the latter had lifted so much from the GOP platform.
If Reagan(and Margaret Thatcher across the pond), in all his naivete, had believed in the moral tenets of his socio-economic philosophy — less government and more enterprise makes for a more dynamic and productive society and less waste — , the ONLY thing Clinton and Boomer elites cared about was, "Is it good for us?" So, while Reagan-inspired Conservative thinkers throughout the Clinton and Bush II presidencies supported the philosophy of ‘free markets’ out of some principled-but-misguided commitment to ‘liberty’, the Boomer globalists and progs just ran with it because it was working to make them rich. Even though the ‘conservative’ boomers made more noises about the wonders of free enterprise, there were plenty of liberal boomers(especially Jews) who were just as good or even better at business. Also, because the Liberals controlled the media and academia, they set the prevailing Narrative and Dogma for all. So, even ‘conservatives’ had to agree that the far right(like the Nazis) were worse than the far left, that ‘racism’(esp by whites) was the greatest sin, MLK should be worshiped like the second coming of Jesus, it was great for women to take jobs from men, and etc. It got to the point of Conservatives meekly arguing that ‘liberals are the real racists’(because ‘socialism’ really hurts blacks), ‘liberals are the real sexists’(because they won’t condemn Muslim traditionalism on the sexes), and ‘liberals are the real anti-Semites’(because they suck Zionist cock but don’t always swallow). ‘Conservatives’ even came around to telling themselves stuff like ‘gay marriage is a conservative value’. The fact is most business types don't start out with much interest in politics or big ideas. They’d rather think about money, technology, and systems. But people don’t live on money alone, and these vain materialists also want to see themselves as men of vision. Now, where do they get their ideas and news from? Media controlled by Jews. And where do they get educated? Academia controlled by Jews. Also, most business types are not glamorous — just look at Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and etc. — , and in order for them to get close to celebrities, they have to suck up to Hollywood ‘values’.
As the 1990s progressed, people like Bill Clinton and other Boomers came to realize that they are the Man, the System, the Deep State, and the Power. And two major events happened in the 1990s that accentuated this shift. One was Federal Government vs the Cult Compound at Waco. The Left that had decried the government’s war on American Indian radicals and Black Panthers in the 1970s was fully on the side of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno(even though there were some leftist mavericks who condemned the New Power as well). If many on the Right had been willing to give the government the benefit of a doubt in the 60s and 70s when the biggest domestic threats came from the Left and blacks, there was growing sense in the 1990s that the State was the main enemy of the Right. There was mutual paranoia between the white militia movement and the Deep State. Militias saw globalist goons, and the State(increasingly controlled by Jews) saw 'nazis' in any white-conscious movement. The 1988 Costa Gavras movie BETRAYED foresaw the growing rift.
Bill Clinton banned Assault Rifles, and then Waco disaster happened. And then, there was the Oklahoma bombing. Many suspected Muslims, but the perpetrators turned out to be ‘Angry White People’. While Timothy McVeigh did have a sympathetic ear from maverick Gore Vidal, most Americans across the political spectrum were shocked and appalled. And Liberals made a lot of noise about the culture of paranoia that believed in ‘black helicopters’(and various conspiracy theories about the death of Vince Foster and etc). Both the Right and Left were pretty amnesiac about this major shift in political culture. Throughout the 60s and 70s, the main purveyors of conspiracy theories came from the Left. Indeed, the Watergate Scandal began as a conspiracy theory of how the break-in couldn’t have been pulled off by a few rogue over-zealous men. Over time, even Big Media rode on the conspiracy theory of a coverup and how the scandal went all the way to Nixon himself. Also, the Left was running high on conspiracy theories of how the CIA had been behind Allende’s ouster in Chile. PBS documentaries on Castro and Cuba never failed to mention how the CIA had worked with the mafia to cook up all sorts of bizarre assassination schemes. (And in the 1980s, Reagan was almost brought down by a conspiracy theory that linked the selling of arms to Iran to the funding of Contras in Nicaragua.) The fact is some of these conspiracy theories turned out to be true. Even though we still don’t know the full extent of Watergate scandal, it seems Nixon knew a lot more than he let on. And yes, the CIA did have a hand in the coup in Chile. And even though Lee Harvey Oswald seems to have killed JFK, there are lots of murky and weird facts about the event, and the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby made it even stranger. And yes, there was some funny business in the 1980s with Iran and Nicaragua. And the story about Enron and Bernie Madoff proved that there are foul deeds happening between the government and big business. Enron fiasco was enabled by Republican politicians, while Madoff was able to get away with so much rot because he made a lot of money for Jews for a couple of decades. And the recent Theranos scandal makes us wonder to what extent these people in Deep State and Deep Pockets are just clueless & incompetent or venal & mendacious.
