America was diverse from the beginning, predominantly Anglo but with other Northern European ethnicities, and it increasingly grew diverse as later newcomers were less Anglo or Northern European in general. There was also the large number of blacks, but they were sufficiently different to be considered and treated as a separate population, and this was even truer of the American Indians. More immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and then finally from non-Western nations meant that the US would grow more diverse, which could also mean more divided. Therefore, as counterbalance to the divisiveness wrought by diversity — even the American Civil War resulted from Diversity as an all-white South surely would NOT have seceded from the North; it did so because white Southerners feared the blacks and thought the whites in the North were agitating the Negroes — , the Anglo-American elites devised a formula for unity that roughly went as 'Principles for All, Pride for Us', i.e. the American Ethos would de-emphasize origin, race, ethnicity, color, religion, and etc. BUT the narrative of American Mythos would emphasize the vision, courage, foresight, ability, and wisdom of the Anglos. So, Americanism would appeal to all but reveal the Anglos as the true founders, builders, and settlers for all else for everything else to be possible. So, even as the US grew more diverse, dangers of division would be ameliorated by not only shared principles(in the Constitution) but shared respect for the Anglos as the First and Foundational Americans.
But Jews couldn't abide by that. Now, if Jews were a middling people with, say, an average IQ of 90 and possessed of a milder personality(than a pushy one with chutzpah coming out of their ears), they too would likely have abided by the Anglo Formula for Principles for All, Pride for Us(Anglos). After all, even though every non-Anglo group felt some degree of envy and resentment for the Anglos, there was more respect and admiration. It's like in the traditional Southwest, a Mexican might call an Anglo a 'damn gringo' behind his back but was ever ready to say "Si, Senor" when the Anglo boss needed the Mexican to do something, like saddle a horse in THE BIG COUNTRY. Same with the Negroes. For all their rage and loud talk, blacks on their own are like the Tataglias without the backing of Barzini in THE GODFATHER. Blacks on their own 'could never have outfought (white)Santino'. This is why blacks so eagerly pimp out to Jews. Not that they like Jews, but they know Jews place special value on blacks as bouncers and pimps.
Jews exploited the possibilities inherent in the promise of Principles-for-All in order to gain power over Anglo-Americans. Jews argued, "If the US is indeed all about equality and liberty, why was the history of America 'racist' and why was Free Speech restricted in one form or another?" Taking over the Law and Media, Jews pushed ever harder on civil liberties, especially as many Jews were radical, subversive, criminal, and/or pornographic. And under this pressure, the US did become freer than ever for awhile. Late 60s to the mid-80s were probably the golden age of Free Speech, not just in the US but in world history.
But as Jews aimed to grab more power and take over as the new ruling elites, they believed that both the politics of Pride and Principles as laid down by Anglo-America had to be altered. As long as the Pride of Narrative belonged to the Anglos, Jews would have to play a sidekick role in the American Mythos. Jews might even come to be seen as usurpers than rightful rulers.
Just like Christianity, though owing so much to Judaic tradition and Early Jews, defined itself against Jews as Christ-Killers — it was an effective way for Christians to wrest the rightful ownership of God from the Jews — , Jews felt they must villainize the white race(especially those of Northern European stock) in the American Mythos in order to conceive of a New Americanism where Jews and their allies/minions would be the true rightful owners of America. Jesus was a Jew, but also the Son of God murdered by Jews, or so said the Christians. Gentiles took so much from Jews but blamed the Jews for the greatest crime conceivable, the killing of the Son of God. Likewise, Jews took so much from Anglo-America but felt compelled to stab its heart in order to lay claim to the New America. According to the New Jew Narrative, White Americans, despite having founded and built Early America, betrayed it like Judas betrayed Jesus: Whites talked a good talk but were really 'racist' & 'white supremacist' and crucified black jesus(though there isn't much talk of American Indians lately) while their racial brethren in Europe came to crucify the holy Jews as new christs. So, ultimately, White America is the Judas that betrayed the American Mythos, and the True Founding Fathers are the Immigrant Jews and the Blacks(and their proselytizing missionaries or missionfairies are the homos).
So, the Pride of Anglos had to be changed to Shame/Guilt of Anglos. And these emotions had to be a kind of Moral Pornography or 'Mornography', so relentless, aggressive, and overwhelming in its mind-fuc* that whites wouldn't dare stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you're going too far..." It explains why Jews promote stuff like MISSISSIPPI BURNING and 12 YEARS A SLAVE where southern whites males aren't merely flawed or bad but downright perverse & degenerate in their evil. It's beyond heroes and villains; it's about angels and monsters. So, the Pride of Anglos, which used to be a key unifying factor among diverse non-Anglo Americans went out the window. These days, the debate is about whether it's worth saving any statue or monument to Anglo-American heritage.
Now, what about the Principles? Would it still be Principles for All based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Initially, Jews took full advantage as stalwart champions of this ideal to protect Jewish radicalism/subversion/pornography and also to ensure the separation of the state from any expression of Christianity. But, as Jews amassed more power for themselves and noticed that others were critically taking notice of Jewish power, Jews began to change their tune and go the neo-Bolshevik route of altering the meaning of Free Speech whereby it became 'free' only if Jews approved of it. Likewise, when Jews talk of 'democracy', they really mean outcomes favored by the Tribe. So, if a legitimate democratic process leads to an outcome disfavored by Jews, it's 'autocracy' or 'far right'. But if Jews pull dirty tricks to subvert the democratic process but get the result they prefer, it is 'democracy'. For Jews, both the ideas of Free Speech and Democracy are about Rule of Lawyers, not Rule of Laws. Whatever Jews say is the 'truth'. As a result, the Ideal of Principles-for-All turned into Power-for-Us, the Jews. New America is essentially about Shame for Anglos and Power for Jews. Blackness is the bludgeon Jews use against whiteness, and Queertianity is the replacement for Christianity.
Under Anglo-American rule, the problems of increasing diversity was dealt with limiting immigration mostly to whites, ending mass immigration in the 1920s, and instituting Principles for All & Pride for Anglos. And it more-or-less worked... except with the Jews, but then, this was to be expected from a people who stubbornly maintained a separate identity and culture amongst majority Christians and Muslims over the many centuries. Also, among the various newcomers, Jews alone had the combination of identity, ability, neurosis, and cunning to fully exploit American Meritocracy for their own aggrandizement and apotheosis.
Once Jews secured their place in the New Order, they concocted a grand plan of not only takeover but permanence. After all, in the game of king-of-the-hills, the king is usually pushed aside by challengers, old and new. If a people as prestigious, privileged, and powerful as the Anglo-Americans could be pushed off the hill, it could happen to Jews as well. Jews felt that, as long as the US remained a white majority nation, whites might finally come to realize Jews are a hostile/subversive bunch up to no good(not least because the better Jews, for sake of tribal, were too often hesitant to go after the bad Jews). Therefore, Jews needed to bring about even more Diversity to secure permanent power, and this time, the newcomers would be non-white.
Jews figured there would be less chance of non-whites uniting with whites against Jews than whites uniting with other whites against Jews. After all, blacks had been in the US for a long time, but white/black tensions were never resolved. Jews pushed for more immigration on account of 'Diversity' and 'Multi-Culturalism' being advantageous to Jews. And indeed, it did lead to more divisions among the goyim in the 'culture war' that took off in the late 1980s. Jews were relieved by the sight of babelization among the goyim. But, this wasn't entirely good for Jews either. After all, if Diversity means more division among various groups insisting on their distinct identities & narratives uber alles, that meant there could be no national unity to get anything done on a domestic, let alone global, scale. For Jews to use American Power effectively, all Americans had to be united around SOME themes even if remaining divided on others. After all, in a truly multi-cultural system, most gentile groups would ask, "Why should I praise Jews and support Zionism when I am not Jewish, and besides, what Jews are doing to the Palestinians is like what white imperialists did to my folks long ago?" A much divided America would mean the goyim wouldn't be able to unite against the Jew, BUT it also meant they couldn't unite on ANY issue as each group would be into 'our identity' and 'our interests'. Furthermore, if Multi-Culturalism really meant each group should stick to its own culture and values, most cultures(especially non-white ones) would be anti-globo-homo, something pushed by Jews. Such would be an obstacle to the Jewish Agenda. Jews needed the goyim divided on identity & color but needed their unity on certain matters to render them useful to Jews. It's like a metallurgist uses heat to pry metals apart but then remolds them into unified solid metal. The increasingly diverse peoples had to be brought together on key issues and agendas favored by Jews. (Of course, Jews only needed to win over the elites and 'spokesmen' of every group, and such status-driven types were easy to bribe and browbeat.) And what would the terms of re-unity be for the diverse goyim in the New America with Jews as top dogs. It obviously couldn't be the old terms of Pride for Anglos and Principles for All. It had to be Shame for Anglos so that Jews and non-whites(and cuck-whites) would all be united on Blaming Whitey as the Eternal Bogeyman. The other term was Power for Jews(than Principles for All), but it had to be veiled as the goyim might recoil from brazen Jewish Supremacism? And this is why Jews couldn't hog all the prestige for themselves and favored two other groups, Homos and Blacks to form a triumvirate. Homos of all colors(white, black, brown, yellow, etc.) would create the rainbow-impression that the New Order is about equality for people of all colors. And as the black narrative in America came to define the struggle against 'racism', blackness would have significance beyond its racial identity. MLK and Mandela are like global symbols for struggle for justice in the way that Jesus, though Jewish of origin, came to symbolize Love for All Humanity. With such elevation, of course homos and blacks were fully onboard with the Jewish Agenda... on the understanding that the two groups would pretend to be the best of friends — notice how BLM activities prominently display 'gay' colors — and either totally support Jews or at least keep mum about the crimes of Zionism & Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, whether one is Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, or Barack Obama, you get rewarded big time if you kiss the Jewish Behind.
