Of Needles and Balloons - Two Kinds of Ideologies & Two Kinds of Sensibilities

The Current Discourse can be characterized as a contest between needles and balloons. Guess which will win when needles meet balloons. Needles of course. Needles are steely and sharp. Balloons may be bigger, but they are full of hot air and soft on the outside. Truth is like a needle, and lie is like a balloon. Integrity and honesty are like a needle, and deception and falsehood are like a balloon. Needles do not fear balloons. If anything, they are eager to pop and expose them as mostly inflated rubber holding nothing but hot air. In contrast, balloons are deathly afraid of needles because even the slightest prick can expose their emptiness.

Granted, a discourse could be between needle and needle or between balloon and balloon. Certainly, the ideological debate between Democrats and Republicans is one of balloon vs balloon. It’s a contest of hot air of empty rhetoric pre-scripted and pre-packaged by the oligarchs, the network, and the handlers. It’s about paid politician as streetwalkers for globalist oligarchic pimps. But the contest could be between needle vs needle. After all, two opposing sides could be equal in intelligence, honesty, and integrity even if they see things differently. Or both sides may be sincere in their conviction that truth is really on their side. After all, we can never know the whole truth. We can only know some of the truth, and we are all affected by some degree of subjective bias or personal passion.

Also, virtue is no guarantee for verity. A person may have all the integrity, ability, and courage, but his knowledge of truth is limited to his access to education and information. Furthermore, human character is less about known facts than about one’s ethos and values. A person can be virtuous within the context of Hindu customs or within the framework of Islamic culture. All True Believers, even of false doctrines or dubious ideologies, can be men of integrity and character if they are sincere in their conviction and courageous in their principles.
This is why basic virtues aren't sufficient to make people strive for the truth. Every thought system makes demands on people to be serious, committed, and loyal. Through obedience and adherence to core values, people can be virtuous.
But a higher value can only be attained by an individual quest for truth. A person mustn’t only receive and revere the Truth handed down to him but question its assumptions, meaning, implications, and validity. This is a higher kind of integrity than sincere devotion to the Order.

It is that combination of curiosity and courage that makes for a needle. A ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’ who merely conforms to what he’s been told by the Authority or the Official Narrative cannot be a needle. Such people are filled with varying amounts of air or limp without air, but they are essentially passive in their submissiveness to the Order. They are dogs and teachers’ pets of the world. Or, being just plain lazy, all their ideas come from Pop Culture that is controlled by Jews, homos, and cucky-wucks.
To be a needle, one needs to step outside the box. The truth is not in being ‘left’ or ‘hard left’ or ‘right’ or ‘hard right’ but in the individual will to ask questions and understand the deeper layers of power.

Also necessary is a kind of personal sensibility that favors sobriety and probity over frivolity and insipidity. The Power knows this all too well. It fears the Needles, and that is why the 2 PC’s — Political Correctness and Pop Culture — are geared toward making us shallow, immature, infantile, delusional, escapist, and stupid. When one’s primary ideology revolves around LGBTQ fantasies of 50 genders, Afromania of BLM & Rap, mindless mantras about Diversity, porny version of feminism with pussy-costumes, tattoos-piercings-hair-color, and etc., you can never be a serious person asking serious questions and seeking serious truths. Style has value but only as an accent on substance. Style cannot substitute substance, especially if it happens to be demented and stupid, as so many styles are today.

The needles are serious people who are not afraid to ask the essential questions about the Power and the Way of the World. Needles are not afraid to connect the dots in ways that deviate from the official dictates of the Power. Needles have something of the Greek Hero in them. Something inside them want to challenge the gods and know of their secret. They want to discover the truth behind the Wizard in the World of Oz. And this is why the Power fears and hates the needles the most.

And yet, the System needs needles because only needles can probe for the truth. Yet, needles are dangerous because they can pop the Official Balloon at the center of any system, left and right. So, the System tries to allow the freedom of needles in most areas EXCEPT against the Core Balloon that holds the hot air of Dogma. The Catholic Church, for instance, allowed and encouraged needles in many scientific endeavors but wanted to protect the balloon of the Geo-centric Universe that was deemed to be essential to the spiritual premise of Church and Faith. Every system seeks to maximize the power of truth because truth is more useful than falsehoods. Try building a rocket with false calculations or assumptions. Every scientific discovery or mathematic solution is a needle. They can be used to further the power of the system. But what about the political justification for the system? For communism to survive, Marxism-Leninism could not be doubted or questioned. Though it began as a sharp instrument aimed at the hot balloon of the Tsarist and then Social-Democratic system, it turned into a big balloon once the New Order was firmly ensconced with its own myths, symbols, and slogans. Communism became a big balloon with hammer & sickle painted on it. But despite its grandiose size, it could easily be busted with a prick of a needle. And this is why the balloon had to be protected from critical/skeptical/analytical needles by a vast apparatus of brass knuckles. The balloon needed a safe space from needles. Since balloon can’t stand up to the pricks of needles, it had to rely on the power of fists. It’s like the game of scissors-paper-and-hammer. Papers can’t stand up to sharp scissors, but the blunt hammer can bash the scissors.

And the world we live in is very much one of balloons, needles, and iron fists. Jews used to represent the needles of America when they spoke truth(or clever lies) to power. Jews were like a skillful acupuncturist probing into all parts of Wasp America to find how the system works. Its strengths and weaknesses. Its reactions to the needles. Even though Anglos were called Wasps, all the stinging was done by Jews. Some Jews needled the power for the truth or justice. But others just wanted to deflate the Wasp balloon so that they could take over as the new masters of America.

But a system cannot be sustained with search for truth alone. It has to be filled with a Narrative with the stuff of myth, vision, and holiness. There has to be a quasi-spiritual faith in the system as something more than a realm of facts. It had promote itself as a realm of sanctity. So, Jews created a new balloon with the Narrative air of Shoah, Afromania, Diversity(via Lazarus-ian mass immigration), and etc.

It wasn’t enough that Jews won by meritocracy in intellect and drive. After all, superiority in intelligence and wealth doesn’t necessarily mean justification for power and control. A people can be intelligent and influential but vile and wicked. Talent means more ability, not more morality. After all, Jews had gained lots of financial success in Europe and were regarded as smart/clever, but that didn’t make the gentiles love the Jews any better. In order for Jewish Power to be protected, it needed to be inflated and shrouded with a Narrative. And Jews found the Shoah Narrative highly effective in making Jews out to be the greatest victims of all time and in instilling ‘guilt’ among white goyim.
Some may regard the ‘holocaust deniers’ as courageous needles, but they are more like idiots cutting their own flesh. While there can be serious and probing revision of Shoah, most of what goes by ‘Holocaust Denial’ is truly moronic stuff. Incidentally, the real danger of the Shoah Narrative isn't in the suppression of free speech but in the ‘sacralization’ of Jews into a holy race. Such deification of a group of humanity can be dangerous IF the people become very powerful. If we all deified Eskimos, it can’t do us much harm because Eskimos have little power. But if, as the result of Shoah Narrative, we were to regard Jews as wise, wonderful, perfect, and noble, it means we won’t be properly alert to the nature of Jewish power. Also, because of the ‘sacralization’ via the Shoah Narrative, we’ve effectively been banned from taking a cold hard look at Jewish history and learn of Jewish perfidy, abuses, corruptions, and ‘historical crimes’. So, while we regard most peoples’ histories as a mix of good and bad, noble and ignoble, we tend to see all of Jewish history as one of wise, wonderful, and blameless Jews having been set upon by wicked gentiles who never had a rational reason for feeling animus toward the Jews.
Indeed, what Jews fear most is not ‘Holocaust Denial’ but serious discussion and criticism of Jewish history and power. The main purpose of the Shoah Narrative isn’t to suppress the ‘denial of Holocaust’ but to keep alive the aura of Jewish sanctity that maintains the Jew Taboo that forbids honest discussion of Jewish history and power.