We know Elizabeth Holmes is a sociopath but what about all the illustrious people around her? This is why we don’t need outlandish conspiracy theories. Just look at events closely, and we can dig up so much filth and rottenness. Take the Jewish(Russian and American) collusion in the 1990s to fleece Russia of its wealth. Look what happened with Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Look at all the foul US operations against Iran. We don’t need to cook up wild conspiracy theories. Just take a cold look at the facts and read between the lines of what’s really happening, and there are conspiracies to be found all over the place. This Russian Collusion nonsense is a total conspiracy of Deep State, Media, Jewish Power, and etc. As Ryan Dawson says of 9/11, we don’t have to go to Alex Jones levels of kookiness to find a lot of dark facts about what really may have happened. And much of it is an ‘ethnospiracy’ or ethno-conspiracy of the Jews.
As Jews and Liberal Boomers took over the Power and all the institutions, they learned to stop worrying and love the Deep State and Deep Pockets. They still found the utility of conspiracy theories and culture of paranoia now and then, especially during Republican presidencies, but they began to realize that the main conspiracy-theorizing was happening on the American Right than on the Left. With each passing year, the Right(at least the Dissident Right, Independent Right, maverick Right, and what later came to be called Alternative Right) was more likely to question the Power, decry the War State, and call for more transparency in intelligence services. To be sure, the radical left is still anti-system, but as its main enemy happens to be ‘Nazis’(which now means anything from support for Traditional Marriage to White Nationalism), its members are willing to make common cause with anyone and anything — even the FBI, CIA, Wall Street, Hollywood, and Big Media — against what they consider to be the greatest evil. (As for the Pop Culture Left and their shenanigans with stuff like ‘pussy hats’, their ideology can be summed up as ‘Too Much TV’.) In the 60s and 70s, Jews and radicals came up with tons of alternative journals and magazines. And even MSM had its share of journalists who were sympathetic to Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, the North Vietnamese, and such ‘anti-American’ forces. (Indeed, it’s been argued by some that Herbert Matthews of NYT played a crucial role in aiding Castro to power. NYT also hired Jon Lee Anderson, the hagiographer of Che Guevara, for reports on Latin America. But, more recently, the MSM’s dismissal of Chris Hedges indicates that Jews are now totally for power. Hedges had been useful for Jews during the Bush II presidency, but when he continued to call out on US imperialism under Obama, he was no longer welcome in any part of American Media. As the result, he had to find work with RT.)
A man like Oliver Stone is now clearly a liability for the Jews and the current 'left', the main ‘ideology’ or ‘idolatry’ of which is globo-homo zeal to spread ‘gay marriage’ all over the world and to destroy nationalism everywhere but in Israel. Recently, Jews have also waged character assassinations on Gore Vidal. When Vidal the haute-leftist Wasp had directed his invective and sarcasm at the Wasp-controlled neo-imperialism or Republican-led Cold War, he was most useful to Jews as a critic and commentator. But as Jews took over America and became the new neo-imperialist overlords of globo-homo hegemony, Gore seemed more and more like a ‘reactionary’ and ‘anti-Semite’. Al Gore and Gore Vidal make for interesting contrasts. One is a Power-Liberal and the other was a Principle-Progressive. All said and done, when push comes to shove, Power-Liberals will always go with the Power. So, even if the latest revision of Liberalism or Progressivism betrays the core or classical tenets of the Left, they don’t care. Anything for power. In contrast, Gore Vidal was a man of principles(or principled egomania), and he never deviated from his essentially adversarial view of American Power. Though he was usually harsher on the American Right than on the Left, he saw the problem of Too Much Power in Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, and Bill Clinton, and he connected the dots among all of them that drew a picture of American Imperialism that only got bigger over the years.