The end result hasn't been Multi-Culturalism where each and every identity/interest is of equal worth and equal time but the Tri-Supremacism of Tentpole Identities(or Idolatries) of Jews, blacks, and homos. So, if you're Jewish, black, or homo, you are 'made', but if not, you must seek 'social credit' points by sucking up to one, two, or all three of the Tentpole Identities. Indeed, for all the talk of 'white privilege', a white person who sucks up to Jewgromo(Jewish-Negro-Homo) Idolatry is favored many times over than a non-white who sympathizes with BDS, condemns the Wars for Israel, or denounces 'gay' behavior. The blondest and most-blue-eyed white person who sucks up to Jews, waves the 'gay' flag, and/or flashes a BLM sign is far more likely to succeed than the nappiest blackest black who, unlike Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, dares to condemn Israel and champions Palestinians and other brown people being crushed by Zionism and its wars. In other words, one's own race/color ultimately matters less than which race/color one sucks up to. A white person's 'white privilege' actually expands IF he sucks up to Jews, takes the knee for the Negro, and bends over for the homo. In contrast, a non-white's supposedly magical 'diversity' means next to nothing if he or she goes against the terms set by Jews. There are many whites in the Deep State because they suck up to Jews. In contrast, Tulsi Gabbard's mixed-race identity means NOTHING because she dared to upset Jews on foreign policy. Indeed, so-called Liberal Jews much prefer white GOP cucks like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell over someone like Gabbard. What does that tell you? It's the politics and 'spirituality' of group-idolatry.
Paradoxically, America's anti-class attitudes turned society into more of a neo-class system, at least with the rise of globalism. Prior to the radical expansion of 'free trade', the US had essentially a National Capitalist economy where the middle classes and working classes had considerable leverage in the economy. With the vast majority of Americans identifying as 'middle class', it seemed as if US solved the problem of class conflict after WWII and during much of the Cold War. But with hyper-globalism and China/India entering the world economy, the American Middle Class and Working Class were threatened. Also, the ebbing away of any traditional sense of Americanism and with libertarianism ensconced as the new defining value of Establishment Conservatism, the individual mattered far more than the community, and one's worth was entirely the product of personal success. Thus, successful whites were more likely to feel closer to other successful individuals regardless of race or color, especially as whites were taught to believe white identity/solidarity is 'racist' and any notion of white folk/volk is 'nazi'. So, what did this neo-individualism lead to? The rise of the new uber class for whom status-conscious membership in the club means everything whereas the unsuccessful whites are dismissed as 'losers' or 'deplorables'. In a way, the elite goy attitude toward the masses came to resemble Jewish attitude toward goyim: Contempt and derision. (Jews needed to worry less about class because the majority of Jews were very successful, and besides, pride of identity/unity wasn't verboten among Jews and, if anything, a tribal obligation that was, furthermore, cheered on by goyim who would have denounced similar consciousness among their own kind.) It's no wonder Jews encouraged the spread of libertarian individualism among whites. 'Muh liberty' negated 'Our Community' among whites. Of course, Jews, blacks, and homos were, contra the whites, totally encouraged not only to boost their own identities but demand that other groups favor Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness over their own identities & culture. A Muslim who hollers BLM is favored over a Muslim who shouts, 'Proud to be Muslim', and a Mexican who waves the 'gay' flag is favored over a Mexican waving the Mexican flag.
Anyway, that's how the new unity works in New America. It's no longer about diverse white ethnicities and non-whites being united on Principles for All and Pride for Anglos. Rather, the pride(even holiness) is hogged by Jews, Homos, & Negroes as the Tentpole identities that the lesser multi-culti identities are pressured to rally around. As for Principles, the hell with Americans striving to live up to the promise of the Constitution. Why, that would mean equal gun rights and speech rights for all Americans. A well-armed populace might rise up against tyranny. And a free-minded people might speak truth to power, which is mostly Jewish nowadays. So, it must be about Power than Principles. And yet, Jews understand that most people will not discard Principles in favor of Tribal Power for Jews despite their special sympathy or reverence for the Jewish people. So, even though it's really all about control, Jews have worded their power-grab in the language of principles pertaining to 'hate speech' and 'white supremacism'. (Of course, goy 'liberals' have their own reasons for supporting Speech Control. Prior to the internet and especially social networks and live-streaming, most discourse-of-consequence happened in the big media, elite academia, and institutions of the learned, or indoctrinated. So, it was mostly the educated talking amongst themselves. But the internet and live-streaming made it possible for the Average Joe to have his say on equal terms, and oddly enough, the less educated Joes sometimes had more interesting things to say because, being unattached to industry or institution, they could speak their minds in the way that elites could not, at least if they were to hold their status and positions; paradoxically, the more power you gain, the less power you have to speak freely. With all the Average Joes saying that Liberal Princelings wear no clothes, naturally the 'liberals' want to control speech for the masses. Other than that, the New Cult of Wokewicz demands that all be properly reverential to the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Blacks. If Jews want to control speech to protect tribal power, 'liberals' want to control speech to preserve status & prestige.) The gall, the chutzpah, of these people. It's like the notorious Jewish Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev who rags on 'whiteness' as inherently 'racist' & 'supremacist' and must therefore be wiped out as an identity, but all of this is just projection because, if identity has been supremacist in conception and practice, it is Jewishness that says the Jewish soul, blood, and body are superior due to special blessing by the one and only God. So, Jews not only denied that other peoples have their own gods and insisted the God of the Jews is the only God for all the world and all of humanity, BUT this God made Jews better than all the rest. Jewish Supremacism is a jealous god that will simply not tolerate any other identity that has the potential of saying NO to Jewish Megalomania. This is why Jewish Power shames whiteness into paralysis so that it will serve Jewish Supremacism.
So, in summary, there was the problem of diversity that was solved under Anglo-American rule with Principles-for-All as ethos and Pride-for-Anglos as mythos. But Jews brought about the second round of Diversity that led to yet another crisis of divisiveness. This served Jews well in having a goy populace that could not unite, but it posed the problem of each group being for itself than for any sense of common purpose. How could Jews rally the diverse goyim into serving the Jewish Agenda(as the New Americanism) if every group says 'Our Identity Uber Alles'? And so, Diversity had to be re-united under the New American themes of Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. Therefore, whatever differences your people may have with other peoples in the US, just remember that it is the 'patriotic' duty of ALL AMERICANS to bow down before the Jews, kneel before Negroes, and cheer for homos & trannies. And spit on whitey.
But he might have said it far more succinctly with "Jews control the gods". But then, he writes for Tablet, a Jewish journal, and that means you can't offend the gods. After all, Jews are the god-makers in the US.
All this wokeness comes down to Jews rigging the game to elevate their own status and power. Lind mentions Episcopalians and Hindus as among the very rich, but the fact is it's the Jews, NOT Episcopalians and Hindus, who control the gods. That makes all the difference. This means a Jewish pundit who makes $200,000 a year has more power than Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates with their many billions. As long as Jews control the gods, Jews lead, goyim follow. Twitter is run by Jack Dorsey a goy but works under pressure from Zionist ADL and Jewish-heavy SPLC. To understand the concept of Jews controlling the gods, consider the following:
There's been much talk of rising Chinese Power, and China may be seen as a new strong horse in world affairs, but what is the difference between Jewish Power and Chinese influence in the West? Jews control the gods, Chinese don't. Jews got both the strong horse and sacred cow whereas Chinese only got the strong horse:
We see this in the apotheosis of the tranny. Now, did most women want this? Did they want to take a backseat to a bunch of freako men pretending to be ‘women’? No. It was Jews who wanted it. Why? Jews seek to suppress any notion of majority identity and pride. Among womenfolk, real women are more than 99% whereas tranny faux-women count for less than 1%. And yet, women now must make way for trannies as champions of female sports. Why? Jews see tranny power/privilege as analogous to Jewish power/privilege. In both cases, it’s the minority-elite dictating and dominating over the vast majority. When the great majority of goyim let themselves fall under Jewish Power, stuff like globo-homo and transmania were almost inevitable as furtherance of Jewish Power Strategy. Jews see it as cultural rhyming: Jewish minority elite power rhymes with tranny minority elite power.