In a way, both Jews and blacks triumphed and won in the West due to meritocracy though in different fields. When faced with a superior rival, only social race-ism will protect a people. We understand this in mankind's relation to animals. If we struggled with animals on the meritocratic basis of brute strength, animals would crush us. So, we ‘cheat’ via social species-ism that says species exist, species are different, and we-as-humans need to be conscious of our species and do whatever is necessary to secure our survival and advantage over animals. If humans were to compete with animals on the basis of natural species-ism, many animals would gain advantage over humans because, in the contest of tooth and claw, humans cannot win against bears, wolves, buffaloes, elephants, hippos, etc. Humans could only win via social species-ism that allowed for ‘cheating’ with spears, arrows, barriers, and shelters. So, we’ve created an artificial world that keeps animals out.
Likewise, white people could only maintain a secure place for themselves against Jews and blacks only through social race-ism. As Jews are smarter than whites and as blacks are more muscular than whites, there was no way whites could win against Jews in a contest of natural race-ist contest of wits. And there was no way whites could win against blacks in a contest of natural race-ist contest of fists.
The Natural is race-ist in that it created different races with different abilities. So, natural race-ism made Jews smarter than blacks, and it made blacks stronger than Jews. And it made Jews smarter than whites, and it made blacks tougher than whites.
Whites understood the ramifications of natural race-ism via-a-via Jews and blacks. So, whites instituted quotas against Jews in elite colleges and barred Jews from certain clubs. It was the ONLY way to maintain the order of white power. Natural-meritocratic competition with Jews would not lead to equality or parity but to Jewish supremacism over whites. Now, this might not have been so bad IF whites could speak truth to Jewish Power once Jews became King of the Hill, but Jews cleverly denied this possibility by pushing the Shoah Narrative that sanctified Jews into a quasi-holy race. So, Jews not only won with meritocracy but were protected from criticism by sanctimonious taboos. And much of the problems of America and the World can be traced to the sanctification of Jews.
It allowed leeway for Jewish power to become especially corrupt and megalomaniacal. Too many Jews are now intoxicated not only with power and hubris but with moral and pseudo-spiritual vanity. They are full of themselves. This is dangerous because Jews, as the masters of the Empire of Judea(or EOJ), are now the most powerful people on Earth with too much hatreds for too many peoples: Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, White gentiles, etc.
Anyway, the lesson from the rise of Jewish supremacist power is that natural race-ism leads to hierarchy and domination, not equality. Meritocracy for Jews led not to Jewish equality with gentiles but Jewish supremacist domination over gentiles who are seen as cattle and dogs by Jews.

Whites suffered the same fate with blacks, albeit in the realm of physicality. Natural race-ist competition between whites and blacks could only lead to black supremacism than racial equality. Having more fast-twitch muscles, stronger bones, and faster reflexes, blacks were bound to dominate sports if whites and blacks were made to compete on an equal footing. Therefore, whites needed social race-ism to create a secure space for white manhood and pride. Whites, especially white men, were totally justified in fearing the stronger, tougher, and meaner Negro. If whites dropped social race-ism, the future wasn’t racial equality or parity but black physical domination, black destruction of white manhood, and black colonization of white wombs(and pathetic cucky-wuckery for white men). So, why didn’t whites speak out on this? D.W. Griffith did try with THE BIRTH OF A NATION, but even he failed because the Wasp character was into either white pride or gentlemanly ideal. White pride led many whites into denial. They continued to believe in the Great White Hope or pretend that whites were tougher and could beat up blacks. Such pride was hollowed out when blacks totally came to dominate sports and conquer millions of white wombs. Now, white males are cuck-dorks who kneel before blacks. If the white priders were too full of themselves to admit to their fear of the Negro and sound the racial alarm, the gentlemanly types felt it was beneath contempt to speak of vulgar biological realities. They preferred the world of rules and agreements. Since ‘may the best man win’ is a gentlemanly value, they eventually decided the fair and honorable thing was to let the Negro compete equally in sports with the white man. The result was predictable. Blacks totally crushed whites. Worse, even the gentlemanly hope that the dignity of sportsmanship would rub off on the ‘groids’ didn’t come to pass. Black nature being wilder and funkier, blacks intoxicated with pride of sports domination just acted like jungle warrior and showered whitey with nothing but contempt and derision. White gentlemanly delusions about blacks didn’t pan out. Blacks soon reverted to their jungleman ways. (Whites would have been better off if more of them spoke of racial matters like Howard Stern or Tom Buchanan of THE GREAT GATSBY. Buchanan is uber-wasp but oddly fully of grubby chutzpah when it comes to matters of race. His talk isn't gentlemanly but more blunt and candid.)

But as with Jews, it was worse than that. Just as Jews were ‘sacralized’ by the Shoah Narrative, blacks were ‘sacralized’ with slavery-Jim-Crow-and-MLK narrative. So, blacks not only physically kicked white butt but were seen as black jesuses and even black god. Now, if blacks had won athletically and physically(especially through crime and thuggery) and if whites could call out on black abuses and bad behavior, there would be some push-back against the threatening and destructive power of blacks. But because of the sacralization of blacks, whites not only got clobbered by blacks in the stadiums and streets but they couldn’t even honestly voice criticism of bad black behavior. Indeed, the Official Narrative of America now says whites must praise, admire, and worship the very people who rob them of manhood and/or property. So, if a black guy whups a white guy and humps white women, the proper thing for the white guy is to be a white boy like CucKen Burns and praise the Negro to high heaven as the sacred master race. This is why a people cannot survive and secure their existence without an intelligent use of social race-ism. As the first true race-ist, Aristotle said so himself.

And of course, Homos complete the Holy Three along with Jews and blacks. As such, the three groups have immense power in the West. And for that reason, it is incumbent upon honest critics and observers to be needles and prick the balloons of falsehood and sanctimony about the three powerful groups.
The truth is that Jews are indeed smarter, blacks are indeed tougher, and homos are more creative in certain areas. But the other truth is that these advantages also lead to lots of abuses. Jews use their domination of finance, law, and high-tech to pull all sorts of dirty tricks. Bernie Madoff was one of the worst but not alone. Now, Jews threaten to engulf the world with war just to further their ambition for global domination.
And too many blacks act like thugs and louts because they think "We can whup people’s ass". The blend of black vanity and thuggery has led to a very ugly culture in America. And homos have used their great power to elevate themselves as a race of angels even though the main distinction between normal straight people and homos is that the latter are into gross fecal penetration. Homos have done much to degrade moral norms and to impose degeneracy as the New Decency. Also, all the lies we’ve been forced to swallow about homos have led to a culture of lies where truth has become as murky as biological sex in a gender studies program. And so, the responsible thing is for us to speak truth to Jewish power, black power, and homo power. We need to bust their bubbles.
After all, they initially gained power by pricking the bubbles of white lies, hypocrisy, and betrayal of principles. White Americans said the US is about equality of man and rule of law. But slavery gave lie to such an ideal. And white gentiles said US is about opportunity based on merit. But there were quotas against Jews in elite colleges. And traditional society and even psychology used to insist that homosexuality is a mental disease when, in fact, some people are naturally born with such deviant orientation.

So, the needles that pricked the false balloons in the past had value in advancing the truth. But that was then, this is now. We now live in a world where Jews themselves use quotas to favor their own kind over others in elite colleges. Also, Jewish power isn’t only about merit but (1) tribal and race-ist networking a (2) use of Jew Taboo to silence dissent and (3) White Submissivism that has made whites feel that they must deny their own identity and interests in favor of Jewish identity and interests. And blacks are out of control as criminals and thugs in so many communities. Jim Crow is ancient history in an America where black thuggery is not only tolerated but worshiped as ‘cool’, especially in the Rap realm. And homos, with the backing of Jewish Power, replaced Christianity with Homomania or Queertianity as the neo-religion of the West.

In other words, Jewish power, black power, and homo power have now reached a point that exceeds the bounds of merit. Jews did gain much by meritocracy, but once they got the power, they used the Shoah Narrative to browbeat any prospective critic of Jewish Power and to implement any scheme, no matter how ugly and demented, to further Jewish supremacism. The sight of tiny little Israel creates the false impression that Jews are merely worried about the security and survival of that tiny little state. In fact, the main obsession of Jews isn’t Israel but the Empire of Judea, of which Israel is the Temple, NY is the bank, LA is the myth factory, Las Vegas is the cash cow, and Pentagon is the hammer. The Empire of Judea has tentacles all over the globe though, of course, Jews project their octopus-like nature on others, currently on Putin.

As for blacks, they are no longer in the age of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Indeed, assigning school children with the book MANDINGO would be closer to the mark of where we are. Civil Rights Era is long gone. Blacks are in thug and beast mode. They feel arrogance and contempt toward other races. (But there is a GROUNDHOG DAY mentality that always resets the clock to the twilight of the Jim Crow. We are stuck in the conundrum of TO KILL A GROUNDHOG.)
And millions and millions of black Africans now believe that the West and white world exist only to serve and put out to blacks, not least because the world has become saturated with Hollywood images of noble blacks bestowing wisdom and coolness on the pale and vapid white race that can only be redeemed by Jewish genius, Negro cool, and homo radiance.