Now, what is to be done with Principle-Progressives by Power-Liberals when they are no longer useful? There is very little mention of Gore Vidal among globo-homo progs, and Oliver Stone makes people nervous as he believes that the US is the aggressor against Russia than other way around. The reason why Stone can’t be wholly effective in arguing this is due to the Jew Taboo. He can’t mention the fact that Jews played a key role in looting Russia in the 90s. He can’t name the Jew in the mess in the Middle East. He can call them ‘neocons’ or some such, but he can’t name the Jew. His movie W. is pretty interesting and exposes the grand scheme of US neo-imperialism, but there is no mention of the fact that most Neocons are Jewish and that, more than anything, Iraq Invasion was a War for Israel. Stone can’t mention that Jews raped Russia in the 1990s and that Putin, as patriot, played a role in rescuing his nation from the clutches of hideous and venal Jews. So, the globo-homo prog media can easily tar-and-feather him as a Putin puppet when, in fact, they are either Jewish agents of Globo-Homo or cucky goy shills of Jewish supremacism.
Alex Jones came to prominence in the 1990s, and initially, many were confused as to his ideology. If you listen to his ranting in WAKING LIFE(by Linklater) — as I was first introduced to him — , he could be mistaken for an anarchist, not least because he chose to operate from Austin, Texas of all places. My impression of Jones is he’s not a drug-guy like Linklater. But maybe Jones is the kind of person who is so emotionally intense that he gets high on his own biochemistry(like Camille Paglia). In an earlier age, he might have been a preacher. But like many of his generation, he was affected by the Counterculture even if he didn’t take to its core ideology. I can understand why Linklater felt a certain rapport with Jones. Drug-people like Linklater are likely to feel more ‘paranoid’ because they’ve had their minds altered and hallucinated patterns that may be real or unreal. Oliver Stone’s vision also owes to drug-induced states, and JFK looks like something fantasized after smoking, snorting, and popping everything in sight. NIXON unfolds like Tricky Dick’s bad trip(after some hippie prankster slipped some funny stuff into his wine). THE DOORS and NATURAL BORN KILLERS look as if the whole movie crew was on something while making it. People on the Left were heavier users of drugs, and it’s very possible that their narco-mental state fed much of the paranoid literature and movies(and maybe even journalism, straight along with the gonzo) of the late 60s and early 70s. William Burroughs and Philip K. Dick were heavily into drugs and paranoid-as-hell. While some drug-people remained reliably on the Left, some began to question everything. In Linklater’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s SCANNER DARKLY, there is an all-pervasive paranoia of everything and everyone, even of one’s friends. For ideology to be stable, the mind has to be fixed and the emotions committed. But in SCANNER DARKLY, we see the faculty of reason dissolve while emotions become unsure of what to remain loyal to. This may explain why Philip K. Dick’s ideology became increasingly unstable as years went by. FIGHT CLUB also seems to be a drug-person movie, although I don’t know anything about Chuck Palahniuk’s life or habits. I haven’t read anything by him, but the cinematic adaption of FIGHT CLUB(if it is faithful to the book) suggests an imagination fueled by lots of drugs. Also, the ideology seems uncertain, ranging from anarcho-left to pop-Nietzschean nihilism. The ideology of the French film director Gaspar Noe is also hard to pinpoint on the basis of his insane films that must have been fueled by lots of bad drugs. Of course, another weirdo is Slavoj Zizek, a kind of Alex Jones of the Left. But traditional ideological categories of ‘left’ and ‘right’ can’t do justice to Jones who is a ‘rightist’ with strong anti-establishment impulses and Zizek who is a ‘leftist’ — he even calls himself a ‘communist’ — who would be nothing without capitalist pop culture and sensibility. Michel Houellebecq is another odd case, but then so is Milo Yiannopoulos, the so-called Zionist libertarian ‘conservative’ who loves orgies, decadence, and Negro dongs up his bung. And Camille Paglia has been a leftist who has earned more affection from the Right and Libertarians than from the Left(that largely hates her). Perhaps, if anyone anticipated the ideological chaos of our times, it was Norman Mailer who cooked up his own strange brew of intellectual ferment that seemed a bit of Marx, Freud, and Mussolini. Instead of submitting to an ideology, the trick was to do what Tuco did with pistol parts in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND UGLY and come up with your own special formula of what was right. Bob Dylan did this too as he left the Folk Movement with its ideological straitjacket and cooked up his own strange musical brew.