Of course, homos/trannies are also useful to Jews because, while not every nation has Jews, every nation has its share of homos and trannies who tend to be alienated from their own society and therefore willing to work with Jewish Globalists who shower them with special favors and privileges.
Indeed, why is it that all this talk of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' never apply to Jews? Jews control the media & academia and inundate us with mantras about diversity, blah blah, equity, blah blah, and inclusion blah blah. But, the very Jews who push mass immigration into gentile nations insist on Jewish-only immigration to Israel. While Jews try to make nations like Hungary and Polish less Hungarian and less Polish, they try to make Israel more Jewish by accepting only Jewish immigrants and encouraging natalism among Jewish women.
Also, if diversity matters, then shouldn't proportionality as well? Jews are 2% of the US population but control 95% of all media. Jews control all of Big Tech directly or indirectly. They directly control Google and Facebook and indirectly control Amazon and Twitter because Jews control the gods or what is holy. So, Jews can pressure Bezos and Dorsey to suppress certain voices as 'heretical'. So, books and tweets for white identity and interests are banned BUT there is no banning of Zionist supremacism, Jewish arrogance, and Jewish lies. Amazon sells books that tell complete lies about the founding of Israel. Books into Nakba Denial are never censored. Zionists who support IDF death squads who mow down children in Gaza and promote apartheid policies in the West Bank are not censored. If anything, they are celebrated. Sheldon Adelson once called for nuking Iran, a nation with no nukes, but he was allowed to be the main donor to the GOP. Incredible. And Jewish-run Hollywood has made tons of movies that depict Muslims as hairy terrorist but not a single movie about the Nakba, not a single movie about Jewish role in Bolshevik terror, not a single movie about Jewish role in selling opium to the Chinese, and not a single movie about Jewish role in Atlantic Slave Trade to Brazil. Brazil imported 10x the number of slaves as the US, and Jews played a big role in the slavery. Madeleine Albright said it's worth it to murder half a million Arab children, but she's a celebrated figure. It's as if Jews are above the law. So says Philip Giraldi:
And despite all this talk of 'equity', has the NYT ever hired a Palestinian-American columnist to give his or her side of story? No, NYT columnists are heavily Jewish-Zionist who support the Nakba pogroms that erased Palestine off the World Map. Or the columnists are browbeaten goyim who dare not rock the boat and name Jewish Power out of fear of being blacklisted as an 'Anti-Semite'. And no one complains that there are TOO MANY JEWS or that Jews are over-represented in any area. No, the complaint is always about too many whites(or too many Asians). So, the issue of 'equity' is NOT really about equity for all but complaints about how certain FAVORED GROUPS are not well-represented in certain areas. As Jews are favored, it's never a problem that they dominate media, Hollywood, state department, finance, and etc. Look at Biden's government. It's 66% Jews at the top, but no one complains. There can never be TOO MANY JEWS. Indeed, when Rick Sanchez said Jews control CNN, he got fired for speaking the truth. Also, it's never a problem when blacks are over-represented. Who complains that NBA and NFL aren't diverse enough? Most basketball stars are black. The great majority of footballers are black. Any many pop singers are black. But no one complains, and, if anything, black prominence is always a cause of celebration. Indeed, if blacks were over-represented at Silicon Valley or elite NY high schools by a huge margin, would anyone complain? NO. Blacks, like Jews, are considered sacred. So, the notion of 'too many blacks' can never be a problem. And 'too many Jews' is always a good thing. We've heard so many complaints about Not Enough Black Quarterbacks, but we never hear complaints about NO white, yellow, or brown running backs in the NFL. It's perfectly fine for blacks to hog entire positions in sports.
The problem is only 'too many whites' and 'too many Asians'(though this is usually chocked up as 'too many whites', i.e. Asians count as 'honorary whites' in the Jewish-run order). Homos are also favored. Homos dominate fashion at the expense of women. Partly, it's because many homos have talent in that area, but another reason is homos act as an insular mafia. Also, homos are vastly over-represented in key fields, even in bastion of power. Washington D.C. is 10% homo, and homos are found at all levels of the Deep State and work as agents of US Imperialism and Jewish Supremacism. But no one bitches about 'too many homos' because homos are favored. Jews control the gods, and it's always a blessing for Jews, blacks, and homos to have all the power, money, and prestige they can get.
Also, why do Jews, blacks, and homos get the most sympathy in the discourse? The greatest crime of the US was genocide of the Indians. The Jewish Holocaust didn't happen in the US. It happened in Europe, but there is a Holocaust Museum in the DC mall but no American Indian holocaust museum. Blacks suffered slavery, but surely genocide is far worse than slavery. Besides, blacks still own their ancestral lands in Africa. Africa is black. In contrast, the American Indians not only suffered genocide but lost their ancestral lands forever to invasive masses from the Old World. Mass Immigration wiped out the American Indians, just like Mass Immigration of Jews wiped out Palestine. Let's face it. Mass Immigration = Genocide. It's bad enough American Indians lost their lands to whites, but now they must lose it to the entire world in the name of Open Borders. Is that what 'inclusion' is about? Well, Palestine allowed 'inclusion' of some Jews in the 19th century, but how did that turn out? More and more Jews arrived until they replaced the Palestinians who now live under apartheid.
Jews claim to be 'liberal', but how come both Democratic Jews and Republican Jews support the anti-Constitutional suppression of BDS, a movement calling calls for equal justice for Palestinians? For sure, Michael Lind won't be writing about the hypocrisy in Tablet because his media presence depends on sucking up to Jews.
As for Diversity, if it's so great as a panacea for all problems, why doesn't Israel adopt an Open Borders policy and take in tons of Chinese, Hindus, and Africans? By the way, isn't Diversity the product of imperialism? Why is Latin America diverse? It used to be homogeneously brown. It became diverse with the white Spanish and Portuguese invasions. And it was made further diverse by the slave trade that brought over millions of blacks(without the approval of the brown natives who lost their power of say). Now, is that something to celebrate? Mass invasion, mass genocide, mass rape, and slavery? The brown natives of South America didn't ask to be invaded. They didn't ask their lands be made diverse via imperialism and slave trade. Now, what is the result of this diversity? White Hispanics and Jews are at the top of the totem pole in so-called Latin America. You got mixed-raced mestizos in the middle , and you got brown natives and blacks on the bottom. Wow, something to celebrate! Or, look at Hawaii. It was once entirely Hawaiian. But it was made diverse by white invasion. And then, white invaders allowed massive Asian immigration. As the result, the native Hawaiians are now only 12% of the population in their ancestral homelands. Sounds to me like cultural genocide, but we are told it's something to celebrate. "Hey, you native Hawaiian, why don't you celebrate the demise of your people and culture in favor of white invaders and Asian collaborationist immigrants?" Sounds cruel if you ask me.
Btw, why is it even called 'Latin America'? The indigenous folks have been living in the southern continent for over 20,000 yrs, whereas the white Latino invaders have been there for only 500 yrs. And yet, it's called Latin America. Why must indigenous identity and culture take a backseat to the identity of Latin European invaders?
Finally, the notion of inclusion is problematic. What does it mean? Does it mean every nation should adopt Open Borders and accept outsiders? But look at the fate of Tibet. It is forced to include the influx of Han Chinese. There are 1.5 million Tibetans and 1.2 billion Han Chinese. The policy of 'inclusion' is leading to the erasure of Tibet as a distinct people and culture. People denounce nativism but is invasivism any better? Indeed, the story of organisms has been one between nativism vs invasivism. Americans of all people should know this. American Indians were nativists who fought to protect their lands from invasivist European settlers. Nativism lost to Invasivism. Over time, the white settlers became the new nativists who put down roots in American soil. But with open borders, they will be replaced like the Indians. Look at California that, in a few decades, went from a solid white majority state to white minority state.