This is sheer cultishness and very dangerous because Jews, Negroes, and homos are now very powerful, albeit in different areas for different reasons. And this may prove to be even a bigger problem for EU. If whites everywhere are supposed to revere and worship blacks and if millions of black Africans wash ashore in Europe and cause so many troubles, are white people supposed to shut up and just keep praising blacks to high heaven? How is that any different from how Germans behaved during WWII? Instead of needling Hitler’s megalomania, too many Germans worshiped him and served him loyally to the end that saw the total ruination of Germany. Even though Diversity is sold as redemption for ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’, it has the same logic as the lunacy that engulfed Nazi Germany. It has Taboos and Sacraments that cannot be questioned despite all the facts to the contrary.
It’s a fact that blacks are tougher, more aggressive, and less intelligent. They are more psychopathic. Too many of them will destroy white manhood, and when white manhood goes, so does white womanhood as white women will become infected with jungle fever. And then, as Europe gets overtaken by wild black junglemen, it will be the fall of the West. But this truth cannot be spoken because it’s... uh... ‘racist’! We are supposed to tremble with fear before that bogus PC term that is meant to have the effect of ‘bad doggy’!

We need to speak the truth. It is time for needles. We need to prick the balloons of Jewish supremacism, black supremacism, and homo supremacism. These balloons are protected from the needles of truth by the iron fist of deep state, Jewish financial blackmail, the police that is controlled by ZOG, and Antifa Janissary(that is protected by the police).
The balloons are well-protected, but nothing can be completely protected. Just like Michael Corleone found a way to get Sollozzo and Captain McClusky in THE GODFATHER and Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2, there are smart ways to use the needle against balloons. And then, it will be GOOOOAAAAAAL.

A Response to Trevor Lynch’s Analysis of RASHOMON by Akira Kurosawa

https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/rashomon-and-realism/

Trevor Lynch(or Greg Johnson?):

Rashomon is the story of a rape and murder committed in 12th-century Japan. Or, rather, it is four radically divergent stories of the same rape and murder. Rashomon is constantly trotted out by coffee-house intellectuals as an illustration of the subjectivity of our perceptions and the relativity of truth. But this is a superficial misreading of the film.
The stories in Rashomon do not diverge because of the ineluctable subjectivity of all claims about the world. The witnesses are simply lying. Furthermore, if we pay attention to their testimony, the characters of the witnesses, and the enduring facts of human psychology, we can reconstruct what really happened. Finally, Rashomon does not just presuppose that reality is objective and knowable, but that there is a moral order that is objective and knowable as well, an objective ought as well as an objective is. In short, Rashomon is not a relativist film but a deeply realist one.

I have to disagree. First, Akira Kurosawa's film adaptation deviates significantly from Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story that is tempered & measured in its narrative and construction. It revolves around an extreme incident -- rape and murder/suicide -- yet the story is relayed almost without emotional content. Akutagawa maintains a zen-like distance and stillness despite the emotionally charged confessions of the three people involved. This has a flattening effect in pressing all three narratives into a panel of patterns, like glass slides beneath a microscope.

In the short story, there is no account of the violent encounter by the woodcutter who only bears witness to having found the body. The three accounts are by the bandit, samurai, and the wife. As such, Kurosawa drastically changed the nature of the story by inventing a fourth account by the woodcutter that undermines the crystal clarity of the original story. Imagine three crystals. They are different in shape and receives light differently. And yet, they are made of the same material, transparent, and penetrable by light. And in the original story, what matters is NOT what happened physically -- we can never know for sure -- but what happens psychologically. Three different characters tell three contrasting stories, and yet, the all three are fueled by the same egotism and emotions in relation to the norms of Japanese culture. Different stories but same emotional motivations. So, on a deeper level, they are telling the same 'story' for each story serves the same emotional needs of the fragile ego.

After all, what is strange about the confessions is that all three people confess to the crime. Usually, the accused say "I'm innocent and someone else did it." In RASHOMON, each of the involved confess to the killing. Bandit says he killed the samurai. Woman says she killed her husband. Samurai says he killed himself, suicide as honor and self-pity. Though the accounts are different, they are driven by the same need for self-justification in a strict shame culture. Bandit is willing to be hanged but wants to die with reputation. He tells the judge that he gave the samurai a fair fight and won with superior swordsmanship. It was not murder but a duel. Thus, the bandit wants to be remembered as a real man, not just some punk who killed an innocent helpless man bound in rope. He is willing to face execution but with pride.
As for the woman, she says she was wronged by both men. She was raped by the bandit though she resisted. And then her husband accused her with his contemptuous gaze. It was bad enough to be raped, but it was worse for her husband to put the blame on her, as if it was her fault that she was ravaged by the filthy bandit. So, she couldn't take the injustice and shame, and she killed the husband. She was the victim of both bandit and husband.
Then, the husband's account is conveyed through the shaman. Through the medium channeling a voice from the netherworld, we hear the husband say he killed himself. By his account, he was the victim of both the bandit and his wife. The bandit fooled him and tied him up and raped his wife. And then, the wife told the bandit to kill her husband so they could run away together. So, he wasn't wronged only by the bandit but by his own wife. Unable to deal with this shame, he killed himself.

All three accounts are different in narrative detail but they tell the same psychological truth. All three stories are driven by the need for ego's pride, self-justification, and social assent.

And for the meaning of Akutagawa's story to hold, we only need those three accounts. The fourth account by the woodcutter complicates, even confounds, the original meaning of the story. Also, it is topsy-turvy tragi-comic in spirit, what with the woman freaking out, the men flipping out, and fighting like two clowns out of fright than fury. It rather undermines the purity of Akutagawa's philoso-poetics. As Jonathan Rosenbaum's capsule review states, the meaning of the story goes from an emphasis on psychological truth to physical lie. (To be sure, Rosenbaum also seems unaware that the fourth account by the woodcutter was NOT in the original story.)

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/rashomon/Film?oid=1808252

Akutagawa designed the story so that there is no way for us to know who really did what. But that very uncertainty is essential in order for us to notice the certainty of something deeper: ego and pride. It could be all of them are lying OR only one is telling the truth but, regardless of who did what, their accounts are fueled by the same psychological need for self-justification and pride. Indeed, this pride is even more important than life in Japanese culture. The bandit and the wife, by confessing the murder, can be put to death. But they fear death less than social opprobrium. Bandit's ego wants it to be known that he was the proud victor. Wife's ego wants it to be known that she was a double-victim, that of bandit and husband. As for the samurai, he would rather say he died at his own hands to redeem his honor than say he was killed by a lowly bandit or by his wife.

Kurosawa's addition of the fourth narrative makes us more aware of the issue of LYING. We know from the woodcutter's reaction when pressed upon by the commoner(who steals the baby's clothes) that he told a lie. We know that for certain because he withdraws in shame when accused about the missing dagger. This element turns the philosophical query of Akutagawa into a kind of medieval mystery of 'who dun it'? But the original concept, like Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA, isn't about what-happened than what-happens-in-the-mind.

Also, only Akutagawa's original vision justifies the priest's pessimism. The priest says the trial shook him to the core, more than any earthquake or disaster. Why? If he was so shook by the fact that people lied, it sounds rather ridiculous. After all, people lie all the time, especially about crimes they're accused of.
No, what makes the story so unnerving is that all three, bandit-wife-samurai, confess to the killing but we still don't know the truth. If three people say, "I'm innocent", that's par for the course. Naturally people tried to avoid blame. But if three people admit 'guilt', what the hell is going on here? And yet, the paradox is the three egos are seeking innocence through guilt. Bandit said he killed the samurai but in a honorable duel. Woman says she killed her husband but because she was wronged by both men. And husband says he killed himself because honor made it impossible for him to face life after humiliation at the hands of not only the bandit but his own wife.

Once the woodcutter's account is thrown into the mix, the focus of the story goes from phenomenological to ontological. Priest's gloomy view of humanity only makes sense in relation to Akutagawa's vision. After all, spiritual men cannot hope to know the certainty of worldly affairs. They are limited like everyone else in terms of senses of sight and sound. But spiritual men, even as they distrust the world of things and flesh, believe in the deeper and redemptive sanctity of the human soul. And yet, the priest is confronted with the problem of soul-itself in RASHOMON since all three characters seem willing to meet their maker. All three speak in redemptive terms of willing to give their lives for the truth. The bandit sounds half-way noble in his willing to face death as a man of pride. The wife seems sympathetic as a woman willing to be put to death as long as the court recognizes her as a poor broken soul wronged by two men. And the husband, speaking from the ghost world, has nothing to lose in terms of life since he's already dead. And yet, he tells a story that makes himself the tragic victim.

This suggests that the priest is confronted not only with deception of the flesh and worldly actions but with deception of the soul itself. If depths of the REDEMPTIVE soul can be so self-deluded and so at odds with certainty, what is a spiritual man or a man of god to believe in or trust?