Such people may gain admiration for their independence of mind and spirit, but they also make enemies on all sides because they won’t stick to any ready-made script. They are always inspiring to some while infuriating to others, or both to the same people at once. And it is very possible that the reason why Alex Jones is seen as a major threat to the Power is that he does his own thing. Indeed, the reason why he hasn’t been defended by the GOP(not even by Donald Trump) after having been banned from the top internet platforms and services is because he has made enemies on all sides. If Rush Limbaugh had been taken off the airwaves, we know the GOP will make a big stick about it because Limbaugh has been reliably and predictably within the spectrum of acceptable opinions. In contrast, while it’s undeniable that Jones has said crazy things and acted like a childish clown, he has also tackled topics and addressed issues that should be gravely disconcerting to the powers-that-be.
Jones became big enough that he wasn’t willing to jeopardize his place in the media by pushing TOO FAR(like naming the Jew), but he has also been sufficiently on the margins of the media to venture into subjects and issues that are too ‘triggering’ for Establishment Press. Also, for all his faults, he’s been more willing to confront and challenge the powers-than-be than anyone in MSM who, as employees of one of the six mega-corporations, always has to stick to the script. The problem for the MSM(but also to the GOP and Trump) is that Jones is unpredictable and speaks his own mind. While most of MSM is anti-conservative, it prefers a conservatism that is predictable, reliable, and scripted. A conservatism that is fenced in. But Jones was like a wild pig that all too often knocked down the fences and ran for freedom. Because Jones even lambasted Trump when the missiles were launched at Syria, it’s possible that even Trump finds Jones to be a liability. Jones would be more acceptable to the established ‘left’ and ‘right’ if he were like Archie Bunker only. Problem is he’s like a mix of Bunker and Meathead. He waves the red, white, & blue and howls like a patriot, but he will oppose wars, call out on the Deep State, and denounce corporations as forces of evil. When he rails against the excesses of capitalism, he sounds like a far-left radical, but he will also turn around and attack socialism. His view of corporations is rather like the Hollywood Left's depiction of big money in movies like like MICHAEL CLAYTON. Or the novels of John Grisham. Jones steals or shares in the anti-corporate thunder of the American Left. Actually, Jones may actually be more anti-corporate because his tirade is served as news than as entertainment. After all, movies like MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO WAY OUT, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, and THE FIRM can have it both ways: Peddle paranoia to the public but then hide behind assurance of fiction and make-believe. In contrast, Jones(in his cartoonish and clownish) has acted out this role out in the public arena of reality as a combination of Edward Murrow and Hulk Hogan, screaming and taunting the powers-that-be for covering up who-knows-what. Of course, many accused Jones of showmanship at the expense of sober journalism, not least because it pays better to be big personality than a serious commentator. Given so much corruption and nastiness in corporations and government, did Jones really have to expend so much energy on sensational speculations that either went nowhere or turned out loony tunes? This is why some suspected that Jones is nothing but controlled-opposition(like in MEET JOHN DOE) all along, but the recent ban would suggest that wasn’t the case. Also, despite his rants and tirades, he’s obviously a far more calculating operator than the newsman who loses it and goes nuts in NETWORK. Still, he couldn’t have faked his passion for so many years and with such doggedness. There’s no denying that he has become something of a ‘folk hero’ in the Grand American Populist Tradition, a man of bold self-actualization and reckless self-immolation. Of course, Jones’ biggest setback is also his greatest triumph insofar as the Big-Tech collusion against him has proven that conspiracies really do happen and that the Big Media and Big Tech are in bed with the sinister Deep State.