Jews understand this. This is why they are totally nativist in Israel while pushing invasivism on goy nations. Jews want goy nations to be filled up with diversity so that Jews can play divide-and-rule among the divided populations. Jews do this in the US. Jews make anti-Muslim movies and show them to white Christians and tell them, "Join the military, go to the Middle East, and blow away those raghead muzzies", and then Jews bring Muslims here and put their arms around them and say, "We Jews and you Muslims are allies against those eeeeeeevil white supremacists." What a dirty game these Zionists play.
Also, inclusion can lead to exclusion. Why? Because various groups have different talents. Allowing blacks into sports has led to exclusion of non-blacks. Because blacks are better natural athletes, allowing them into the game means others don't get to play. All running backs are black. All 100 m sprint finalists are black. The French soccer team is largely black. Many sports teams might as well put up a sign: "Non-Blacks Need Not Apply". Los Angele is very diverse with lots of browns and yellows, but the sports teams are almost all black.
And letting trannies into women's sports means that women will be excluded from winning because men-pretending-to-be-women are bigger and stronger. And allowing smarter Jews into America has led to Jewish takeover and domination of so many elite institutions. And with their power, Jews exclude who poses a challenge to Jewish interest. If you support BDS, forget about it. You won't work for Wall Street, State Department, NYT, or Hollywood. If a film director shows interest in making a movie about Nakba, he will be blacklisted 100x worse than Dalton Trumbo and other communists in the 50s.
And notice how Jews use globo-homo to push Zionist supremacism. Jews made globo-homo holy in Western hearts and minds. Then, Jews tell the West, "Look, Israel has big homo parades whereas Muslims are hostile to homos." As Western folks are now so into globo-homo, they will support Zionist oppression of Palestinians on that count: Israel celebrates homos and trannies.
In the past, Western Imperialism sugarcoated its wars and invasions with missionary tales of spreading the Christian Faith. So, the invasions and exploitations were morally justified under the cover of Christian sanctimony. Today, the decadent West that is brainwashed by Jewish control of media/academia is into worship of 'rainbow' sodomy as the highest value. So, the deep state merely need to paint the Bomb gay to win the support of the so-called 'progressives'. Instead of 'onward Christian soldiers', it's 'onward homo soldiers'.
Indeed, what is the new cold war with Russia about? Russia doesn't allow massive homo parades in the Red Square. Russians consider the grounds sacred. Annually, they remember the sacrifice of 25 million who died in defense of the Motherland against the German Wehrmacht. But Jews seek to desecrate the holy ground with parades where vain homos and trannies strut around with dildos. And yet, American 'progressives' are now so into globo-homo idolatry that they see Russia as the evil nation and support the new cold war.
Why always Israel? It is the inevitable consequence of the dynamics of Elite Selection in the past several decades. The masses do the work and pay taxes, but a tiny group of elites makes all the decisions. So, the means by which the elites are chosen is crucial to the direction of a country or civilization. This is as obvious as day is bright and night is dark, but almost no one has been paying attention to the dire outcomes of Elite Selection along Jewish bias and demands.
In the past, the US government and elite institutions were open to both pro-white whites and anti-white whites. So, whites at the elite level were represented by both proud(as well as arrogant) whites and self-critical(as well as self-loathing) whites. Also, when Wasps ran things, the US government and elite institutions were open to pro-Jewish Jews and anti-Jewish Jews. So, Jews at elite levels were represented by both proud Jews and self-critical Jews. Jews who were critical of Zionism could enter government or gain position. Jews who rejected Judaism as outdated and chose assimilation into Anglo-Americanism were also welcome. Jews who embraced universalism over tribalism could also rise high.
So, back then, the US elite domains had both proud whites and self-doubting whites, both proud Jews and self-critical Jews. Of course, the Jewish Community was less divided than the white community(due to reasons of culture, history, and circumstance), but you didn’t have to be a nasty ultra-Zionist or hyper-proud vicious Jew to make it to the top.
But over the years, as a certain type of Jews gained the most power(and as certain chutzpahistic traits came to the fore with the pride/arrogance of success) , Jewish Power increasingly rigged the rules of Elite Selection. Increasingly, proud whites were banned and only sappy or cucky whites were approved for elite promotion. Also, self-critical Jews were increasingly rejected in favor of brazen, aggressive, tribal, and supremacist Jews(ironically made worse by GOP’s indulgence of the especially nasty Neocons who came to influence Liberal Jews as well — by welcoming nasty Neocons into the GOP, American Conservatives had hoped to use 'our Jews' against the so-called Liberal Jews, but the Neocons only weakened goy conservatism from within and emboldened Liberal Zionists to be even more assertive in their tribalism).
So, what happened after several decades of choosing white elites for their wimpery and cuckiness while choosing Jews for their supremacism, arrogance, nastiness, and tribalism? We ended up with a scenario where the new white elites surrender white identity and interests to serve Jewish identity and interests that are insisted upon by nasty Jews.
How different things might have been if whites and Jews with differing outlooks and varying attitudes had been allowed to rise up the ladder. There would have been a more balanced set of agendas and interests. But, especially beginning in the 1960s, a white with elite prospects had to excoriate white identity and interests whereas a Jew with elite ambitions had to prioritize Jewish identity and interests uber alles.
The Rules of Elite Selections go a long way to determine the future of any group of humanity. One of the key questions as to why a civilization fell behind or apart can be gleaned from its dynamics of Elite Selection. Consider the Ottoman Turks and Traditional Confucian China. Elites in the Ottoman Empire were not chosen on merits, much as in the Byzantine Empire, and it meant a slow and sure death. Chinese did have a meritorious system that ultimately proved to be meretricious because of the emphasis on useless ‘eight-legged essays’, status posturing, and pomposity. And while it’s true communism was a bad economic system, things were made worse in the Soviet Union was its policies of Elite Selection that rewarded reliable flunkies without guts or vision. Notwithstanding the stultifying effects of black-biased Affirmative Action and Political Correctness run amok, it's been said elite selection is more meritocratic than ever in the West, but even if true, ability alone doesn't make a civilization. Many Jews are smart and capable but arrogant, nasty, contemptuous, and hypocritical, qualities that degrade the elite world. And while many bright whites do make it to the top, what good is their intelligence if they don't have the courage/character to speak truth against obvious corruption of Jews, vain fantasies of homos, and pathological lies of blacks?
US really lucked out for a long time because it had a sterling cast of characters(the Founding Fathers) as the original elites, and despite the corruptions and compromises, the first foundation served America well. But increasingly, as the nastiest among Jews gained prominence, the only qualities approved for whites were cravenness & obeisance while the obligatory quality among Jews was nastiness and viciousness. Nasty Jews refound America. The ‘Refoundation’ went much further than the Reconstruction in the South. From Founding Fathers to Refounding Reprobates.
Given the current rules of Elite Selection, someone like Glenn Greenwald will not be hired by New York Times or Washington Post. Someone like Norman Finkelstein will never work at an Ivy League university. As Jews, they are far too conscientious. And proud white men(relatively speaking) like Pat Buchanan are nowhere to be found in the GOP or ‘conservative establishment’. Heritage Foundation dropped Jason Richwine like a hot potato. National Review severed ties to John Derbyshire. Some might laud the changes in white attitudes as admirable in their conscientiousness and willingness to atone for history, but 'white guilt' has nothing to do with real conscience that arises from within. Rather, 'white guilt' is essentially afraid of and servile to external pressure, especially from Jews(who control the blacks and homos). It's similar to 'dog guilt' which is almost entirely driven by the dog's fear of disapproval from the master. The master can rile up the dog to attack a rabbit but then suddenly make it feel sorry for having killed the bunny. Thus, 'dog guilt' has no agency, and the same goes for 'white guilt' that always looks over its shoulder at Master Jew. So, 'white guilt' has been made to feel terribly about what happened to Emmett Till long ago but feels no comparable emotions about whites having aided and abetted in the destruction of countless Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. The difference is the Jewish Master orders whites to grovel at the altar of Emmett, all the while barking ever loudly for more Wars for Israel. After all, if white conscience were for real and if whites truly condemned all forms of 'racism', they would not only condemn Neo-Nazi elements but the Zionists who continue to occupy Palestinian lands, wage Wars for Israel, and encourage terrorism in Syria.
Wanna join the elites? If you’re white, you have to be a cowardly dog. If you’re Jewish, you have to be a nasty weasel. And that is why It’s JEWS AND ISRAEL all the time by all the elites. Jews are uber-elites, whites are unter-elites. Unter must bow down before the Uber. Whites are to Jews what Rudolf Hess was to Adolf Hitler, what Lavrentiy Beria was to Josef Stalin, what Zhou En-Lai was to Mao Zedong.
Dirty Harry (1971), directed by Don Siegel and starring Clint Eastwood as San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan, is a classic of Right-wing cinema.