Kurosawa could have maintained this sense of spiritual crisis, but he concocted a fourth tale by the woodcutter that alters the discourse from a philosophical crisis to sociological question of the problem of human dishonesty. Also, if indeed the priest is so troubled on the spiritual-philosophical level, why would his faith in man be restored by the woodcutter's kindly deed of adopting the abandoned baby? That goodness of deed would still not resolve the crisis of the soul as expounded in the first half of the film.

The difference between Akutagawa and Kurosawa was the former had the courage or nerves to look nihilism in the face without judgement. Not that Akutagawa welcomed nihilism but he saw it for what it is in a world that is what it is: ultimately absurd and meaningless.

RASHOMON the film is a combination of two Akutagawa stories: 'Rashomon' and 'In a Grove'. Both are short and concise. 'Rashomon', which is just a few pages, is about a commoner dismissed by his master in a time of social decay and destruction. He has no place to go and finds temporary shelter from rain in a ruined temple. He hears noise from upstairs, and it's not an abandoned baby but an old woman pulling hair from a dead woman. The old woman justifies her putrid act by saying the dead woman was no good in life... whereupon the man kicks the old woman and steals her robe and runs out of the temple. Once racked with anxiety, he now feels free with nihilism. There's no such thing as goodness, everyone is rotten, everyone leeches off everyone, so why shouldn't he? It's a depressing view of life but one that Akutagawa portrays unflinchingly, even coldly. Kurosawa was a humanist and sentimentalist, and he simply couldn't accept or fully comprehend that kind of nihilism. So, he dramatized it into an existential tragedy and wrapped up the ending in a fragile but hopeful message.
The commoner in the film acts like the man in the short story who finds dark liberation through nihilism. He steals the baby's clothes. But whereas Akutagawa portrayed his character with cold detachment, Kurosawa's humanist eyes judges the commoner as vile and gross.

On a conceptual level, Kurosawa's film is much less than Akutagawa's short stories. And yet, I would still defend the film because there just wasn't enough material in the original stories to make for a feature film. If 'In a Grove' had been filmed faithfully, it would run at most 15 min. And 'Rashomon' could be told in 5 min. Also, the storytelling is so cold and dry that it doesn't allow much for dramatics. So, Kurosawa felt a need to fill it in with flesh-and-blood material, and his film works on its own terms. It's like the original script of PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID by Rudy Wurlitzer was an interesting idea on paper but didn't have enough meat-and-bones for a movie. So, Sam Peckinpah had to fill it in with more human-relationship material. TWO LANE BLACKTOP is closer to Wurlitzer's script and is interesting as a cinematic experiment, but sensibility taking the front seat means the characters recede into the rearview mirror.

RASHOMON is now more respected for its historical impact -- introducing Japanese cinema to the world -- than for its merits, which, though considerable, now seem dwarfed by Kurosawa's much greater achievements with IKIRU, SEVEN SAMURAI, THRONE OF BLOOD, YOJIMBO, and HIGH AND LOW. Also, some of the flaws are blaring. The music sounds like a ridiculous parody of Bolero, which seems utterly out of place in medieval Japan. Also, as inspired as Toshiro Mifune's performance is, it's a bit over the top. Mifune would become a much better actor later on.

A Response to David Yorkshire’s Review of ZARDOZ by John Boorman

ZARDOZ: Natural Order against the Left by David Yorkshire: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/zardoz-natural-order-against-the-left/

"John Boorman's films are implicitly white, as they address themes that pertain to people of White European descent, whether historical, philosophical or mythical."

Not necessarily. Boorman made HELL IN THE PACIFIC that is about cooperation between Japanese soldier and American soldier. He also made EMERALD FOREST that romanticizes the jungle natives of the Amazon as living in unity with nature. If anything, that movie is most damning of incursions of white civilization into the natural order. Boorman made a movie about Burma in BEYOND RANGOON. He also made a movie where a white woman romances a black man. So, he's not this explicitly pro-white director you make him out to be... even though his themes and treatment would be politically incorrect for many today.

"for the film is a biting satire directed at creamy bourgeois Leftists."

The Order in ZARDOZ is highly conservative, exclusive, and hierarchical. It has a clear division between civilization and barbarism. It was established on a shining ideal of eternity and wisdom, but all that power and privilege has created a society of dogmatism, consensus, asexuality, and/or jaded apathy. The people of the Order have had it so good that they can't value what they have.
Also, they fail to understand the true danger posed by the barbarians because their Order has been impenetrable and impermeable as far as they can remember. They have no reason to regard barbarians as any kind of threat.
And yet, precisely because the Order is so crystalline and immaculate in its conception and design, there is a fear of the slightest alteration or revision. It can only exist as a utopia, a perfectionist order that cannot tolerate deviance from the rule. Perfection is unnatural, therefore fragile, and must be guarded with iron resolve, like the inner mechanics of a Swiss watch. Everything must adhere to the programming.
Originally, the Order was created to expand freedom and potentiality by prolonging life into virtual eternity. But thus elevated into near-god-hood, the main priority of the Eternals came to be self-preservation, and that meant the suppression or termination of anything that threatened the basis of their exalted existence.

So, to say that the Order is just 'leftist' or 'bourgeois' misses the point. Now, it may have elements of what we might call 'leftist' by today's standards. But the Order is really about hierarchy and total exclusion. In its cult of reason and science, it be construed as 'leftist'. In the equality of men and women in the Order, it could be seen as 'leftist' too.
But then,there is no need for manliness because the Order is so secure. Also, as people are immortal, there is no need for sex and love. People are supposed to devote their energies to contemplation and leisure. But all such things have become boring without the cycles of life and without challenges to the Order.
So, it's glib to say ZARDOZ is an anti-leftist tract. It is essentially a call for reconnection with nature, the stuff of life. The World of ZARDOZ fails for the same reason the world of CAMELOT does in EXCALIBUR does. Too much success and power have led to complacency and lazy gossip and battle of egos and vanity. It is only when Arthur drinks from the Grail that he realizes he must be one with the land, with nature and the people.

Boorman isn't anti-civilization or anti-Christian(with its linear view of history), but he fears that civilization and abstract ideas can fatally sever man from nature and its cycles of birth and rebirth. Only with death and rebirth is life revitalized. Prolonging life may overcome death but could lead to boredom, enervation, and dissipation. Even decadence and degeneration. To counter decline and resignation, one may insist on the strict regimen of devotion and discipline, but this could lead to the rigid dogmatism of the Middle Ages or traditional Jewish culture that revolved around almost incestuous obsession with Ancient texts.

But more often than not, too much prosperity and security leads to a deadly combination of complacency and compassion. A carefree naivete that has forgotten the warning of 'Do not feed the animals'. Having been secure and prosperous for so long, they've come to take their well-being for granted and assume it will be painless and joyous to welcome the world with open arms. They see themselves as white jesuses taking care of lambs from around the world. They are innocent spoiled brats getting high on their own delusional virtue. They are blind to the delusion because they've had it so good for so long. They lack the experience of survival & hardship and have forgotten the lessons of their ancestors who had to struggle against great odds to secure the land and build a civilization.
And this is what has happened to Sweden. Too much ease and good life led to ZARDOZ-like conditions where overly well-fed and bored white folks welcome invasion simply because it is 'virtuous' and vibrant, the stuff of life lacking in well-ordered Sweden.

"Ostensibly, the Eternals are all at peace, free from violence and death, and forever young. Their society is democratic and imposes equality on all. (Men's) impotence has led to women becoming leaders along feminist lines in spite of the ostensible commitment to equality."

The world of Vortex is NOT democratic. It is elitist. It is equal only in the sense that Spartan Warriors were equal with one another or aristocrats are equal among themselves. But, in fact, Spartan elites lorded over the helots. And aristocrats lorded over the serfs. So, the Eternals are NOT democratic. They are equal only among themselves, an elite breed of sci-fi aristocrats.
Also, women do not rule the Vortex. Since the realm is asexual, men and women are almost the same. The women in ZARDOZ are not interested in the sisterhood or women's issues. They only identify as Vortexians.

Feminism is about women forming a sisterhood against the men. There is no such politics in ZARDOZ. Rather, female aristos in ZARDOZ work with male aristos to maintain the exclusive hierarchical order. They are more like princesses working with princes against the serfs. They are not about the Sisterhood.

"'Penic erection is one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality.'... The speech is a look at sexuality straight out of 1970s feminist pamphlets, with the only difference being a smugness in victory, dressed up as concern for the wellbeing of both women and men."