And irony of ironies, the so-called ‘Left’ decided to shut down Alex Jones because he carries on in the leftist style of paranoia and conspiracy-theorizing that was commonplace among the Left in both academia and alternative media. The academia was filled with Jews who cooked up bogus conspiracy theories arguing that those who’d been convicted for Soviet espionage had really been railroaded by Nixon and HUAC. And even though mainstream media, for the most part, stayed away from blatant conspiracy-theorizing, there were plenty of alternative press on the Left that ran with all sorts of speculations about the CIA, FBI, and the military-industrial complex. And many of these people were considered as folk heroes by many in the Liberal Media that lacked the wherewithal to push that far. Also, because of the Jewish and Liberal control of the media, it was far less taboo for those on the Left to speculate than those on the Right. Because ‘McCarthyism’ had been attacked and smeared so thoroughly, many conservatives even under Reaganism dared not voice concerns about spies and traitors. Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric wasn’t about enemies-at-home, a big theme in the early 1950s, but about the big Evil Empire abroad. While those on the Left could accuse the Right of harboring all sorts of terrorist and ‘racist’ groups in America itself, those on the Right had to pretend that even extreme anti-Reagan lefties were patriotic Americans. It’s like a Jew can accuse white people of being ‘antisemitic’ but white people better not accuse Jews of being ‘anti-white’ because such accusation would be... well, ‘antisemitic’. Because the prevailing consensus ideology excoriated right-wing ‘paranoia’ far more than left-wing ‘paranoia’, the culture of conspiracy-theorizing was bigger among Leftists and Liberals in the 1970s. Indeed, almost all the Kennedy assassination theories came from the Left, and the culprits were always the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, or some dark ‘right-wing cabal’. It would have been scandalous for American Rightists to speculate that some dark radical Jewish elements were doing harm to America, but Hollywood was okay with Stone suggesting in NIXON that the Kennedy hit was the doing of some dark right-wing conspiracy.
The great irony is that everything Alex Jones has been doing over the years owes something crucial to the politics of radical cynicism and paranoia that defined so much of Counterculture and leftist college sub-cultures. Peruse through the radical literature in alternative journals, weeklies, and pamphlets(the ideas and attitudes of which sometimes even made it into mainstream journals) of the 60s and early 70s, and there are tons of stuff about evil police, evil CIA, evil FBI, evil capitalist corporations, evil US military, and etc. They were saying the US is like a Nazi nation. And they were filled with all kinds of faddish ideas about diet and drugs, even how aliens may have brought mushrooms to Earth. Jones’ INFOWARS offers a right-ish populist twist on that once beloved Narrative on the Left. This Left was in decline as the 60s faded. Too many Counterculture boomers entered business and office buildings(and the state). They became the New Power but were blind to their own abuses because they’d told themselves(as young radicals) that they’d complete the Long March into the Institutions(and Industries) to make the world a better place. So, their having the power is not really having the power because they gained power in the name of fighting the power. It’s kind of like trying to dry yourself with water. See, you’re not wet because you used water like a towel to dry yourself of wetness. Granted, there is nothing wrong with seeking power to use that power to do good. That is the moral essence of politics. But the Boomer Left and especially Jews had a hard time admitting that they had the power. And of course, they were also loathe to admit that they’d betrayed or give up on just about all the things they’d once espoused and championed. For starters, the dominant power among the Boomer Left were the Jews, and they turned out to be far more tribalist, racial supremacist, imperialist, and ruthless than Anglo-Americans of old. The total plunder of the Russian economy of the 1990s, the utterly heartless attitude toward destruction of Muslim nations in the Wars for Israel, the hideous glee at the prospect of whites in EU and US becoming minorities in their own homelands or nations that they’d built, the demand that all Americans support the ongoing terrors in West Bank & Gaza, the recruitment of neo-Nazi types in Ukraine to pull off a coup, the sheer robbery of the world via Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Dot.com bubbles, and etc, etc. Because goy boomers lacked the will to confront Jewish Boomer Power, the ideals of Counterculture(good or bad) came to mean nothing. In the end, the result was Jews Own All, or Jewish Supremacism. As for boomer goys, it was only natural that only the most craven, sleazy, slimy, nasty, and opportunistic would rise to the top. In a system where one cannot criticize the Power, the only game left is to suck up to it. If there was one good thing about the 1960s, there was growing courage among youth(and even elders) to speak truth to the Power, which was mostly held by the Wasp Establishment. So, instead of just sucking up to the Power to ‘get what is mine’, there were lots of criticism, ranging from sensible to excessive, about what-is-to-be-done to make for a better world. This caused a lot of problems(as Counterculture unleashed excesses of sex, drugs, and Rock n Roll), but it did address the issue of power.