It has some right-wing tropes but ultimately cops out and settles for a conventional scenario and ending. This is true of SUDDEN IMPACT as well. Early in the picture, Callahan takes out a bunch of feral black criminals who try to kidnap a white woman for gang-bang rape, but then the rest of the movie is about a white woman taking revenge on white men as rapists. So, the black rapist angle merely serves to foreshadow the rest of the story which is about revenge against White Male rapists. (Of course, those into subtext could argue that those white rapists are actually stand-ins for black rapists in an 'anti-racist' cultural climate that simply wouldn't allow a black-rapist story.) So, DIRTY HARRY movies tease us with white right-wing sentiments but ultimately opts for what is permissible. None of the Dirty Harry movies had the balls to go where THE BIRTH OF A NATION did.
Along with THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DEATH WISH, it appealed to Liberals at the time because black crime had gotten out of control. And, old-time Liberals had difficulty making sense of the so-called New Left of the 60s with drugs, degeneracy, and sex. My haunch is that the older Jews who made ALL IN THE FAMILY agreed with Meathead on talking points but with Archie Bunker at the gut level. Older Jews were confused by boomer Jews like Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies. And when Altamont and the Manson Murders happened, many older Liberals were shocked. They'd been sympathetic to the Youth Movement, but things fell apart. The fiasco of the 68 Democratic Convention pitted Old Democrats with New Radicals. Richard Nixon couldn't have won so big in 1972 with conservative votes alone. Many Liberals were disheartened by new trends.
Also, there was a divergence between ideology(especially foisted from above as most people don't think for themselves) and instinct(formed by personality, family, and community). Many whites had become 'liberal' largely due to the New Deal and WWII era. They weren't exactly culturally or ideologically on the left but voted for FDR and Truman because they'd been through hard times. And WWII defined American Patriotism as rising to its greatest hour against the far-right regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Therefore, it got seared into their minds: Liberalism = Patriotism.
Still, many of these 'liberals' were ingrained with 'racist' attitudes and Eurocentric worldview. After all, 80% of Americans polled in the 60s were opposed to race-mixing, which means a good number of Liberals opposed it too. It was only when Jews took total control of the gods that attitudes began to fundamentally change. To be sure, there was the Cold War that revitalized the Right against Godless Communism, but (1) Jews soon took control of the Narrative and made the 1950s about bad ole Joe McCarthy going after leftists who prize civil liberties (2) Vietnam War made anti-communism seem cruel and even genocidal (3) capitalism, though anti-communist, could hardly be a bastion of the Right and Traditionalism as consumerism and idolatry at their core tended to upend society, indeed more so than communism could dream of.
Dirty Harry was hugely popular with moviegoers, spawning four sequels and a whole genre of films about tough cops whose hands are tied by the system and are forced to go outside the law in order to protect the public.
Ironically, the most obvious precursor of DIRTY HARRY was HIGH NOON, a work of some controversy at the time. Though considered a classic(and even right-wing by some), it was produced by arch-Jewish-Liberal Stanley Kramer, and its script was by a communist sympathizer. And its hidden message or subtext was a dig at craven America during the Red Scare. It didn't occur to these Jews and Leftists that most Americans supported anti-communism out of conviction, not out of cravenness. Most Americans regarded communists and their spies as the Frank Millers of the World. Sure, there were craven types who named names, but they were fellow communists or leftists who wanted to keep working, like Elia Kazan and Sterling Hayden. In HIGH NOON, the entire town is cowed by the news of Frank Miller's return. (Miller, like Scorpio, has been freed because of the technicality of the law.) The town is meant to be a metaphor for America that is too cowardly to stand up to the likes of Joe McCarthy. Never mind that, at least for a while, many Americans sincerely regarded McCarthy as the sheriff with the guts to take on the communists.
Anyway, the sheriff in HIGH NOON has no recourse but to go it alone as all the individuals and institutions of the town simply refuse to stand by his side for one reason or another. The sheriff goes defacto vigilante. It's like Donald Trump was effectively all alone in the final months though without the character of Will Kane(Gary Cooper). And both HIGH NOON and DIRTY HARRY ends with the lawman tossing away his badge as a sign of contempt for the system. (John Ford's revisionist Western THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE also featured a system either too weak, inept, or corrupt to maintain law and order for children and womenfolk. No one dares to take on Liberty Valance who isn't merely an outlaw but a tool of Big Money. James Stewart's character finally musters the courage to take on Liberty Valance but he's no gun-man, and John Wayne's character, as the third man, secretly 'murders' Valance.)
In a way, DIRTY HARRY is like a urban Western, but it seems worse because, whereas the Wild West was understandably a hotbed of outlaws, one would expect civilization to be more orderly. But as DIRTY HARRY shows — MIDNIGHT COWBOY and TAXI DRIVER do also in greater detail — , the problem isn't merely the system of laws and politics but the climate of culture and values. There was always the wild/savage side of man, just like there is the inner-wolf in every dog. Still, prior to the youth-centric Sixties(defined by sex and drugs under the influence of blacks, the most savage of the races, and of Jews, the most radical of the races), the wilder side had been put in its place by forces of authority, tradition, and community.
Those controls fell apart, and the character of Scorpio is like the worst manifestation/embodiment of unmoored youth mentality. While most hippies were not killers or psychos(not even close), they created a cultural petri dish from which some foul fungi grew. Indeed, this is where TAXI DRIVER and DIRTY HARRY are different. Whereas Scorpio represents the figure of both degeneracy and mayhem contra the straitlaced(relatively speaking) Callahan represents order and decency, the character of Travis Bickle exhibits characteristics of both Scorpio and Callahan. Whereas Callahan's arch-foe, Scorpio, is indeed a real killer, there is no proof that Sport(Harvey Keitel) in TAXI DRIVER is a killer. He may have killed someone, but we can't be sure. But even if Sport never killed anyone, he is a soul-destroyer. He's a spoiler of values if not a taker of lives. In contrast, Bickle is sickened by the rot and wants to save the girl, but he does have the instinct of a real killer. He's both ultra-normal and ultra-psycho.
So, there are two issues at stake here. Criminal violence and cultural decadence. DIRTY HARRY would have us believe they make a natural pair. EASY RIDER, of course, begged to differ. In it, the 'decadent' hippie bikers, though peddling in drugs and loose in sexual mores, are certainly not killers whereas the deep-rooted Southerners are. They first kill the civil liberties lawyer played by Jack Nicholson, and later the two bikers are blown to kingdom come.
If indeed cultural decadence = criminal violence, things would be so much simpler. We could lock up all the pimps, pornographers, freaks, drug-dealers, and etc. and crime would screech to a halt. Though cultural decadence surely creates a more hospitable environment for crime, it itself isn't necessarily violent. If anything, decadence is problematic in its defenselessness against violence, i.e. too dazed to register what's really happening in society.
In DIRTY HARRY, the authority seems less decadent(or even weak) than naive in its decency and commitment to the Constitution(and thus could be called almost 'libertarian', and of course, libertarians were the biggest critics of the Patriot Act after 9/11).
At any rate, if the main issue of DIRTY HARRY is the problems of urban crime, the problem owed less to hippies and dippies than to blacks. Indeed, many blacks who never took part in the counterculture were nevertheless arch-criminals. Also, Japan has had a pretty decadent culture for awhile, but it's not a crime capital(though it will soon be as it begins to import lots of blacks from Africa). The problem of crime is black, and this is where DIRTY HARRY is least honest. By fixating on a degenerate freak, it creates the false impression that serial killers are the biggest threats to society when the average black street thug was the far bigger problem. While there will always be serial killers, they don't destroy an entire city. Serial killers didn't destroy Newark, Detroit, or Baltimore. Blacks did that. DIRTY HARRY movies focus on freaks, terrorists, or some conspiracy. They hook with scenes of black criminals, but the bulk of the stories deal with fantasies. Sure, psycho-freaks are bad, but they are few and far between.
Consider the Deep State. In another Eastwood film, IN THE LINE OF FIRE, the good decent men of the FBI and other US departments are tormented by some rogue lunatic, but as recent events have shown, the whole Deep State is compromised from top to bottom. It's not the oddball psychos who pose the most problem but the fact that the entire system is entrenched with craven careerists who will do anything for their masters, the Jewish Supremacists of course, to be part of the power-game. John Brennan and Mike Pompeo aren't foam-at-the-mouth clinical-psychos but, in some ways, are more dangerous because of their 'respectability'. So, if IN THE LINE OF FIRE really wanted to get to the heart of the sickness, it would have focused less on some agent-gone-rogue than how the system itself is rigged to serve the rich and powerful, indeed to the point where even those who signed up out of idealism are little more than errand boys for the Jews. (Oliver Stone's NIXON came closest to that.)