Actually, Boorman's point goes deeper than a critique of feminism. Boorman senses in higher spirituality, Christianity especially, the denial and repression of natural sexual drives. This goes back to the Old Testament. In Eden, Adam and Eve were nearly equal. But there was the Original Sin, and man and woman had to struggle in the world of Nature that was seen as FALLEN. And the divide between man and woman grew wide after the Fall.
In Eden, it had been peace and harmony for Adam and Eve. God provided everything. Adam didn't have to be a hunter-warrior. Eve didn't have to do women's chores. But after the Fall, Adam had to be tough and manly to hunt and procure food. And with all creatures at war with each other, Adam had to defend himself and Eve from other animals. And Eve had to be womanly and do women's things.

Christianity offered a Way out of such Fallen State. Men and women would deny the pleasures and fears of the flesh and redeem their souls to enter Heaven to be with God for all eternity. Thus, Christianity is anti-nature. It sees nature as fallen and sinful. It views human nature as a baggage of vices: lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, etc.
In EXCALIBUR, Merlin mourns that One God comes to drive out the many. Paganism is fading and nature grows silent.

Another danger is an Order becomes obsessed with more order. And this was true of Victorian England where sex was taboo as a subject. Also, the rise of effeminate style among men long predated feminism. It began within the aristocracy itself. Initially, aristocrats were warriors, tough and hardy. But as they accrued so much wealth and privilege, they got fanciful and had homos devise feathers, dress, jewelry, and etc. for them. Look at Tim Roth's character in ROB ROY. French aristocrats wore fancy wigs, used perfume, and powdered their faces.

As for feminism, it's a confused self-defeating ideology. There has been a strain of feminism that was anti-sex. But there was also another strain that emphasized little more than sex. Today's feminists are confused. They go on and on about "Don't grab my pussy" but they publicize their pussies for all too see. PUSSY-ism is new feminism. They are into slut pride and damsel-in-distress both. Also, feminists demand total happiness for women. But happiness for women comes from sexually surrendering to big tough alpha males. So, even as feminists castrate men, they also demand men with mega-dongs to hump them. As a result, we have the funny spectacle of white women castrating white men but burning with jungle fever for black mandingos who act like shameless savages. This is why feminism is self-defeating. The women in ZARDOZ are not like this. They are neo-victorian in their total denial of sexuality.

"Yet this has created anything but an idyll, with particularly the men wishing for death, as Arthur Freyn, acting as the chorus to a theatrical play, states he longs for at the beginning of the film. This introduction, however, is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the film, as it rather gives the game away, Freyn himself exposing that the film is a morality play, who he is and what the film is about. It is unnecessary and an insult to the viewer's intelligence."

No, most men don't wish for death in the Vortex. They are perfectly happy. Frayn and Friend are rare exceptions who secretly conspire against the system. But then, May the female also ends up helping Zed because a part of her also feels that the system is fatally flawed in some ways. She kept Zed alive because a part of her sympathized with him, longed for him. (Later, it becomes apparent that all the Eternals have a hidden death wish as they come to welcome the deliverance of death. But not having experienced violence for eons, they panic and run when the horror ensues. They thought it would be fun, liberating,and innocuous. It is actually brutal and ugly.)

Frayn's intro doesn't make ZARDOZ a morality play but a philosophical theorem. Frayn is not preachy or judgmental. He's a magician, a trickster, an artist. He wants to have fun toying with people. He wants to play god as puppeteer. He is the Merlin-like figure... though with only the semblance of wisdom. He'd been given the job of using the Stone godhead to fool the barbarian dummies. He had a great run messing with the yokels, and he later decides to pull a stunt on Eternals themselves.

He is not primarily motivated by morality but by creativity and artistry. The whole experiment is like a philosophical parlor game for him, and he cooks up a scheme with Friend(who is more serious). He has no idea how things will really turn out. Indeed, he dies brutally like the rest. His experiment finally engulfs him in the horror as well. The master puppeteer, the man-who-would-be-god, is reduced to a pig-for-the-slaughter for the butchers. Frayn is rendered as helpless as Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE.
If the Eternals, in their eons of seclusion, lost all sense of horror, the Exterminators have practiced nothing but horror. It's like hungry wolves set free in a pasture of sheep.
It's like today's helpless Swedes and Germans as deer-in-the-headlights prey to the brutalized arrivals from Africa and the Muslim world.

Even though Frayn takes after Merlin, the difference is Merlin understood the nature of tragedy. He knew what it is like for an Order to fall. So, against all odds, he tried to help Uther and Arthur maintain the order from chaos. When Uther proves to be hopeless, Merlin bio-engineers a super-baby in the figure of Arthur. Frayn similarly engineers a superior figure in Zed, who has the warrior vitality of Exterminators and the intellect of the Eternals.

Even so, Frayn is like a child compared to the wise Merlin. Frayn has no idea of what it would be like for the Vortex to fall to barbarism. It's all just a game that he accelerates... until it finally happens, and then, panic-stricken & speechless, he is slashed with a sword while shitting bricks.

In a sick and dark way, one can argue that the Current Left is like the Friend-Frayn Nexus in their Afro-mania.
Even though the 'Left' pretends to believe that 'race is a social construct', they really feel that white race is deficient, inferior, and missing something. Consider the rise of Rock n Roll(and the fascination with blues), especially in once rigidly ordered and finely mannered England. It was as if whites with frozen souls were thawed, warmed, and heated by the burning souls of blacks. And overly rigid and hierarchical British Society was made looser and freer by black influence in music, style, and attitude. And this is why whites became so Afromaniacal. White boys turned cuckish in their worship of Negro athletes and badass warrior-thugs. And white women got jungle fever from watching all those big-donged black athletes beating up weaker and slower whites. But we know from Africa and Detroit that blackness = savagery and disorder.

In contrast, a people like the Japanese can create and maintain order. But white people are not excited by Japanese who come across as physically shrunken, weak-voiced, servile, lackluster, conformist, and timid. White people are excited by blacks with booming voices, bulging muscles, and dongs-and-butts. GET OUT is about whites wanting to be in black skin.

Japanese can build and maintain a modern society whereas blacks can't.
But blacks can make music and do athletics that excite whites... something that Japanese can't do. Japanese have higher IQ but blacks have more Iconic value or ICQ or iconic quotient.

So, the resolution at the end of ZARDOZ is now the template for leftist engineering via race-mixing. The bloodbath at the end of the movie makes us reject both the Vortex and the barbarism. Vortex was an elitist order divorced from nature, but the barbarism of raw nature is stupefyingly ugly.

So, what is the new hope? Zed and Consuela mate and create new humanity. Zed is a blend of natural barbarism and knowledge. And Consuela is a woman of knowledge who has regained her natural self.
In today's UK, this unity is seen as mixing of the black male as the ideal icon of manhood and the white female as the ideal icon of female beauty. The blending of tough black manhood and beautiful white womanhood is supposed to create a new superior race that finds the balance of nature and civilization.
And that was the appeal of Obama, the blend of black intuition and white intellect. He represented the ideal interracist template favored by the so-called Left. This 'Left' is race-ist in its own way but loathe to admit it. It doesn't see all races as equal or valuable. Rather, its ideal vision is the blending of blackness and whiteness. Blackness represents virility, rhythm, musicality, athleticism, and prowess. Whiteness represents reason, intellect, control, and organization. In ZARDOZ, Frayn created Zed as a kind of 'interracist' hybrid of Exterminators and Eternals. Zed has the body and toughness of the Exterminators but the mind and knowledge of the Eternals. In a similar vein, the current Left prizes the mulatto higher than both blacks and whites as he or she is supposed to represent the unity of black prowess and white proficiency.

It's pretty crazy, but today's LEFT is actually closer to Frayn-Friend's plot to bring down the Order and to create a new order formed by fusion of Afro-vitality and Euro-ability. They feel that this will result from the Negro penis and white vagina. In a way, Frayn is like a George-Soros-like figure who pushes Open Borders to bring down the ossified elite order. He is like the Loki character in German mythology who plays both sides -- gods and giants -- and finally helps breach the barrier that stands between the god realm and the world of giants.

Now, this isn't to say John Boorman had such in mind, or that he wanted Europe to be invaded by masses of Africans. But the satire of ZARDOZ goes far deeper than easy jabs at Leftism. It is about the problem of civilization itself. It is a timeless dilemma. We all want to create and be part of a Shining Order. But every Order, in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely, prolongs itself to the point of violating the cyclical way of nature and man. Thus, the order survives but loses in vitality.
And yet, the condition of man is always between Scylla and Charybdis. An order that lasts too long grows either apathetic or dogmatic. But then, the cyclical way is no circus. The stage of fall, even if necessary, is horrible and traumatic. We can't escape the tragedy of existence even if we wanted to.