But one of the negative consequences of the Counterculture owed to its neo-spiritual tone. It is one thing to confront and challenge the power but another thing to ‘sacralize’ and idolize certain groups as holy-schmoly. It’s one thing to discuss the problems of white police brutality or corruption, but it was dangerous to pretend that blacks were just hapless victims of the police. Such mentality led to the explosion of black crime all across cities because the Liberal Media and Progressives were so unwilling to address the true nature and extent of black pathology and crime epidemic. (Things must have gotten really bad in the 1970s because Liberal Jewish film critic Stanley Kauffmann wrote a half-sympathetic review of DEATH WISH and detested THE WARRIORS as sensationalizing, thus encouraging, thug-hoodlum-ism in NY.) Because blacks were made into holy objects in the Civil Rights Era, we still have nonsense movements like BLM and trashy Negroes and Negresses yapping about ‘white supremacy’ as the cause of all the problems in their excessively ugity-bugity community.
But even more dangerous was the icon-ization of Jews as not merely a holy people but the new-messiah-people. The Holocaust became so central to the US narrative(even though America had nothing to do with it) that it was as if every Jew who died during WWII died for the sins of goyim who were, therefore, supposed to repent and suckle Jewish toes and kiss Jewish butt. The Shoah-narrative was Pogrom-narrative writ large. Prior to WWII, Jews demanded that the US take in Jews to save them from pogroms in Russia(that were vastly exaggerated though real enough). After WWII, the idea was that US exists mainly as a sanctuary for Jews, a place where they can survive, thrive, gain dominance, and then rule the world. And to ensure Jewish survivalism-to-supremacism, the US must be made hyper-diverse so that goyim could never gang up as a united force against Jews. Of course, it never occurred to Jews that Slavs sometimes acted like thugs and boors because Jews did some bad shit too. Both communities were to blame and should have sought sensible common ground. Unfortunately, an insensible common ground turned out to be communism that brought together Russian Jews and Russian goyim to smash and destroy so much of Russian culture and Slavic populations that weren’t so eager for radical change. Jewish role in communism plus their nastiness in Germany during the Weimar period fed into anti-Jewish anger among many Germans, and that led to rise of National Socialists who would eventually commit some of the greatest crimes in history. At any rate, there is plenty of blame to go around among all groups, but the ONLY context in which we were to discuss the Shoah was (1) totally innocent Jews were murdered by totally evil Germans (2) Holocaust was ONLY the culmination of European antisemitism and has NOTHING to do with bad Jewish behavior that alienated so many goyim (3) the core interest of all nations of the world must be to prevent another Holocaust by worshiping and serving Jews, even if these very Jews, in the name of suppressing future Nazis, act like Judeo-Nazis who spread wars and destruction all over the world on the basis of tribal supremacism.