Harry Callahan's 'vigilantism' is problematic because he is a cop who is sworn to uphold the law. But then, he's not the top cop but a street cop who takes orders. He's both a figure of authority and figure of rebellion. After 9/11, could we say the system went 'dirty harry' with the Patriot Act? Certain civil liberties were suspended to capture the 'scorpios' of the world, the dreaded terrorists. CIA used torture. The system trampled on the Constitution for the 'greater good' to keep us safe. Was this power-grab 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'? Many so-called 'liberals' lambasted Bush II as a Christo-Fascist who was taking rights from the people. But then, the very same people were utterly silent about Obama's even bigger push for the National Security State and relentless drone strikes to take out the terrorists. (Libs were silent even when Obama aided the terrorists to take down entire regimes deemed as the 'bad guys'.) In a way, Neocons have mastered the rhetoric of Dirty-Harry-ism. "We can't follow the letter of the Constitution because we must protect American lives and save innocents from foreign tyrants, the new scorpios." And under Jewpet Biden, we are now told the state must take extraordinary measures to clamp down on "Domestic Terrorists" who would be anyone who dared to speak truth to Jewish Power. Apparently, we are now all Scorpios. DIRTY HARRY was made by Jewish Don Siegel, and I wonder if he, on some level, sensed that the movie's style of rhetoric could be used to the advantage of Jews. DIRTY HARRY is a dangerous movie, for the right as well for the left, because it asks us not to think but just go with gut emotions(which can easily be manipulated). After the terrorist bombings of buses in London, many conservatives and rightists lauded the governments dirty-harry-like measures to clamp down harder on terrorism, but over the years, it has allowed the state to go after nationalists deemed as 'homegrown terrorists' or 'domestic extremists'.
The BOURNE movies came out during the Bush II presidency, and it had a deep state asset gone rogue(or 'vigilante') to take on the Secret Government. And yet, most people consider the trilogy 'leftist'. It goes to show that moral outrage is often colored by partisan politics. The very people who cheered Bourne against the Deep State were supporting Obama Administration's Deep State against Snowden. It also means vigilantism's ideology depends on the context. After WWII, bands of leftists went about lynching Fascists and collaborators in Italy and France. It was a bloodbath. Blacks in RAGTIME take the law into their own hands, and one could say it is 'right-wing' from a black nationalist perspective, but it's the sort of thing leftists would feel greater sympathy for. The Negro of RAGTIME was inspired by the story of Michael Kohlhass, whose vigilante uprising could hardly be called right-wing given the rebellion was against the aristocracy. Harriet Tubman violated the law to help runaway slaves, and National Review says she was a great hero because she was a Republican and carried guns.
Things are further complicated(or confused) because Scorpio is presented as both a rogue hippie lefty and a 'racist', 'sexist', & 'homophobic' white male. But then, Charles Manson, along with the Hell's Angels, was similarly contradictory as a hippie idol into drugs, sex, & rock-n-roll AND a white radical dreaming of a race war. (Hell's Angels were the darlings of the hippie movement, but they supported the Vietnam War and made made up mostly of druggy deplorables.) To what extent Scorpio's contradictions represent tortured psychosis or calculations on part of the film-makers to avoid controversy is anyone's guess. One thing for sure, in case anyone accused the movie of featuring a counterculture villain, the makers could say, "But, he's a racist!"
Anyway, if vigilantism is breaking the law for the greater good or one's personal sense of justice/vendetta, there's surely a difference when insiders do it and outsiders do it. When James Clapper lied about the surveillance state(and its violations of the US Constitution), was the system going rogue-vigilante for the greater good to keep us safe from terrorists? Or, was it violating the Constitution to amass more power for itself. And when Edward Snowden blew the whistle, was he the good guy for remaining true to the letter of the Constitution or a mush-head who thinks the world can run along libertarian principles? Who is the 'liberal' and who is the 'rightist' in that case? Was Snowden being overly idealistic in his commitment to the law, even to the point of endangering the US to terrorist attacks? Was Clapper and the Deep State justified?
One thing for sure, DIRTY HARRY isn't about a cop who violates the law because the system does so. It's about a cop who takes the law into his own hands because the system adheres to it because the law protects criminals with 'rights'. This is what makes Callahan a more disturbing figure. Now, if he discovered that the system is circumventing the law to favor criminals against decent people, his vigilantism might make more sense in a Machiavellian manner. When the system won't play by the law, why should the conscientious lawman? But DIRTY HARRY, while showing the system to be naive, does show its commitment to the Law. This puts Callahan at a considerable ethical disadvantage.
In current reality, the system is obviously on the side of BLM thugs and Antifa terrorists. Judges and lawyers, especially the Jewish kind, ignore the Constitution & ethical principles and take part in Lawfare to coddle thugs and louts favored by Jews while throwing the book at the likes of James Field whose crime was manslaughter than murder(and only because he was surrounded by people threatening his life). Under this scenario, one can understand an Oath-Keeper sheriff who takes the law into his own hands because the system is so corrupt and rigged in favor of certain groups over others. But that is NOT the ethical dilemma in DIRTY HARRY, in which, as far as we can tell, the system is committed to adhering to the law. A far more effective right-wing movie would have focused less on the fantasy of the gun — how many cops carry magnum 44's? — and more on the power of the law, i.e. what can conservatives, libertarians, patriots, and normal decent folks do to gain control of the law and use it for sane and sound policies based on truth and are fair to all? After all, while guns can kill bad guys, it is the power of the pen that decides the laws. If the current laws aren't working, it's because they are either unenforced or defective. If the former, they need to be enforced; if the latter, they should be changed. But too often, the Right falls for the fantasy of the gun, which can only be the last resort. Besides, guns don't win hearts and minds. Mao said, "Political Power grows out of the barrel of the gun", but he wasn't calling for militarism. It was just an admission of the brutal reality of power built on war and victory. Why did so many people want to follow Mao? Because Mao brandished a big gun? No, the Chinese Communists were effective in using words and propaganda to win hearts and minds in times of crises. So, while guns are crucial in any war, the art of propaganda decides how many people with guns are on your side. While American Right stockpiles guns, the Jews and globalists got the pens, cameras, mikes, and big tech. No wonder so many white Americans, who should be right-wing given their identity and interests, are soul-owned by anti-white enemies that control the pens and cameras. (THE ONION FIELD is more useful to the Right than DIRTY HARRY is. It shows what mastery of the law can do.) Also, in ZODIAC, it's the brainy guy who comes closest to solving the puzzle.
John Simon, in his review of PATTON(compiled in MOVIES INTO FILM), took issue with how the movie was promoted as a heroic tale of a general who was a counterculture rebel in his own right. Apparently, the ad campaign pandered to Youth and liberals. (The screenplay was by Francis Ford Coppola who claimed to be a Liberal.) Yet, Simon noted that if the general was a rebel, it was in the name of more war-mongering, more militarism, more mayhem, and more blood & glory. (I wonder if Uncle Victor in HAROLD AND MAUDE was a parody of Patton.) Patton may have taken war into his own hands, but it was to better serve the agenda of beating the Nazis. And after the war, he itched for another, this time against the commies. Callahan is like Patton in that he's part of the system but believes the system isn't tough enough to go all the way, later echoed by Rambo who's sure the gung-ho Americans would have won in Vietnam but for the backstabbing politicians. Thus, he's a rebel only because the Power isn't powerful enough for him. It's like an overseer berating the master for not allowing him to whip the slaves even more.
Also, like Will Kane of HIGH NOON, Callahan might even be called something of a fool. Why does Will Kane stick around to fight Frank Miller and the baddies when the whole town doesn't care? Why risk his own life to defend the honor of townsfolk who won't stand by his side? Likewise, why does Callahan care? After all, the good people of San Fran elected those officials who, in Callahan's eyes, aren't doing enough. So, if the voters of the city want those politicians and the 'liberal politics', the sane thing for Callahan is to walk away from the city not worth saving. And yet, both Kane and Callahan decide to fight. Why? In the end, it may come down more to sense of personal pride and vendetta than anything else. It's sort of what Jon Voight's criminal character says at the end of RUNAWAY TRAIN to the cop: "It's you and me."
DIRTY HARRY is, of course, a fantasy despite its New Hollywood credentials of heightened realism. It was discussed in the company of such films as THE FRENCH CONNECTION, but there were as many differences as similarities. Gene Hackman was very much an archetypal New Hollywood actor. He lacked the classic features of a movie star and looked very much like a hard-nosed New York cop on the beat, and that's what counted. Also, he's far from perfect. He cuts corners and often plays it dirty unlike Harry Callahan who, despite his reputation, is essentially a clean and even flawless cop. Popeye Doyle(Hackman) is trigger-happy and ultimately responsible for two dead cops due to 'friendly fire'. In contrast, Callahan is like an angel of death who never misses his target. And there isn't an hint of corruption or personal fault in him. Even his 'racism' is the ironic wink-wink kind, mere tough guy demeanor, whereas Popeye Doyle really loves to stick it to blacks. This makes him heroic and mythic but hardly believable.