The Fear of Fear by John Bruce Leonard

https://altright.com/2018/04/07/the-fear-of-fear/

We feel no xenophobia, which means EXTREME IRRATIONAL fear of foreigners.

We have no ill will toward foreigners. We just don’t want Mass Invasion and Replacism by foreigners.

What really ails the West is Ethnophobia. Whites have been made to hate their own identity and ethnicity and history.

----------

Why do Jews fear White National Liberation?

Why do non-white mass invaders fear their own nations and peoples? They appear to fear their own kind because they run from their own nations and seek refuge in white nations. Why are they white-preferist in their mass migrations? Why do they want to flee from their own kind and start a new life in nations created by whites?

Why do blacks fear separating from whites and having their own nations? Because they will make a mess of things on their own. Without handouts from whites, blacks are lost.

Why do Jews fear the end of White Submissivism? Because without white subservience to Jewish supremacism, Jews can't dominate the world. After all, if whites choose Racial Disobedience, there isn't much that Jews, as the 2%, can do.

Why do White Progs fear their own people and culture? Why do they fear the desire to preserve their own identity, culture, and history? Why are they so ALLERGIC to everything that makes them what they are?

Why are so many people so afraid of the term ‘racism’ when it’s so obvious that races exist and racial differences are real?

Why do Progs fear Free Speech? Why must they shut down the voices of White National Liberation? Because Jews hate those who who speak truth to Jewish power. And white cucks fear being outed as craven cowards who suck Jewish cock.

Why do Jews fear BDS? They fear Palestinian wish for national emancipation from Zionist tyranny.

----------

Phobia is a clinical term. It doesn’t just mean natural or rational fear.

It means irrational, extreme, panicked fear of something harmless.

So, fear of a tiger in a jungle is not a phobia. It is legitimate fear because a tiger can tear you to shreds.

But fear of a tiny white mouse is a phobia. Some people are phobic of spiders or harmless snakes(without venom).

So, when a person is called a Xenophobe, it doesn’t mean he has legit fears. It means he is clinically messed up in the head. It means his fear is unwarranted.

To my knowledge, Alt Right doesn’t fear foreigners or other cultures. Many Alt Rightists are curious about other peoples and cultures. And they don’t mind some minorities.

What they fear and resent is mass invasion. What goes by the term ‘immigration’ is mass invasion and colonization of white nations by non-whites.
And so many whites welcome this or are afraid to say NO because Jews colonized their minds with PC and ‘white guilt’. They’ve been made to be ethnophobic and Europhobic. They feel that their whiteness has been stained by ‘guilt’.

Another problem is xenopathia and xenomania. It’s good to be curious about other peoples and cultures. But xenomaniacs are obsessed with fixating on the Other as colorful and more exciting. So, we are told it’s worth losing UK and Sweden because… more restaurants! It is a form of xenopathology or xenopathy.

----------

Alt Right must make a case that US is ruled by Jewish globalist imperialist power.

Just like Gandhi used Civil Disobedience against the Brits, the Alt Right must lead a Racial Disobedience against Jewish power.

British were helpless in India without Indian cooperation. Unless Indians masses were willing to follow orders and do the bidding of the imperialists, the British power amounted to nothing because Brits were just a tiny segment of the overall population. If a master has a 1000 slaves and if the the slaves refuse to work for him, his master-status has been rendered hollow.

Same in the US. While it's true that Jews are immensely rich and well-connected, they are only 2% of the population. Without the obeisance and support of the white gentile majority, Jewish power is lost.

Alt Right must spread the idea that it's a moral duty for whites, left and right, to say NO to Jewish supremacist power. There must be Racial or Civil Disobedience against the Jews because Jewish power is behind financial-economic exploitation, Wars for Israel, the crazy New Cold War, the spread of Vice industries like gambling, drugs, sex industry, cultural filth, decadence and degeneracy, etc.
To serve the Jews means to further more wars and perversion.

And this notion of Disobedience is as American as apple pie. Thoreau expounded it.

Germans during WWII followed orders and brought ruin upon Europe. They should have said NO to mad dog Hitler.

Today, Jews are Judeo-Nazis. They are in racial supremacist mode and intoxicated with dream of hegemony over the whole world.
'Nazi' in the generic sense means 'anyone or any group that acts LIKE Nazis'. And Jews are most Nazi-like in the current world (dis)order. And they must not be appeased. Not any more.

Does Communism Have a Future? The Appeal of Marxism/Leninism in the 20th century and even in today’s post-post-post World of Desperation for Meaning

During much of the 20th century, so many people all over the world hung their hopes on communism. It was the new science, new philosophy, the new faith. And even after the enthusiasm faded into disillusion, it seemed as though the Soviet Empire would last many more decades because it was so big and formidable. But then, it all collapsed overnight, and even those on the Left consigned communism to the dustbin of history. But now, due to the crises of late capitalism, rise of globalism, and new inequalities(and amnesia about the extent of communist crime and horrors), there is renewed interest in radical socialism in certain quarters.

So, does communism have a future? But then, it was never generic communism(which predated Marx) per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism that made the difference. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win over converts for long. It was more about hysteria and rabid passion, the sort of thing that burns out rather quickly. But then, one could argue PC owes more to a strain of Maoism because its purpose is to override intellect with intensity of righteous furor. Many of today’s radical young act more like China’s Red Guards than Marxist-Leninist-Trotskite intellectuals whose style was rather ‘bourgeois’.

If it wasn’t for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have gained so many disciples and converts? After all, the basic idea of communism predated Marxism. It was meant as a formula for a society where work and wealth would be shared equally. It wasn’t particularly intellectual or theoretical. It was a utopianism of need.
It was Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels’ theorization of communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Sigmund Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or Cult(as denigrated by some). It was this strain of Freudianism that had a major impact on culture, from high art to mass entertainment. And among libertarianism, it was Ayn Rand’s particular take on capitalism and individualism that created so many adherents. The basic ideas didn’t originate with Rand, but she pulled them altogether into a radical romanticist worldview with the mytho-heroic individual at the center.

In all these intellectual phenomena, we see several factors at play. We see the appeal of something grand, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Heroic Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren’t just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggles.
Freud explained that the mind isn’t a pristine rational faculty independent of body and base instincts but an organ shaped by sexual animal drives that, though repressed, can’t be extinguished, thereby leading to the development of complexes.
And Rand argued that every progress in human history owed to the radical heroism of individual liberty. Without unfettered individualism, human advancement shall be impossible. According to Rand, the best way to do good is not to be ‘good’ but to be free as an individual and fulfill one’s destiny(if one is possessed of rare talent). For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, he should do that instead of taking care of the poor. Helping the poor might do some good, but it doesn't lead to the invention of fire that will change the very course of mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? Should Tolstoy not have written WAR AND PEACE because it prevented him from aiding the poor? (Granted, most people aren’t great, and the problem of Randism is it conflates, at least in the minds of its acolytes, generic individualism with great individuality. Randism, like Dianetics, was marketed as self-help for the masses when its philosophy is relevant only to those with rare talent. Its success owed to the radical babbity fantasy of any individual pretending he could be a great tycoon or visionary artist.)

Another profound appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It’s part of human nature to want a name or a human face to iconicly represent an idea, passion, or movement. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god makes thunder. Maybe a manlike god controls the seas. Greeks attached manlike deities to phenomena of nature and psyche.
And in war narratives, we like to focus on big godlike personalities. Even though victory in war relies mostly on soldiers and the entire chain of command — and industry providing armaments and logistics — , we’d rather fixate on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Big personalities add a mythic dimension to extremely complex phenomena that involve so many details and complications.

Same is true with the battle of ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be revered as its Moses, the law-giver and prophet.
Likewise, Freud became the sage figure of a great cult. Thus, the ideas of psychology and psychiatry went from abstract academism of dry ideas to the legendary stuff of genius of towering individuality.
And of course, fans of the Ayn Rand cult revere her as a visionary seer. She transformed the generic ideas of freedom and individuality into myths for heroes to live by.

So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland, or academic and abstract. But when it emanates from and revolves around a ‘genius’ or ‘prophet’ who stamps it with personality and vision, it takes on the characteristics of a story and crusade. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx and later Lenin as its prophets. It is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and even fraudulence, captivated so many. And it’s why Rand turned American individualism from a value to a vision.

There was also a bold and radical quality about such figures, making their ideas all the more intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally preferable, they don't entice and excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he might have been a more sensible and measured thinker. Caution may be more wiser, but it’s also limiting of the larger vision striving toward the prophetic. For one to gain renown and/or notoriety, one has to think bigger, see further, and make big claims about history.
After all, cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. Auteur Theory altered the course of film history because Francois Truffaut had the gall to declare a new grand theory of cinema. It wasn’t proposed as a possibility but proffered as a certainty.