Because such a mentality came to prevail among nearly all boomers, it was impossible to honestly discuss Jewish power. Imagine that. Boomer Counterculture, which prided itself as a radical voice against the Power, became utterly slavish, servile, and subordinate to the Biggest Power in the world, that of Jewish Supremacism. The most rebellious generation turned into the most subservient generation. The loudest generation became the most silent generation(on the issue of Jewish Power). In SILENT SPRING, Rachel Carson bemoaned a world without birds due to widespread use of pesticides. The US is a SILENT STATE because in the academia, media, and culture-at-large, there is such utter silence when it comes to discussion of Jewish Power. Sure, there are pockets of resistance, but even these voices have to make clear that they just have a little beef with some elements of the Israeli Right and that, in no shape or form, are they suggesting that Jews have ‘too much’ power in the US, no sirree. Consider the moral disclaimer in THE ISRAEL LOBBY by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. It’s embarrassing to read. It’s like, "I will massage you and suck your cock before I get to pinch you a little." The PC pesticides have totally messed up the Political Ecology of America. In a healthy eco-system, any single group must be balanced out by others. Otherwise, you end up with total domination of one over others, leading to grave imbalance. This is why Diversity of Ethnicity is so problematic. As every group wants its fair share of power, there’s bound to be clashes. On the other hand, a Diverse Order where only one group has all the power would be even worse. Even in a homogeneous nation, there is the Diversity of Class, and that always caused problems. But problems could be handled through negotiations among the owner class, managerial class, working class, and the underclass. Generally, it worked best if the middle/working class made up the largest share of the population. Communism sought to solve the problems of Diversity of Class by making a classless society made up only of workers(who, for a time, would be guided and led by radical managers), but it went too much against the grain of human nature.
Anyway, a healthy political ecology demands some kind of balance. It’s like lions are the top predators of Africa, but they still don’t control EVERYTHING. Their power is counter-balanced by elephants, hippos, rhinos, cape buffaloes, crocodiles, hyenas, cobras, other rival lions, and etc. There is some push-back against the lion-kind. So, even as lions do lots of ‘damage’(to other organisms), they don’t to get to dominate and hog everything. But such is the political ecology in the US where Jewish Boomer-Xer-Millennial weasels get to do just about anything and everything without any fear of repercussions. (Only recently, there has been some push-back due to the #MeToo Movement that backfired on Jews. Jews promoted feminist rage at ‘pussy-grabber’ Donald Trump, but some famous ‘shikse’ celebrities began to connect-the-dots and blurt out, "Wait a minute, the biggest grabbers of my pussy were Jewish executives." Things got so out of hand that even the hulking Terry Crews said, "A Jew grabbed muh dick.") White Boomers became total cucks to Jewish Boomers, and Jews decided to turn whites into cucks of blacks and homos as well. Just look at white boomers like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both were born in 1946 and became total cucky-wucks to Jews. Joe Biden(as born in 1942, he isn’t technically a boomer) is a total cuck to Jews. And both Obama’s black side and white side totally sucked up to Jews. Boomer Power is really Shylock-Boomer Shoomer power. The oh-so-very-courageous goy boomers turned out to be the pathetic dogs, toadies, and flunkies of what would become the biggest power in the world: The Empire of Judea, or EOJ.