More interesting are the compromised characters in TOUCH OF EVIL, PRINCE OF THE CITY, and INSOMNIA. The fat cop in Orson Welles' film is corrupt, but that's what makes him so good. He's so much a part of the swamp that he knows where the swamp creatures swim. His keen instincts cannot be divorced from his cynicism. He knows the heart of the crook too well because he himself has a crooked heart. He's one of the best precisely because he's one of the worst. He has some admirable qualities, but Welles regarded him as a tragic and evil character because, when the figure of authority violates the law, the foundation itself is corrupted. After all, what is the main difference between the cop and the crook? They both have guns and use violence, but the cop plays by the rules whereas the crook has no use for rules. But what happens when cops themselves ignore the rules? The cop in INSOMNIA is compromised but also virtuous in his own way. He's done shady things but sometimes to do what, in his mind, was the right thing. But using a lie to send a bad guy to prison means he had to cover up that lie to save his own skin, and then, the question arises, to what extent is the coverup(amidst new scandals) to keep the bad guy in prison or to save his own ass? Also, once cops can get away with doing their own thing, who's to say they'll always do so for reasons of virtue than vice? How many cops are saints like Harry Callahan?
In PRINCE OF THE CITY(the best film about police work), Danny Ciello(Treat Williams) gives his rationale as to why he and his partners break the rules: They can catch more criminals. And yet, what do these cops do with the money they take from the crooks? They keep some of it for themselves. Once adherence to rules begin to break down, there's no guarantee where it will lead. The characters in PRINCE OF THE CITY are recognizably human, whereas Harry Callahan is simply an Ideal. No wonder Pauline Kael called him something like a saint cop. Callahan breaks the rules only for the most laudable reasons and his gun always miraculously tags only the bad guys. Thus, DIRTY HARRY is a New Hollywood movie with Old Hollywood tropes. It's no wonder John Wayne was first approached for the role. A classic Western hero in the urban jungle. But then, that's not entirely accurate either as John Wayne and old Hollywood stars were recognizably human whereas Harry Callahan is nearly superhuman at times, especially the moment he jumps onto the school bus from a bridge. In some ways, he owes more to the nihilism of the Man with No Name of the Spaghetti Westerns than classic Westerns. For this reason, some have argued that DIRTY HARRY is about the hero and villain being two sides of the same coin, but that's pushing it. That's more like TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. Despite Callahan's knack for violence at opportune moments, he's totally a Good Guy whereas there isn't a single redeemable quality about Scorpio.
Liberalism holds that society can be ruled by impersonal laws, not men. Thus any film giving a favorable view of vigilantism—in which laws break down and individuals take justice into their own hands—is anti-liberal.
But that is the real problem with Liberalism. By the way, the emphasis on the Law has more to do with Libertarianism and its cult of 'Muh Constitution'. Liberalism failed in the late 60s and early 70s not because it upheld the law at all costs but because it undermined the (the rule of) Law with its sentimentalism, especially in relation to the Negro Problem. So, increasingly, the law was not applied to bad black behavior. And already by then, so-called 'liberal' Jews were manipulating the Law on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"
Getting rid of racial discrimination was Liberal Constitutionalism, but Affirmative Action was not. Increasingly, so-called Liberals circumvented the Law to get whatever they wanted. Rule of Law became a game of Rule of Lawyers(backed with the Jewish-run media). However one may feel about abortion, Roe V. Wade was flimsy on Constitutional grounds, and of late, 'gay marriage' has NO standing in the Constitution whatever, but it became 'law of the land'.
So, it's wrong to characterize what goes by 'Liberalism' as a diehard commitment to the Law. Indeed, things wouldn't have gotten so bad IF so-called Liberals stuck by the Rule of Law.
Under Liberalism, Jewish crooks just got slap on the wrist. Today, while the FBI investigates signs "It's Okay to be White", Jews get to promote Jewish Supremacism at massive AIPAC rallies. Look how Jussie Smollett got off scot-free despite his 'hate hoax'.
So, the big irony of DIRTY HARRY is that the so-called Liberals(led by Jews of course) actually took the law into their own hands and rigged everything for their benefit. According to DIRTY HARRY, the mushy Liberals are sticklers to the law(despite the danger to the public) while Callahan is willing to bend the law to get things done. Actually, Liberals have been more like Callahan. Jews and Liberals play fast and loose with the rules to get whatever they want. They were for Free Speech when it served their purposes, but now, they are for controlling speech because 'hate speech' is the Scorpio of our age. We are all 'domestic terrorists' for daring to name the Jew or far less.
Harry Callahan is another one of Eastwood’s taciturn Aryan heroes, a physically imposing and highly capable alpha male who becomes a protector of public order.
Given the connotations, there was precious little that was 'Aryan' about Eastwood. He's too deadpan and too American to be 'Aryan' with its implications of the Nietzschean Ubermensch. While John Wayne and Clint Eastwood usually played the alpha type, they weren't hung-up on their superiority and got along swell with the rest of mankind. And even in HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER where Eastwood plays a low-and-dirty anti-hero, it's purely a personal vendetta whereas an 'Aryan' hero has a higher vision.
Charlton Heston, in contrast, had something of the 'Aryan' thing going despite having played perhaps the two most famous Jewish characters in cinema: Moses and Ben-Hur. Heston was always brazen, intense, radiant. Despite his height, Eastwood always seemed to be slouching; in contrast, Heston stands tall even when sitting, as if self-conscious of his Arno-Breker-like monumental status.
Like most of Eastwood’s classics, the world of Dirty Harry is divided into sheep, the wolves who prey on them, and the sheepdogs who protect the flock, to borrow a scheme from American Sniper. However, despite their opposed roles, wolves and sheepdogs have more in common with each other than they do with sheep, and the flock starts bleating nervously when the dogs bare their fangs at the wolves.
But is Scorpio really a wolf? He's more like a rat or weasel. A wolf is at least a proud and fearsome predator. Scorpio is like a parasite or scavenger. Wolves bring down animals much bigger than themselves. Scorpio goes after easy targets.
AMERICAN SNIPER is pretty good but deeply confused(or maybe genuinely complex). Many saw it as a patriotic movie, but the 'hero' seems a rather mindless gun-nut who's only good for shooting people halfway across the globe. The most admirable character is the guy who thinks for himself and begins to question his role in the Middle East. Sadly, he gets shot. Interestingly enough, the 'hero' of the movie is a sniper, not unlike Scorpio. Sniping is perhaps the least heroic of all military roles, especially when one is a part of an invasive force and must seriously consider shooting women and children who are resisting the Occupation.
He is a widower. His wife was killed by a drunk driver. He does not appear to have children. His work is his life now.
One thing I like about Eastwood's role as Man with No Name and Harry Callahan is the near-celibacy. Also true of Charles Bronson. (Supposedly, there's a scene with Eastwood and a woman in bed in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY but it was cut out.) I never cared for James Bond jumping in the sack with every bimbo and don't care for the hanky-panky in Eastwood's EIGER SANCTION. Women and action movies don't mix. Put men and women together in romance movies.
Dirty Harry didn’t just pioneer the loose cannon cop genre, it also established the convention of pairing these white alpha males with non-white sidekicks.
Hardly. There was the Lone Ranger and Tonto. And Robert Culp and Bill Cosby on I SPY. And Bruce Lee as Kato as sidekick to the Green Hornet. And it goes as far back as THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS where the white man has a trusty Indian by his side.
But a white alpha male mentoring another white man as a guardian of society would make Don Siegel hallucinate the sound marching feet.
Did Siegel decide on the Mexican sidekick? I think he just directed, though the original script seems to be by a Jew named Harry Fink.
However, if Harry hates honkies, he can’t be a white racist. And if his name is Callahan, that makes him a self-hating Mick. In truth, Harry is merely what today we call politically incorrect.
Of course, the guy was just joking as to why Harry is called 'dirty'. All he meant is Harry is a tough cop and shows no favor to anyone. It's like the opening of FULL METAL JACKET where gunnery sergeant Hartman hollers "Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."
Harry has more than just a touch of sadism, which is brought out in the movie’s most quoted scene.