Like Marx, Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their Delusional Derangement Syndrome was part of the appeal. It’s like Hard Rockers usually get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin played hard, the music = power = truth. Thunders and storms, not breezes and drizzles, get all the coverage.

Whether Marxism was, good or bad, right or wrong, it was truly bold and epic in its prophetic reach. Imagine if Moses came down with a set of legal documents and explained to Hebrews that he came up with some useful ordinances for the Tribe. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses commanded respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed the laws were given to him from God Himself..

Christianity and Islam became great religions because of the fusion of universality and personality: A kind of ‘Universonality’. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren’t really new. There had been ideals of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity take off? Because the ideas and values were poeticized and ‘sacralized’ by the words, deeds, and feats of Jesus, a God with a human face. The combination of ideas, personality, and story did the trick. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be appreciated apart from the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

There is also the cult of The Champion. In boxing, there are several leagues, which means there can be three or four heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to the Real Champion. We want all the champs to fight it out to find out who the real champ is. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god in the Greek pantheon, and Odin is the top god in Germanic mythology. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything by tying all the threads of history into a unified prophecy. It had The Answer for all humanity and for each individual. There had been many ideas of communism before Marx, but it was Marxism that explained how communism isn’t merely a choice of political philosophy but an inevitability of history driven by class conflict. Competing ideas of communism were either subsumed into or rejected by Marxism as the unifying theory.
In a similar vein, Freud insisted that his theory of the mind-body-dynamics explained all of psychology and human nature. And Rand insisted that her theory would ensure the triumph of reason and truth above falsehood, sentimentality, and/or dogma. There was no need for any other theory. Each claimed championship, the unification title.

And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to lead to consumerism and hedonism EVEN IF Freud had never existed. As for Rand, she was only the most fervent and fanatical proponent of capitalism. She put an accent on individualism but didn’t fundamentally change history. Ultimately, she was a cheerleader pretending to be the coach.

In contrast, even though Marx didn’t invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great movement and a new order that would shake the world in the 20th century and directly impact the lives of billions who either came under communist rule or were exhorted to stand against it.

Despite psychology’s importance in the 20th century, it’s about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it isn't possible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future) into a Power or Truth. To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. TV-Radio-internet is like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens, radios, computers, and smart-phones beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to billions around the world, our minds are being molded into a singularity by a handful of Big Media corporations. If I controlled a machine that generates ideas & images and could beam them to a billion people around the world, I would effectively be uni-colonizing their minds. In this sense, TV is a mind-control tool that molds countless minds into one. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, he sees the same images, and his mind is molded by the same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Invasion by tropes is more insidious than invasion by troops. It’s chilling that Freud’s nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology and it is one of the driving force of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Also, the rise of advertising molded arts and culture to function in a similar way: Synergy of art and advertisement.

Still, as exciting as ‘idology’ is, it is not fulfilling to the heart and soul. It’s about thrills. It’s like fireworks are fun but can’t warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by conviction and a belief system. Marxism was certainly that. It had an element of high intellect and converted many intelligent people who sought an ideology as replacement for religion.
But its themes were also about justice for poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it had an ennobling moral and quasi-spiritual element, not unlike that found in creeds like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together the mind and heart. And because revolution required a fight, the fist completed the trinity.

Because Marxism envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it fulfilled a spiritual need for modern man who could no longer return to faith in God. It united the mind, the soul, and the body. And also the senses. As Marxism connected EVERYTHING to economics, a communist was expected to make and/or criticize arts and culture. Marxist had to master media and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And a Marxist had to be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true agendas. There was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere, especially when Antonio Gramsci formulated his own brand of Marxism.

Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, like the Talmud, but that was precisely its appeal to those of philosophical or literary bent. Like Heidegger’s BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood it was akin to someone mastering the Torah(and Talmud). After all, even as universalist intellectuals wanted to feel a direct connection to the masses, they also wanted to feel superior as serious thinkers. So, Marxism’s appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of humanity approaching the end of history. It’s like what Barton Fink explains to the working class guy. Fink wants to be ONE with the workers but also ABOVE them with his elaborate literary theories about arts and politics.


What is the appeal of the Bible? It’s the unity. Its themes and similar narratives can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible’s appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, the Truth was in one’s hands.

I was never a communist but had a collection of commie sacred texts in the 1980s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but confusing, complicated, and contradictory. So, reading Marxist-Leninist-Maoist books was akin to perusing through the Bible. They promised certainty and direction in a world where one couldn’t tell how what was going where for whom. Even though I was skeptical of the theories and claims, there was something prophetic in the promise of redemption.

There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such a spell on so many people — from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest ragtag rebels in the Third World — in the 20th century. Its secret was in the promise of singularity with a simple but profound idea as conveyed in the canonical texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, various peoples working in different fields and departments of expertise could feel interconnected and complementary because, as fellow Marxists, they were all working toward the same end of Final Justice.
Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions and old hierachies, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological underpinning for all men? Many looked to Marxism as the great hope, the new prophecy based on science than on superstition.
In post-war European cinema, why did so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be ‘Marxist’? They obviously didn’t want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. Still, they adopted ‘Marxism’ as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that served as a new 'spiritual' compass and connective thread for all mankind.

So, the key issue isn’t whether communism will make a comeback or not. The main question is why Marxism/Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious to the extent that we crave the unity of truth and authority. When the West practiced religion, the sense of totality and unity was provided by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But real religion has long been dead.
The End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called ‘liberal democracy’ which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, which is as mythical as the unicorn? Furthermore, whatever fun and thrills that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is it ultimately meaningful? The idolatry of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they lack depth and substance for those seeking meaning..

For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this still holds for many Jews. Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the neo-christs who died for the ‘sins’ of gentiles. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans who feel nothing for Jews? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and the mess in West Bank — and with negative news about the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Anthony Weiner — , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming ever harder to sustain. Too many Jews are too rich and too corrupt. As horrible as the Shoah was, Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though we want to believe in blacks-ennobled-under-white-tyranny, they mostly act like louts. And even though Jews suffered the horrors of Shoah, they’ve gained great power since then and do awful things.
Unlike God who can be said to be eternally great, all peoples wildly vacillate on the scale from good to evil. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, then good again, and now bad again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. Worshiping Shoah-as-religion won’t work because it posits that we must look at ALL Jews through ALL of history through the prism of Shoah for ALL eternity. So, even if Zionists were to decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as ‘the eternal victim’. It’s ridiculous.

There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a longing for unity,the culmination of historical, moral, spiritual, material, and rational truth. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting.
Some on the True Left must be wondering what the hell happened to the Idea of Progress. How did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism has lost its true meaning, purpose, and connection to the people. Also, the embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about ‘more immigrants’, how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it’s too busy attacking natives as ‘xenophobes’ for not taking in MORE foreigners.

Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

BUT, Marxism really is a spent force, and you can’t go home again. But then, Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it’s now comatose as faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania exposed it as the Sick Man of Religion. As for Marxism, it failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a real comeback. Also, Marxism is essentially too literary and intellectual for young generations raised on internet, texting, and selfies. Even the 60s youth radicals were more Coca-Cola than Marx.

But the current malaise opens up opportunities for new great ideas, movements, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such voices. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set straight again.

It is time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered into one. It’s like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but also unique and special. This is why Dylan’s stature as the prophet of Rock stuck.

In Response to Fred Reed’s Observations about the Military and Conservatism - Of Jews and Dogs

The Military instinct: The Human Race as Feral Dogs

https://fredoneverything.org/the-military-instinct-the-human-race-as-feral-dogs/

Fred Reed: Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

WHY? Well, which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation that happens to be disliked by Judea and/or Israel?

Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans? Eskimos?

The answer is simpler. It’s World Jewry or Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never gained supremacy in America, the US military would not have invaded Iraq, would not be foaming at the mouth at Iran, wouldn’t have engineered a coup in Ukraine, and would not have triggered a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, a nation with an economy on par with Italy!

True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if US military ventures are primarily motivated by Male Aggression Principle, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Or with Israel? After all, the UN has a long list of human rights violations committed by Israel.
The real issue revolves around the question of "Who gets to choose the targets(as outlets for male warrior aggression)?" ‘Male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression is satisfied with hunting and destroying ANY enemy, therefore real power rests in those who get to choose the target for destruction. It's like chefs will cook anything: fish, fowl, meat, or vegetables. It all depends on who's holding the menu and making the order. The US military is a kitchen of destruction. It waits for orders from those who are looking at the menu. And it's the Jews who got the menus.