The reason why EOJ hates Alex Jones isn’t hard to understand. As a ‘conspiracy theorist’, Jones stole the thunder of ‘radical paranoia’ from the Left. Unlike cuckservatives of the National Review crowd, Jones has been willing to take on the corporations and the War State. Even though Jones wasn’t the ONLY one on the Right doing this, he made the Right relevant again as a populist voice against elitist power. Under Bill Buckley conservatism, so much of the American Right became slavish to all things rich, privileged, elite, and powerful. Sure, Rush Limbaugh played the vulgarian populist but ONLY IN STYLE. He fully endorsed 99.99% of the GOP ‘free trade’ globalist agenda. Even as he railed against the ‘Chicoms’, he never objected to the Rust-Belt-ization of small towns all across America. When Pat Buchanan called for Economic Nationalism in the 1990s, Limbaugh said Buchanan is not a conservative but a ‘populist’, which is rather funny coming from someone who was the #1 star in populist Talk Radio. So, according to Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh, ‘conservatism’ meant total de-regulation of markets, total ‘free trade’, giving corporations all they wanted, sucking up to Jews, purging people like Sobran & Buchanan, and cheering for Wars for Israel I, II, III, IV, and etc. So, their polemics against elitism made no sense because they always sucked up to Power. Their idea of fighting elitism was to take funds from PBS. There was nothing the Zionist Neocons and Pentagon demanded that Conservatism Inc. said NO to. So, American Conservatism got staid, soulless, and predictable. There was a lot of rhetorical fireworks on Talk Radio, but as all the stations were owned by handful of Jewish corporations, they all pushed the same message. The ONLY voice that was more courageous and daring than most was Michael Savage.
But then, Alex Jones got bigger and bigger, not least because of the equalizing factor of the Internet. Even though Alex Jones at his worst could be crazier and stupider than anyone in Conservatism Inc., at his bold and brazen best, he could spill beans and drop bombs to undermine the Official Narrative. Granted, Jones knew his limits too. Sometimes, he was willfully ridiculous, like saying Saudis control Hollywood. Even after Jews shut him down recently, he said the ‘Chicoms’ did it. But there was a wink-wink factor between Jones and his audience. They always knew what he REALLY meant. Also, even in opposition, Jones would have long interviews with people like Cynthia McKinney and David Duke. Even if he didn’t agree on everything, there would be some points of common ground. And this drove Jews crazy.
But Jews couldn’t really do anything for awhile because they'd gained monopoly over much of the internet by promising to be fair and neutral stewards of information. As Google once said, "Don’t Do Evil", a motto it took down recently as it’s all about power now. If Google, Facebook, and etc. had sought so much power and control during their ascendancy by saying they will favor certain views while shutting down dissident views that speak truth to power, they never would have gotten so big. There would have been much populist pressure against the government's working with Google to expand Google's reach. And many people would NOT have signed up to Facebook if its founding principles had been so biased and skewed. Google and Facebook(and other platforms controlled by cucks or the ADL) became dominant by promising ALL OF US a fair shake in the discussion of news and ideas. They drew so many people in with false promise of neutrality, but once they got the power, they began to purge the significant and influential voices on the Right that undermine the globo-homo narrative of Empire of Judea. But they don’t just stop there. Jews also shut down or shadow-ban so many BDS and pro-Palestinian voices.
What Jews want is a Monopoly of Conspiracy Theories. If the Jewish Media can lie and present us with Fake News such as Russia Collusion nonsense, the lie can easily be exploded as a bogus Conspiracy Theory cooked up by the collusion of Deep State and Jew-run media. So, true conspiracy theories about Jewish Power can undermine the false conspiracy theories that the Jew-run media feed us everyday. But if we can’t counter their false conspiracy theory with our true conspiracy theory(that connects the dots among Jewish money, Jewish media, Jewish finance, and the Deep State), then false conspiracy theories pushed by Jew-run MSM will be accepted as Truth by everyone... just like the WMD lies about Iraq and the Fake News stories like Assad using chemical weapons in Ghouta. Or, how the ‘fall’ of Aleppo was some great tragedy when, in fact, most of the people were happy to see the government troops drive out ISIS and Alqaeda fighters.
To understand what is really happening, carefully read the text in the image below. Jews openly brag about how they got the power and should use it to shut down what they deem to be 'hate groups' when, in truth, the biggest haters are Jews who use the media to compel all of us to support Jewish hatred against Russia, Iran, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, and patriotic white people in US and Europe. According to Jewish globalist logic, Jewish Hatred = Love, whereas White Emancipation from Jewish Hatred = Hate.
As nutty as Jones can be, we need more people like him to counterbalance the perfidy and venality of Schoomer Power. Jews banned Alex Jones. Cucks at Word(Su)press went after Jay Dyer.