I don't think the scene with Buckwheat is sadistic. And it's even less so at the end with Scorpio. It would have been sadistic IF Buckwheat was taunted by Callahan for no reason. In contrast, Callahan is trying to defuse the situation(and putting his own life at great risk because, had the Negro been better at math, he would have realized the whitey done emptied his gun in the melee). Buckwheat, eyeing the shotgun near him, is tempted to grab it and blow away the whitey's mothafuc*in' ass. But after hearing Callahan's lecture, a crude version of Professor Kingsfield's in THE PAPER CHASE — "you lie there with a skull full of Negro Mush, which I can blow clean off" — , Buckwheat makes the wise choice.
If there's a hint of sadism about the scene, it's AFTER the Negro decides to give up the gun. Buckwheat, being ever so curious, just 'gots to know, sheeeeeeeiiiiit', whereupon Callahan gleefully pulls the trigger knowing the gun's empty. The empty guns means Callahan was playing a game of San Fran roulette. If indeed Buckwheat had grabbed for the gun, he could have blown away the 'honkey-ass mofo'.
In the final encounter with Scorpio, it's not sadistic at all. If anything, Callahan is giving the punk one last chance to live. If Callahan really had a sadistic streak, he wouldn't have said anything and just shot Scorpio piecemeal by piecemeal: a hand, a heel, a knee, the balls, etc.
You wonder how many times he has done this. He enjoys killing scum.
But throughout the movie, we sense he prefers it easy than hard. When pushed to the edge, he can get riled up and kill with a cold heart, but he doesn't enjoy the thrills of police work. The thrill-maniac is the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. who lives for the adrenaline of chasing and being chased.
The plot of Dirty Harry is a standard neo-noir police thriller.
Lots of things have been called 'noir', but DIRTY HARRY doesn't really count as one. There is an obvious bad guy in DIRTY HARRY, and the basic focus is between good cop Harry and bad freako Scorpio. Thus, it's more like a Western than a noir. CHINATOWN is noir, a genre where the dark, corrupt, and venal are part of the mundane. Seedy corruption could be in the heart of your next door neighbor who could be plotting with your very wife to have you murdered, and you, dark soul that you are, either deserve it or have something up your sleeve as well. Good and Evil are too clearly demarcated in DIRTY HARRY for it to be noir.
Scorpio is a Dostoyevskyian criminal Untermensch. He’s physically weak, unmasculine, and cowardly, palpably seething with resentment. He screams like a pig, blubbers like a child, and develops a severe limp after Harry stabs then shoots him in the leg.
Andy Robinson did a terrific job, and the reason why the first DIRTY HARRY is the only classic owes to the villainy. Still, Scorpio is a cartoon, more Batman-and-Joker than Dostoevsky.
(Scorpio) pays a black thug $200 to beat him to a pulp, then blames it on Callahan. This sequence is a viscerally powerful critique of modern liberal slave morality which rewards and weaponizes victimhood, creating an incentive to fabricate police brutality and hate crimes.
Is the current liberalism about 'slave morality'? Slave Morality, as I understand it, preaches to the masses to submit to their allotted roles without complaint. To be a Dalit or Untouchable is Slave Morality in the Hindu Context. Jesus preached love and brotherhood, and He sympathized with the poor & the powerless and told them to be meek & humble, and if this is Slave Morality, it was advantageous to the Powerful because the meek accepted their lowly state in This World in exchange for Eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven. If Christian Slave Morality is so dangerous to the elites and the powerful, why did they support the churches?
What is often called 'Slave Morality' is actually the Slave Rebellion Morality, quite a different thing. Slave Morality is about people accepting their slave roles in society. In contrast, Slave Rebellion Morality is about slaves throwing off their shackles and demanding their freedom or demanding their share of the power.
It's when Serfs are okay with being Serfs that they are part of Slave Morality. When Serfs want to be free, they are part of Slave Rebellion Morality, and it is what distinguished the West from the Rest where the great masses internalized Slave Morality and mostly bowed down before the Master Class.
Who do we respect more? Slaves who remain meekly as slaves or slaves who fight back and want to be free and masters of their own destiny? If anything, White People now need Slave Rebellion Morality more than ever because a Neo-Slave-Morality has come to define white mass psychology. So many whites are happy-sappy to cuck before Jews, blacks, and homos as racial, moral, and even spiritual superiors. Instead of joining the White Slave Rebellion against the Jewgromo Plantation, too many whites are happy to be like Mitt Romney, the total cuck, or Donald Trump, who talks big but when, push comes to shove, takes it up the arse from his Jewish Masters.
And even though Scorpio exploits the talk of 'rights', those rights are the ONLY things that stand between us and the powerful. Jews got media, academia, law firms, courts, deep state, banks, big tech, and just about everything to crush us. Jews aim to take away our gun rights and speech rights. Are we into 'slave morality' for championing those rights or pointing to how whites are being victimized by Jews? Only if you're willing to submit to the Great Reset. If you want to resist, you're into Slave Rebellion Morality.
Also, the Master Morality is no better than Slave Morality. It should be obvious by now that the Master Class was never what it claimed to be. Most heirs to the throne were spoiled namby pamby brats. While those who gained power for themselves proved their will-power and mettle, their total obsession with domination blinded them to finer things. And just look at the so-called 'best and the brightest'. What a bunch of nasty Jews and craven cuck goyim.
Also, any system of Master Class surrounds itself with the Toady Class. The powerful don't want to be challenged, and so, they want pliable flunkies than honest and courageous people. Who did Bill Buckley choose? Rich Lowry. Who did Hilton Kramer choose? Roger Kimball. Second-rate toadies. This is the problem facing Russia. Vladimir Putin had what it took to maneuver himself to top position, but he chose too many flunkies, the kind of people who will always follow the strong horse without convictions of their own.
Now, one can argue that the current PC is a kind of 'slave morality' in that the liberated non-slaves still cling to their slave-identity, indeed as if past victimhood eternally defines who they are. So, blacks act like they're still slaves, and Jews constantly invoke the Holocaust, as if they're all a bunch of Anne Franks forever and ever. But this is clearly not the kind of 'slave morality' as preached by Jesus who told people to accept their miserable lot in life without complaint and look to Heaven for salvation.
If Jews and blacks were into genuine 'slave morality', they would be forgiving and resigned to the fallen state of the world. But, they are really driven by a fiery will-to-power to dominate, amass power, and be worshiped by others. They act like slave rebels who'd come into positions of the New Master Class, but they still yap about victimhood. But then, American History is about a people who built a new nation and became masters of the world but still invoke 1776 about how freedom-loving folks rebelled against British Tyranny. This kind of 'slavery morality' is merely a moral shield for the Will to Power. Ruthless Jews tell the 'slave' story to justify their master status over us. In a way, it's clever thinking. People naturally love power but also want to feel justified. "Our power was gained against tyranny" surely goes a long way to justify the new tyranny.
Harry has been living the zone of what Carl Schmitt called the “Ernstfall,” the emergency situation in which the reigning liberal norms are not capable of pursuing justice. Faced with the choice of law or justice, Harry chooses justice. It is the first step down the path to the vigilante—or the superhero.
Of course, the danger of tossing the Law is a people could end up with Adolf Hitler. Hitler did take on bad Jewish behavior and did bring some measure of justice to the German people with his restoration of territories, economy, and pride. But without independent due process of the law and rights of dissent, the New Boss can do whatever he wishes, and what if he's pathological beneath the respectable exterior? When individuals promising justice(in exchange for absolute power) replace the legal functioning of institutions, the cure can turn out to be worse than the disease. This aspect of DIRTY HARRY was called 'fascist', but the communists made the same promise: "The Liberal Bourgeois order is full of BS and only serves the rich. For true justice, give us communists the power to destroy the exploitative class and you shall have justice. Real justice than empty liberal-bourgeois promises." The result was Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.
Whatever the current system in the West is, it is not liberal. It is Uberall, or Jewish Globalism Uber Alles. The White Right would be in much better shape if indeed the West was truly liberal and allowed free speech and open discourse for all under the protection of the law. But Jewish dirty harrys have decided to go rogue to destroy the 'scorpios' of the 'far-right' and of course BDS. Ricky Vaughn the 'domestic terrorist' is now in prison because of a prank meme. It's the time to be screaming about 'rights'.
Looking back, the 60s and 70s went badly not because of Liberalism's strict adherence to the Law but its selective application that increasingly favored Jews, blacks, and certain other groups over all others. The problem ultimately wasn't with hippies, a passing fashion. Or with serial killers, who will always be with us. The real problem was blacks whose rage Jews exploited to use against whites. But when Jews let out the panther to attack whitey, it also bit him in the ass. So, movies like DEATH WISH were both Hollywood's exploitation of white fears for profits and expression of Jewish disappointment that blacks dared to attack the Jew as well as Whitey.