It’s like dogs will happily hunt any animal. The real question concerns who gets to decide what is to be hunted? Should the hunt be for rabbits, foxes, wild boars, deer? Dogs don’t decide. They obey the master. In America, those who get to choose the prey for the predatory military are ethno-tribal in nature. They are Jews.

Fred Reed: Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

But dogs lack agency. They look to their master for orders and approval. So, even though dogs naturally love to fight, hunt game, or just growl at other animals, they rely on the master to decide what should be hated, hunted, fought, or growled at, as well as what to be gentle with, showered with affection, protected, and/or loved. A dog can love or hate another animal or particular person... depending on the wishes of the master.

If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they’re ordered to show affection, they will. If you rouse a dog to attack and kill a cat, it will gladly. But if you admonish the dog to befriend the cat and treat it nicely, it will do just that.

Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. John McCain the militarist only hates nations and peoples hated by Jews. John McCain is McCanine. If Judea told him to be nice to Putin and treat Russia as a friendly nation, he will change his tune overnight. People like McCain not only crave an enemy to hate but a master to serve. As World Jewry are the current master of the West, dogs like McCain do their bidding.

Or consider the Wehrmacht. Sure, there were German generals and soldiers who relished a good battle and the blood-and-guts ‘heroism’ associated with war. But their animus or amity depended on the Fuhrer. When Adolf Hitler told them that USSR is an ally, they were happy to shake hands with Soviet troops. When Hitler ordered them to attack Russia, they did so at the drop of a hat and killed millions.

Fred Reed: Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

Actually, conservatives have more sympathy for people within the group, community, or tribe. Liberals feel less kinship sympathy for their own kind. Also, ‘empathy’ isn’t necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people’s thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain other groups is precisely because they are empathetic in reading their minds. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about ‘social justice’. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, “Where da white women at?” and read the Negro female mind and hear, “My booty be da center of everything.” And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Jewish Neocons and their dirty tricks.

Liberals may appear ‘empathetic’ because they claim to be more open-minded about OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive conceit in their trust or superficial interest in the Other. Most Libby-dibbers who open their hearts and borders to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as the New Saints who materialized out of ‘rainbows’. True empathy requires the keenness of mind to read the hearts of others. It’s like what Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER PART 2. He tries to see things as others see things.



Now, it’s true that many Conservatives are mere morons into ‘Muh country, muh God and muh guns, and etc’. But then, so many libby-dibs are into ‘Muh self-righteous vanity, muh Diversity and muh Inclusion, and etc’. They are enthralled with silly slogans and pat chants.

Fred Reed: Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

True, but the imperialist mindset can be construed as libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It’s the libby-dibs who want more and get tired with what they already have. This leads to an imperialist mindset. (The ultra-conservative systems of Byzantine and East Asia were not interested in conquering or converting the entire world.) Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such attitude leads them to believe that they have the moral right to remake the entire world in their image and ideal.

So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldiers and birdlike libby-dibby imperialists. After all, isn’t it odd that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to… raise the Homo Flag?

So, aggression principle has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open up to world trade... or get blown to smithereens. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode owed to Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of cautionary conservatism in war. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. Don’t risk losing the domain with vain ambition. But the reckless son wants to win it all and gambles everything, even losing the domain. (Ironically, the ‘far-rightist’ Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in ambition, and ‘far-leftist’ Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in caution.)



Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and waged offensives to conquer and transform all the world with Christianity, free trade, ‘human rights’, and etc.

Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox, more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel or the Truth to all of mankind, even if it means killing countless heathens and infidels. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

Now, there is good and bad side to both conzo mentality and libby mentality.

Conzos are less aggressive outwardly and therefore less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might bring forth progress. This is why the Ottoman Empire and East Asia fell behind the more dynamic and liberal West.

As for Libbies, they are more aggressive, adventurous, and ambitious. So, unlike the conzo Hindusphere and East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc. And today, the cult of Tolerance among Western libbies is leading to mass invasion by the Third World that could very well mean the end of Western Civilization.

Ideal is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who manipulate and command gung-ho US conservative soldiers to invade and destroy nations(hated by Israel) and also to ensure the spread of Homomania and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

Now, the US could play a responsible role as the policeman of the world. After all, there’s always the chance of dogs around the world getting out of control and barking and attacking one another. If a responsible person were to wield the stick and command the field, the dogs would know who’s boss and learn to behave. US could play this role if it were ruled by sane and sensible leaders.

But instead, the US is like a demented master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. Indeed, American Power is now like Jews-as-masters abusing and exploiting goy Americans as bulldogs. US has become the master of New World Disaster. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazi elements in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with military drills with servile South Korea, a yellow dog that takes orders from American dogs who take orders from the Jewish Master.
Even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nice nation like Hungary wants to be friendly with the US, Russia, and Iran, the big US bully steps forth and says YOU CAN’T TRADE WITH THEM BECAUSE WE SAY NO(AND WE SAY NO BECAUSE JEWS SAY NO); IF YOU DISOBEY, WE WILL DESTROY YOU THROUGH SANCTIONS AND INTERFERENCE VIA CIA.
It’s how the current world is.

Are Progs acting in Good Faith when they say Corporate Monopolies have the Right to Dismiss and Blacklist White National Liberationists who say NO to White Submissivism demanded by Jewish Supremacists?

So many people associated with ‘white nationalism’ or ‘white supremacism’ have been demoted, fired, or blacklisted. Even physically attacked. And the internet deplatforms entire sites devoted to White Identity and White Interests.

We are told that this is constitutional since Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to private companies. In other words, private companies can hire and fire whomever they want based on whatever.

But I just don’t buy this line of argument.

Just consider the following scenario. Suppose a company has a president who reads about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Suppose he is appalled by Zionist behavior. Suppose he comes to see Zionism as a form of imperialism and supremacism. On that basis, suppose he purges any worker who is associated with Zionism or support for Zionism.

Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and American Jews(who control most media) just accept this as OKAY since private companies can hire or fire whomever they want?
Now, the hypothetical company didn’t fire anyone simply because he or she is Jewish. The company fired people, Jews or gentiles, who are known to have explicitly supported the project of Zionism. (After all, there are anti-Zionist Jews.) So, would the Establishment, Jews, and globalists be fine with this since it targeted not race but the creed/credo of workers?

Or suppose a company decides that BLM is a Hate Movement based on lies that promotes intimidation, violence, and thuggery. Suppose it decides to fire anyone, white or black or whatever color, who is associated with support of BLM and its agenda.
Or suppose capitalist corporations adopt a policy of firing anyone associated with Marxism on the basis that communist ideology is anti-freedom, anti-property, anti-individuality, and anti-liberty, all in the name of state tyranny based on delusional theory of justice that the world must be made into a proletarian prison-state to ensure equality for all?
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and NAACP — and NYT and MSM — just accept it as the Right of private companies to hire or fire whomever as they please based on their own criteria of what is ‘acceptable’?

Or suppose Paypal is bought out by Arab-Americans who are appalled by Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians. Suppose their new policy is to deny Paypal service to any proponent of Zionism. Would the Jewish community and Mass Media accept it as the right of private company to do as it pleases?

I don’t think so. I’m sure all the ‘experts’ will find LEGAL reasons to oppose such company decisions. If anything, the powers-that-be will summon any means possible to make sure that such a company will be destroyed for practicing its supposed constitutional rights.

If Youtube were owned by Hindus, Chinese, or Arabs and went about deplatforming Zionist vloggers as ‘hateful’ or homo vloggers as spreading ‘degeneracy’, I highly doubt if Jews, globalists, and progs would defend the rights of private enterprise to do as it pleases. After all, if progs care so much about Free Enterprise and Business Rights, why do they call for socialization of medicine?

Or can you imagine Youtube hiring BDS to root out Zionist vloggers as murderous, genocidal, imperialist, and/or exclusionary? If anything, American Jews are using money and influence to pass laws that will criminalize speech and actions that are in favor of BDS.

The Right must push for laws that make it illegal to fire anyone for political or ideological views away from work. That is discrimination based on creed. If it’s wrong to fire someone for being pro-Zionist, it is wrong to fire him for being pro-Europeanist. All workers must follow professional codes AT WORK, but his private and personal beliefs or activities shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal from work.
And that is the very argument that the Progressives once made. They decried the firing and blacklisting of so many communists and leftist sympathizers(many of whom were Jewish) during the ‘McCarthy Era’. But they’ve now shown their own face. It was never about principles but about protecting their own. If McCarthy had been a leftist who went after far-right people, I’m sure the Lib Narrative would remember him as a hero.